Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

This week, the 19% tariff on imports of US ethanol falls to zero through the 1.4 billion litre quota negotiated by this Labour Government, which represents the size of the UK’s entire ethanol market. That will have a hugely damaging impact on our rural economy, UK jobs and the NHS, with Government effectively offshoring the benefits of ethanol production and its by-products to the US. What conversations are the Chancellor and her team having with this green energy sector, in which a huge number of jobs are now at stake in Teesside and Hull?

[James Murray]

Of course, our colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade are having conversations with those businesses and industries that may be affected. I hope the hon. Member welcomes the trade deal that we got with the US—an economic deal that is so important for our prosperity and will see us being the only country to avoid some of the tariffs that are affecting all other countries around the world.

Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mohindra]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which I think will be echoed in later contributions. The criteria feel too stringent. With the Minister’s support, I hope that conversations with Link and others will mean that the criteria are a bit more flexible, so that banking hubs are accessible to all, rather than just fitting an arbitrary parameter.

I have already expressed my concerns about the parameters used to determine whether an area qualifies for a banking hub, and I will emphasise in my meeting the importance of ensuring that the proximity of Abbots Langley to Watford should not prevent it from getting a banking hub, for the reasons that I have already outlined.

The problem with semi-rural areas such as mine—and Reading, by the sound of it—is that the criteria established by Link for determining the need to set up a new banking hub are likely to miss areas such as Abbots Langley, because they focus on when the last bank branch in a town closed. Abbots Langley is a village that has not had a bank for a very long time. I will raise this with Link in my meeting, especially because villages and smaller communities have been disproportionately affected by bank closures, losing 70% of their banking network since 2015 compared with less than 50% in urban areas.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

After a long campaign, we have finally been successful in securing a banking hub in Ilkley, despite having to wait for the last bank to announce its closure. However, securing access to cash is not just about securing a banking hub; it is about securing an ATM that people can access when the hub is closed. We found that, unfortunately, Cash Access UK and Link, which decide applications for hubs, have determined that we should not need an ATM on the outside of the building. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about the importance of such an out-of-hours facility?

[Mr Mohindra]

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his community, and his point about access to cash outside of office hours is really important. One of my community’s frustrations is that while they may have access to an ATM, the money runs out very quickly on, say, a Saturday morning, so if someone needed cash on a Sunday, they would have to travel further, because that cash machine would not be restocked until the following Monday. I agree with my hon. Friend and hope the Minister will take on board his point that it is about not just having a banking hub, but making sure that ATMs are available and stocked with cash at all times.

Link has deviated from its standard framework for approving banking hubs in around 32 locations so far, and I hope that that could be the case in my area. I am sure that the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and others will encourage it to consider the exceptional circumstances in their own areas. The alternative to the establishment of a banking hub is for Abbots Langley post office to get enhanced banking services, such as a deposit service, similar to the one that was set up in Rickmansworth following the closures there.

The Government should be doing more to ensure that all UK residents have access to adequate banking facilities. I will continue to work with local post offices, banks such as NatWest and Barclays, and Link to bring more banking hubs to my constituency, and I know that others in the Chamber are doing the same. We cannot allow our high streets and residents to be without access to financial services, and I hope to see the Government do more to support this endeavour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman will have to excuse me; I cannot offer letters of support. If I were to do that, there would be a number of letters that I would be writing. The Link assessment is independent and is what the previous Government set up and legislated for, in terms of access to cash. I will come on to that in a moment, if that is okay, and give him some more clarification on that.

We need to recognise that the landscape for retail banking has changed significantly in recent years, turbo-charged by the pandemic. For example, last year we had 93% of people with current accounts access their bank online or via a mobile app. That obviously does not include the nan of the hon. Member for Broxbourne, who I have heard about on numerous occasions, but there are lots of people who access their banking in that manner. There has also been a shift among older customers, with 83% of those aged over 75 now using online or mobile banking, compared with just 27% in 2017. That is a marked shift.

We know, however, that there are vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and people with disabilities, who very much appreciate and value in-person banking. Branches can act as anchors in a local community and are very important to small businesses, as several hon. Members mentioned, not least the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire. When a high street branch closes, particularly the last branch on the high street, it can be a real blow to an area, especially where the alternatives are limited.

That is why the Government, when we were in opposition and formulating our manifesto, secured the industry’s commitment to roll out 350 banking hubs—that is in totality. I say to the hon. Member for St Albans that that is not a limit, and actually, we are quite far along that journey. We have 230 that have already been agreed, and more than 170 are open. That includes 108 that have been open since the general election, and we are not even a year into our Government. We promised 350 by the end of the Parliament, but we are running much more quickly than that. I hope that we will surpass 350 by the end of the Parliament.

[Robbie Moore]

I would like to put on record my thanks to the Minister for her interaction with me in my endeavours to get a banking hub in Ilkley. Could I ask the Minister about the assessment criteria that Link and Cash Access UK are using? Is it the right course to get to the point where we are relying on the final bank to close before we start looking at applications? Secondly, does the Minister not feel it is right that when we do manage to secure a banking hub, an ATM could be located on the outside of that banking hub so that people could access cash out of hours?

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman brings me to the meat of my speech, which I must move on to, as I do not have very long left. I always get lulled into a false sense of security in Westminster Hall, where I think I have quite a long time to speak. I made the position very clear on the Floor of the House a couple of weeks ago, when we had a similar debate. The hon. Gentleman will know that under the previous Government’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, Parliament legislated to protect reasonable access to cash. Specifically, Parliament gave the Financial Conduct Authority new powers to ensure that communities could both withdraw and deposit cash, but that governs only access to cash; it did not include access to in-person banking.

The hon. Member asked about the Link criteria, an issue that has been raised in previous debates. The Government do not have the power to amend the assessment criteria. Any decisions on changes to Link’s criteria for access to banking services are an independent matter for Link. As he will know, the set-up of banking hubs is a voluntary initiative by the banks. I visited a very good banking hub in Buckingham that has different community bankers coming in every day of the week, which works extremely well.

The hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire and others asked whether we are minded to change this situation. We continue to monitor it, and we have heard lots of concerns expressed today. I continue to meet hon. Members, and I have another session next week for those who, if they have not met with me, would like to. Currently, however, the Government are not minded to change the legislation. I am soon to meet John Howells, the chief executive of Link, and I have listened to the concerns of hon. Members, particularly those with rural constituencies, including the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. I think that Link should take into account his point about the different rules for what is rural and what is urban.

I am running very low on time, and I am conscious that the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire should be allowed a brief wind-up. I promise to respond in writing to some of the questions asked about the Post Office in the debate.

VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the VAT registration threshold on SMEs.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. It was Napoleon Bonaparte who once said that “England is a nation of shopkeepers”. As is often the case with Napoleon, he was wrong. England, and indeed the UK, is a nation of entrepreneurs. Across the UK, early risers and late-night grafters—the men and women who channel their entrepreneurial spirits into businesses and serving their communities—form the backbone of our economy. However, we in this place sometimes let them down. That is certainly the case with the current nonsensical VAT registration threshold.

Right now, businesses in the UK have to be VAT registered when their turnover reaches just £90,000—an arbitrary figure. Once a small business has crossed that cliff edge, it is hit with added regulatory compliance costs and the need to charge their customers 20% more for their services. I do not want to pre-empt the Minister’s response, but I am well aware of the fact that the UK has one of the highest thresholds in Europe—that is not the point. I am arguing for the boldness to unleash the Great British entrepreneurial spirit once again.

Increasing the threshold to £90,000 was a positive move by the previous Conservative Government. I recognise the complexities surrounding the Windsor framework, but when we voted to leave the European Union in 2016, we wanted to take back control of our money, our borders and our laws. We should look at this again, and seek to also include Northern Ireland businesses with an increased VAT registration threshold.

As a chartered accountant by profession, I have seen first hand the implications that the UK’s tax regime can have for businesses. I enjoy conversations about the economy and business growth, and one recent example from my constituency surgery stands out. I met with Chris and Annie Ensell, talented entrepreneurs running a thriving wedding photography business called Bloom Weddings. Joined by their daughter, they told me of their success and their frustration. They had both become increasingly concerned about approaching and potentially surpassing the VAT registration threshold cliff edge.

They now face the agonising decision between limiting the number of weddings they agree to service or passing on increased costs to their customers, which would limit their competitiveness. I ask the Minister—who is part of a Government that say they are going for growth—is that fair? How will this encourage more people like Chris and Annie to build up their businesses?

In the Government’s manifesto, they claimed they understand that small firms, entrepreneurs and the self-employed face unique challenges, but we have seen them eat into small to medium-sized enterprise profit margins by increasing national insurance contributions and the national minimum wage. We have also seen them add more regulatory burdens with the Employment Rights Bill, which is set to add £5 billion to the costs of UK businesses. However, today is an opportunity to for the Minister to show real support for small businesses, such as those in my Mid Leicestershire constituency, by committing to review the VAT registration threshold.

I regret to say that I am not overly optimistic. When the previous Government rightly increased the threshold, Sir Edward Troup, a Labour tax adviser, ridiculed the idea, claiming that halving the threshold would somehow encourage growth. Perhaps even more shockingly, the current Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), has proposed slashing the threshold to a derisory £30,000.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates that the Labour Government do not understand how our small businesses operate, and are not on their side? We see the impact of not only VAT registration, but employer’s national insurance, minimum wage and business rates increases, among other things. Does he agree that this Government do not understand how small businesses want to grow, operate and thrive?

[Mr Bedford]

I absolutely agree. Over the last year, particularly in the Budget and recent announcements, we have seen measures that stifle the growth of SMEs and small businesses. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that today because I am passionate about supporting them, not only so that the economy can grow, but so that we can create jobs and opportunities for all. I will always support small family businesses, and I will never support proposals to slash the VAT threshold to such low levels.

What is even more frustrating is the fact that the voice of industry has not been heard; its calls have fallen on deaf ears. The Federation of Small Businesses has previously highlighted that the extra bureaucracy of being VAT-registered adds £4,100 on average to the running costs of a business. UKHospitality also notes that there have been missed opportunities to be bolder and to alleviate regulatory burdens on the hospitality sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing today’s important debate because, as he and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) have illustrated, many of our small independent businesses have contacted us as their representatives about the challenge around the VAT threshold time and again.

The VAT threshold builds on the collective impact of all the budgetary changes that have been having a hugely detrimental—indeed, catastrophic—impact on our many family businesses. The increases in employers’ national insurance, minimum wage, business rates—crikey, the list goes on. That is before we start looking at other legislation that is coming down the line, such as the Employment Rights Bill, which is creating more uncertainty for employees, dare I say, because employers quite rightly will not want to take the risk of growing and expanding, with further regulation and legislation coming down the line.

Small businesses are the lifeblood of any prosperous community, and my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley is no exception. Keighley is home to many fantastic small high street businesses, as well as a number of nationally and internationally acclaimed manufacturers. Likewise, Ilkley boasts a fabulously good high street, which helped the town to be officially named the best place to live in the whole north of England, as rated by The Sunday Times. I am sorry to say that our many small businesses are under immensely increasing regulatory and tax pressures as we go forward. Whether because of the rise in budgetary pressures introduced by the Budget last year or VAT, the subject of this debate, those businesses are struggling right now to make ends meet, and the challenge continues.

The mighty British fish and chip shop is one sector that is particularly struggling, with rising input prices and uncertainty over supply chains. I am honoured to represent many fish and chip shops across Keighley and Ilkley, and was lucky enough meet a great constituent of mine, Dwaine Smith, and go along to Old Time Fisheries at the top of Devonshire Street in Keighley to sample the fine offering. He was keen to get across to me the absolute pressure that the fish and chip industry is facing as a result of the increased cost of fish and chips coming into the sector, as well as the increased pressures around employer’s national insurance, the minimum wage and the challenge around VAT thresholds. On a number of occasions I have spoken to the operator of Kirkgate Fisheries, in Silsden in my constituency, and he has raised the issue of VAT with me as the No. 1 challenge that he is facing. Bearing out what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire said, as an organisation it has actively looked at reducing the number of hours that it is open because of the challenges associated with VAT registration and the threshold that has been put in place.

We cannot be in a scenario where businesses are coming to us time and again, whether in the fish and chip industry or other sectors such as the wedding industry, as was referenced by my hon. Friend—it applies to every business—because they are being effectively constrained from growing and expanding because of the VAT registration challenges and the burden of the VAT threshold. It is sad to see popular, successful businesses in our communities having to commit acts of self-harm, not because they want to but because they have no other option available—they are forced to because of the increased taxes being put on their shoulders.

That brings me to the nub of the issue: this debate is about not just the level of the VAT threshold—although I am pleased to say that it rose steadily under the last Conservative Administration—but the hugely negative impact that the cost of VAT registration is having on the growth of many businesses in my constituency. It is not viable to sit just under the threshold, as has often been communicated to me by many of my constituents, and without further investment to get above it, businesses stagnate. That is the problem that we are actively seeing. I hope that the Minister will reference this cliff edge, which many of our hard-working businesses are facing, and that he will address how the Government plan to see the transition for businesses between VAT regimes.

I want to see businesses across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley thrive; I want to see families set up businesses that they have control of, that are pillars of the community and drive the local economy. Without doubt, they are the fabric of our communities. To do that, we must create a tax system that encourages expansion and growth. At the moment, the VAT threshold is a great filter to success. It is stagnating many of our businesses and constraining them from being able to grow at the speed they wish. At worst, many of our businesses are reducing their hours of operation and the amount of products that they are selling, because of the VAT threshold and the cost of VAT registration. This simply cannot continue. It is within the power of the Government to make that change, and I hope that the Minister is listening.

Finally, I would like to understand from the Minister whether any financial impact assessment has been made by this Government, not only on VAT but on the collective impact of those additional regulatory and financial burdens that have been put on hard-working businesses in our constituencies. I go door-knocking every week, speaking to residents and large and small businesses across my constituency. On the doorstep I openly ask people, 20% or 25% of the way into this Parliament—a year into this Government—to give me one thing that they feel the Government have delivered that has had a positive impact on their business. They cannot name one thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I will turn to the questions that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have raised about VAT reliefs in a moment, but I will first finish the point about where the VAT registration threshold is set, because that is an important part of the debate.

It is worth reflecting on the fact that views on the threshold are divided. The case for change has been regularly reviewed over the years, because some businesses argue that a higher threshold would reduce their administrative and financial burdens. However, other businesses contend that a lower threshold would provide a fairer competitive environment, for instance in the hair and beauty sector.

The Government’s approach to the VAT threshold and applicable rates aims to balance the potential impacts on small businesses, including their growth and financial sustainability, with the economy as a whole and, of course tax, revenues. Although the Government always welcome hearing businesses’ views about how the tax system operates, we are not currently planning to change the design of the VAT threshold.

More broadly on VAT, the Government often receive calls from businesses, and indeed from hon. Members, to examine the rate of VAT for specific industries. VAT is a broad-based tax on consumption and the 20% standard rate applies to most goods and services. VAT is the UK’s third largest tax and is forecast to raise £180 billion in 2025-26. Of course, tax breaks have an impact on the public finances and they must represent value for money for the taxpayer, so exceptions to the standard rate have always been limited and balanced against affordability considerations. The assessment of any new VAT relief should consider whether the cost saving is likely to be passed on to consumers.

Fundamentally, the best support that we can provide to small businesses is economic growth. Delivering secure, strong and sustainable growth to boost prosperity and living standards across the UK is the Government’s No. 1 mission, as set out in our plan for change. That is why, when we took office, we took the necessary decisions to provide the stability that is so important for investment and growth by tackling the £22 billion hole in the public finances that we inherited from the previous Government.

[Robbie Moore]

I struggle to understand how the Minister can come out with these pre-written speeches and expect anyone to believe him. How can he say that stability has now been put back into the wider economy when many hard-working businesses, including the SMEs that many hon. Members have talked about in this debate, are struggling to deal with the consequences of employer’s national insurance contributions rising; the consequences of VAT, which we are debating today; and the consequences of the Employment Rights Bill, which are coming down the line? Yet he still stands at the Dispatch Box and comes out with the bizarre claim that the Government have installed stability with their plan for change. That is nonsense.

[James Murray]

I think the hon. Gentleman must be forgetting the recent history of this country’s economy when his party was in charge, because the many small businesses that I have met are not clamouring for a return to the economic chaos that we saw under Liz Truss or the 14 years of economic stagnation that his party presided over. The stability that we restored to the public finances and to the economy is an essential prerequisite for investment and growth; indeed, it is the foundation on which economic growth can succeed.

Family Businesses

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

As we all know, family businesses are the very backbone of our local economy. They are the job creators, the innovators and the entrepreneurs—those that drive the local economy and are at the heart of all our communities. They employ 14 million people and contribute £585 billion to the economy.

Rightly, the Opposition are very concerned about last October’s Budget. As the shadow farming Minister, I have heard much noise that has been rightly made about the implications of the family farm tax, but I want to use the opportunity of this debate to focus specifically on the implications of business property relief.

Earlier, I heard the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury at the Dispatch Box talk about the mechanisms by which the Government have calculated the impact that business property relief will have. I specifically question how he, and indeed the Treasury, arrived at those decisions. I note that that Minister is not even here to listen to the points I want to make, so I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), will specifically address them. The Treasury has calculated that the agricultural property relief and business property relief changes will bring in about £500 million, yet despite the challenges that I and others have raised with Ministers and the Treasury, no economic impact assessment has been provided as a result of those changes.

I want to understand whether any specific detail has been looked at for business property relief and the wider implications that it will have on too many of our family businesses. Only last week, I met Richard Prudhoe, who runs Fibreline and employs 250 people in Keighley. He has commented that the negative implications of business property relief on his business, which is completely owned by him and his family, will be catastrophic. If something happens to him, the dire consequences of tax that will be implemented on his wider family will be catastrophic, potentially putting at risk 250 people employed in Keighley.

[Daisy Cooper]

Does the hon. Member agree that it would be helpful if the Minister, in his closing remarks, gave assurances that the Government were willing to meet Family Business UK, which is conducting its own survey of the impact of APR and BPR changes on businesses?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely wish that the Government would listen to the many concerns that are consistently raised by Family Business UK, which is doing an excellent job in the amount of data it seems to be providing to the Treasury, yet nobody in the Treasury seems to be listening. Indeed, just last week the Chancellor did not even have the courtesy to turn up to listen to many of our farming organisations. She is not even giving wider family business stakeholders the courtesy of listening to them.

The point is that the associated implications of business property relief will have dire consequences for businesses that are wanting to invest and employ local people. They are now having to face the same challenges as wider farming businesses of how to pay a potential IHT liability coming down the line. They could look at disposing of a shareholding in their business, but many of them do not want to do that—why would they want to sell out to a larger corporate?—as they want to keep their family business in the wider family, or they could sell plant and machinery, which negatively impacts the productivity of their business. The Treasury is not looking at that. Those businesses are saying to me, “What is the point? Why would I want to invest not only my time but my energy in growing that business if there will be negative implications on the wider family structure and the wider people we are employing within that business?”

This Budget is hostile to our family businesses and will have a hugely detrimental impact on them. Family Business UK has already said that the data it has presented to the Government shows that these changes will likely result in a gross value added loss of £9.4 billion and the potential loss of 125,000 full-time equivalent jobs during the period from April 2026 to April 2030 alone.

[Bradley Thomas]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what we are discussing demonstrates quite a perverse contradiction, in that the sums are huge for the businesses involved—as he describes, they are catastrophic—but the overall net receipt to the Exchequer in the grand scheme of the Government Budget is so small, and that that is further testament to the Government’s lack of economic and political nous?

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the excellent point that the likely revenue—albeit I challenge the Treasury’s figures—is only £500 million, yet the impact that it will have on many of our family businesses is catastrophic. That includes those in the hospitality sector, and manufacturing, engineering and tech-based businesses in my constituency. Ultimately, the Government need to listen to the concerns being raised about business property relief, because it will undermines the stability and growth of the many family businesses owned by our constituents. The Government need to rethink the policy and axe it, which is what we are calling for. The Conservatives have been very clear that not only will we reverse the changes to agricultural property relief, but we will put back 100% business property relief, providing certainty for many family businesses.

Many other challenges have been brought about by the Budget. The increase in employer national insurance is impacting many family businesses, not least Hi Energy, a gym in Keighley in my constituency, which openly tells me it has calculated that its employer national insurance bill, coupled with the challenges of its business rates bill, which is likely to increase down the line, will have catastrophic consequences. Its overheads will increase, but it will not be able to increase its gym membership fees while keeping the business competitive among the many other gym organisations across Keighley. The same narrative is reiterated by all our family businesses.

For family businesses, the Budget was yet another instance of the Labour Government saying one thing but doing another. They claim to be pro-growth, yet they directly tax employment. They claim to be pro-business, but they tax wealth creators and family firms. Growth cannot be magicked up out of thin air, as the Government stipulate. The Conservative party is on the side of family businesses and I am pleased to support the motion today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

We know that there are just over 5 million family businesses in the UK, the vast majority of them small businesses. We are determined that, for the first time for a decade and more, those small businesses will be placed at the front and centre of the Government’s plan to kick-start the economy. In our first almost eight months, we have already taken significant steps to begin to reverse the decline of the last 14 years, all of which will help to create a stronger business environment for family businesses to grow and develop—for instance, an investment summit that raised £63 billion and created 38,000 jobs; starting our programme to build 1.5 million new homes; kick-starting Great British Energy to bring fuel prices down; major reforms to the planning system; record research and development spending; and significant investment in new infrastructure. In the Budget, more than £1 billion was announced for the British Business Bank over the next two years, with more funding for start-up loans and the growth guarantee scheme—precious capital to help entrepreneurs to take ideas from design to development, and to build the next generation of family businesses.

[Robbie Moore]

I am not entirely sure whether the Minister himself believes what he is reading. Has any economic impact assessment been made of the collective impact that all the Budget changes will have on many of our family businesses, including the reduction in the agricultural property and business property reliefs?

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning those reliefs, and I will come to them in due course.

The Budget also set out practical support for small businesses, especially those on the high street. Many family businesses are affected by shoplifting, and no one should underestimate the scale of the problems that we inherited in that regard. Out-of-control shoplifting has plagued family businesses, and businesses generally, for years, with both staff and store owners feeling powerless and police forces, cut to the bone under the last Government, inadequately resourced to respond properly. Just yesterday, the Home Secretary confirmed that in the Crime and Policing Bill we are tackling this issue head-on by scrapping the effective immunity for low-value shoplifting, thus helping all family businesses. At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor also announced additional funding to crack down on the organised gangs who target retailers.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Here we are again! As we speak, thousands of farmers are once again rallying outside the gates of this building. Over the past six months, our farmers have repeatedly been told by this Labour Government that their way of life is expendable and that their hard work, their sacrifice and their future can simply be priced up and taken away. Is it any wonder that our farmers have shown up in such vast numbers again today?

Make no mistake: it is not just our farmers who are outside our gates. Across the country, more than 148,000 people have signed the petition because they know, just as Opposition Members do, that the family farm tax is wrong, is vindictive and must be scrapped now. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for leading this petitions debate, but I have to say that he did a disservice to the petitioners, who put their faith in him to lead this debate, by not actually forming an opinion. He communicated strong arguments, but he did not form an opinion. He was a mere spokesman and did not use his opportunity in this debate to voice properly their concerns.

What an image for our farming community to take away from this debate! Where on earth is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), is sitting beside me. Where on earth is the farming Minister? He is absent. What message does it send that the Labour party has filled up its Benches but that only five Labour Members spoke, despite having the opportunity to voice their concerns in this three-hour petitions debate, and that all five of them voted against scrapping the family farm tax when we brought the motion to the House? This is probably one of the most important debates we could have on this issue, and yet once again those with responsibility for rural areas and our farmers are missing in action. There are Labour Members who have turned up but have not even contributed to the debate, despite representing large rural constituencies.

Where is this Government, who claim to be on the side of rural Britain? If they had actually visited some of their farming communities, they would know just how damaging to our farming community their choice to implement the family farm tax is. They might have had some of the devastating conversations that I and many Conservative Members, including the shadow Secretary of State, have had. I would like to share some of them.

Just last week, in Northamptonshire, I met George, who has worked on his farm all his life and is nearly in his 80s. Unfortunately, he is extremely ill. He knows from his diagnosis that he does not have long to live, but he is not sure whether he will live beyond 26 April. He knows that if he should pass away before 26 April, his IHT bill will be zero, but if he passes away after 26 April, the tax bill for his family will be well over £1 million—a debt that his family simply cannot sustain. Taking his own life was an option that was put forward to me. These are horrific choices and unthinkable amounts of pressure for any individual or family to be put under, never mind some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is giving a very powerful speech. It is true that George was given no notice and no ability to plan for this important impact on his life and on everything he has worked for—but is it not worse than that, because he explicitly relied on a promise not to do this? That makes it particularly unforgivable.

[Robbie Moore]

I could not agree more.

[Julia Buckley]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I will answer this point before giving way. I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart): the electorate were sold false promises in the run-up to the general election. They were specifically told that this Labour Government would not change agricultural property relief, but that is exactly what the Government have done.

How will the Minister communicate with George? What will he tell George, based on the promises that were given in the run-up to the general election? I cannot believe how many times I have asked this, but will the Government commit to recording suicide statistics across the farming sector as we move closer to April 2026? If the Minister is so determined to carry on with his family farming death tax, will he at least look at changing the abruptness of the tax’s implementation, in order to protect the most vulnerable in our farming community? It cannot be right that this Government are forcing people to make those decisions.

Another point that has been made is that the tax also hits our next generation, the very young people we need to power our industry forward. What does the Minister say to Gemma, the granddaughter of a lifelong farmer who has been forced to split up the family’s farm, leaving their future in doubt? What does the Minister say to the thousands of young farmers up and down the country, many of whom are outside this building right now, who are in a similar situation because of this Government’s choices? I spoke to a few of them outside, before coming into this House. The same concerns have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).

Then there are the tenant farmers. About a third of agricultural land is farmed by tenants. I spoke recently to Tom, a tenant farmer who stands to lose not only his livelihood but his family home, as his landlords scramble to reduce their IHT liability before April 2026. The Tenant Farmers Association is already warning of the mass renegotiation of many agricultural tenancies ahead of the family farm tax kicking in. For the tenant farmers there is no protection, because the Government did not see fit to recognise their unique situation. Will the Minister recognise the injustice to which tenants like Tom are being exposed through this Government’s choices? Will he provide protections for those with tenancies and for the whole agricultural sector?

Many points have been made by Opposition Members, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), who talked about the wider implications on our food sector. Just last week, I was at the Yorkshire agricultural machinery show, where I met a tractor dealer who is also in a family business and struggling to stay afloat. Why? Because confidence is draining from the farming sector, and orders for new tractors, machinery and equipment have reduced significantly.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for his sterling work. He will know that early mornings, late nights, no holidays and low profit margins make up a typical day in the life of British farmers. They do it because they love the land, and they do it to feed our nation and sustain our rural communities. Does the hon. Member agree that this tax grab is a wrecking ball that will decimate our family farms? If Labour proceeds with it, it will have the death of rural Britain and rural Ulster on its hands. We need to stand up, stop this tax grab and ensure that the farmers outside this building today are heard in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I could not agree more. It is telling that we have had strong representation in this debate not only from Northern Ireland, but from Scotland and every part of this United Kingdom. All Members have voiced their concerns that Labour’s choice to bring in the family farm tax will have catastrophic consequences not only for the hard-working families who are outside the gates of the Houses of Parliament right now, but for the wider agricultural sector.

Similar comments were made to me at the Yorkshire agricultural machinery show, which I attended earlier this week. Machinery dealers told me that they are being impacted not only by the lack of confidence resulting from Labour’s choices to reduce inheritance tax relief, but by the consequences of employer national insurance and other pressures being put on the wider sector. As if that were not bad enough, the business owner I spoke to will, by their own calculation, face a nearly £800,000 tax liability on death as a result of the changes to business property relief. That business has been trading for over 130 years and now faces the end of the line.

The impact is not just on farming family businesses, but on the wider agricultural sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) said, the NFU has undertaken research that suggests that unfortunately 75% of farming businesses will be affected. Research released recently by Savills suggests that 88% of farmland will be affected. Research conducted by the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers suggests that the Government underestimate fivefold the tax impact. These are professionals in the industry, and the Government are not even willing to listen to their points.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is speaking powerfully about the issues that will affect the farming community. He mentioned the NFU; I met NFU representatives in Scotland recently and was appalled that the Treasury had refused to meet them. The representative body of farmers in Scotland is reaching out repeatedly to Treasury officials for a meeting to discuss its concerns, but Treasury Ministers and their teams are refusing to engage. They are just not listening. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Treasury is just not taking its responsibilities as seriously as it should to understand the impact?

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes the point powerfully: collectively, all industry bodies and professionals in the sector are united. The NFU, the CLA, the CAAV—of which I put it on record that I am a fellow, having previously practised as a rural practice surveyor, so I understand the implications on the value of farmland—and Savills, as a key land agent, are all saying exactly the same thing: that this Government’s policy will have catastrophic consequences. My understanding is that the Chancellor has not yet even bothered to reach out to any of those professional organisations to sit round a table and try to understand their concerns. That point was made very eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst).

[Dave Doogan]

The shadow Minister is articulating the substance of the issue with great passion. Does he agree that at the heart of this fiscal misadventure is classic Treasury dogma, whereby the principal objective is to quantify the price of something and take no cognisance of its value? APR and BPR will unravel for this Government. Does he agree that it would be far better for them to take steps to row back on this policy now, rather than waiting for it to go absolutely pear-shaped?

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes a very powerful point: this is about the choices that the Labour Government are imposing on many of our family farming businesses. Those families are now having to make difficult decisions about whether to look at disposing of land, plant and machinery or livestock to fit an IHT liability that may come down the line. All of that is reducing their productivity, which will have an impact not only on those family farming businesses, but on UK food production and UK food security. That is why I join all Opposition Members in calling on the Government to change course immediately.

Farmers are not multimillionaires. Many struggle to break even. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness and for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) have said, the vast majority of returns for our farming businesses are less than 1%, yet in most cases the value of the land on which they sit will be severely affected by the IHT changes, because the threshold that the Government are bringing out is £1 million. When the average size of a farm in England is 200 acres, and we take into account the farmland, the cottage that might exist on the farm, the plant and machinery, the livestock and the growing crops or stocks that may be in store, the value will be significantly higher than £1 million. That is why the Government need to listen to the NFU and its statistics.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the shadow Minister. He is speaking exceptionally well and encapsulating the opinion of almost everyone in this Chamber. I thank him for that. In my contribution, I referred to the threshold. Instead of being £1 million on a rateable value in the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s and the whole way through, it should be at today’s value. Does he therefore agree that the threshold should be not £1 million, but at least £5 million?

[Robbie Moore]

I say to the hon. Member that the Conservatives have been absolutely clear: we would axe the family farm tax, and we would reverse the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief, which have such huge and catastrophic implications. In my view, the Government need to go further—not tinker with thresholds, but provide proper, decent certainty to the whole agricultural community by reversing this provision, which will have catastrophic implications that they admit themselves will give the Treasury revenue of only about £500 million. In my understanding, that would keep the NHS going for about 20 hours. Given the detrimental impact that the changes will have, the Government should think about reversing this disastrous policy.

For the 10th time of asking in this place, what impact assessment has the Treasury made of the effect on growth within our entire agricultural sector as a result of the autumn Budget? What about all the other negative implications—employers’ national insurance, the minimum wage increase, the de-linked payments significantly reducing, and capital grants disappearing—even before we start talking about the family farm tax?

When this tax was first announced at the Budget, I thought that maybe our new Labour Government were being naive. Perhaps they did not understand the catastrophic impact their Budget would have on our farming businesses, and would soon change course. After six months, however, the Government have consistently refused to listen to the NFU, the CLA, the Tenant Farmers Association, the CAAV, Opposition Members and others who have repeatedly tried to expose the damaging impact of the tax.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. One group he has not yet mentioned is the supermarkets: Tesco, Asda, Marks & Spencer, Lidl, Aldi, the Co-op, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons have all urged the Labour Government to pause and consult, because the UK’s future food security is at risk as a result of this policy.

[Robbie Moore]

That is absolutely the point. Others outside the sector, including all our supermarkets, have come together in agreement to say how catastrophic the damage caused to the farming sector by this Labour Government will be. Indeed, the 250,000 who signed the petition launched by the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, which was presented to the Treasury a month ago, all agree with the comments that Opposition Members are making.

The Labour Government have wilfully ignored the farming community, the machinery dealers, the feed merchants, the auction marts, the supermarkets, the wider agricultural sector, including accountants, bank managers and land agents, and indeed the wider public. All have voiced their concerns that the family farm tax will have a crippling impact on UK agriculture. On top of that, as I said, the Chancellor continues not to meet any stakeholders. Today, as we have seen, no DEFRA Minister has even had the decency to turn up to this debate, despite its being of incredible importance.

No, the Government were not being naive. The reality is much worse. What is now clear is that this Government’s family farm tax is purposely vindictive. Indeed, I now believe that it was designed to be this way. The Government’s actual intent is to send a strong message to our farmers that they are not needed, that they do not matter and that they do not play a vital part in our national agenda.

As someone who has been involved in agriculture all my life since entering this place, this is personal to me. That is why we on the Conservative Benches do value our farmers. That is why the Conservatives will axe the family farm tax and reverse the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief—no ifs, no buts.

As I have said, I can only hope that the Minister is about to get to his feet to confirm, right now, today—with all of our farming community watching this debate and many others on the streets of Westminster after travelling from far afield to get here—that his Government will listen, make changes and, hopefully, axe their vindictive family farm tax. If he does not, I can tell him that Opposition Members will keep coming back, again and again, until he and his Government finally stand up for our farmers up and down this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. As she probably knows, it is not a point of order, but her remarks are now on the record.

[Robbie Moore]

Further to that point of order, Dr Murrison. In my contribution, I was making very clear the live and real conversations, concerns, queries and frustrations that have been brought forward not only to me in my position as shadow farming Minister but to other Members on this side of the House and, indeed, to organisations that sit outside this House, namely those representing the farming community. These are real live issues and representations that have been brought to us. Therefore, I do think it is just and right to use my role as the shadow farming Minister to bring before this House, in front of the Government Minister, those very live concerns and real conversations that are happening in many family farm homes just now.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

The shadow Minister will know that is not a point or order either, but his remarks are on the record.

Growing the UK Economy

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Whether it be the drastic reduction in business property relief and agricultural property relief, which will decimate many family businesses, or the increase in employer national insurance, which will negatively impact all businesses, including the GP surgeries in Keighley that have told me they are now deciding to freeze recruitment, or the increase in the minimum wage or in business rates, or, perhaps, the Employment Rights Bill, which will cost businesses £45 billion a year, will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury say, in his statement on growing the economy, which of these measures he thinks will grow the economy most?

[Darren Jones]

From the nature of his question, I am not sure the hon. Gentleman enjoyed the statement today. Look, there are lots of examples today, both in this statement and in the Chancellor’s commitment, that have stimulated investment and, as a consequence, will stimulate growth in the economy. The key question here is: are businesses seeing the UK as a place to invest, are they investing in the country, and are they building in Britain? The answer is: yes, yes, and yes.

Christmas Adjournment

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I often think of our role as place-makers, problem solvers and great representatives of our constituencies, and on that basis, I say a huge thank you to all of my constituents for re-electing me. There is loads of fuel in the tank to keep me going in representing the mighty constituency of Keighley and Ilkley with great enthusiasm and energy. I reaffirm my commitment to doing my very best as their local champion.

Of course, place-making is all about driving local growth within our communities. That is why I want to go through some of the key projects across my constituency that I am honoured to be working on. A lot of this work comes on the back of money from the last Conservative Administration, who allocated and ringfenced £33.6 million specifically to Keighley through the Keighley towns fund. This funding is aimed at driving growth by using public sector money to try to drive private investment into the centre of Keighley.

One of those great projects is Providence Park, which is due to open early next year. Next door to that, we have Keighley train station, which has just benefited from a £9 million funding allocation. Further along the same road, Keighley fire station is undergoing development. We also have a new skills hub, a new manufacturing, engineering and tech hub, and a new health and wellbeing hub coming down the line shortly. That is not to mention our mighty Keighley Cougars, to which the last Conservative Administration allocated £2 million to regenerate the stands for the benefit of fans. Haworth village hall is benefiting from money to make sure that our community groups can continue their range of activities. Keighley central hall is also benefiting from money. The building of a new sixth-form college has also been announced. I urge the Government to stick to this plan, as I know it is currently under review. We need this new sixth-form college, announced by the last Conservative Administration, to be completed.

Madam Deputy Speaker, your constituents will also benefit from our new Airedale hospital, which is a huge achievement. From the moment I was elected in 2019, I campaigned tirelessly for ringfenced money to get our new hospital built, and I am very pleased that work is under way.

We also have the city of culture—or, as I like to call it, the district of culture—coming to the Bradford district. It is incredibly important that Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley all benefit from the money that is coming to the Bradford district.

I also say a huge thank you to our small businesses. I hold small business awards every year, and I am incredibly grateful to everyone in my constituency who nominated our mighty small businesses. I am very pleased to say that this year’s winners were: Within the Wood, from the Worth valley; Clara’s Closet, from Keighley; Raymond Town Menswear, from Ilkley; and Isherwood’s butchers, from Silsden, which won our overall small business award. Thank you to those small businesses that keep our local economy going, and to all those who shop local.

Before closing, I would like to say that I was very saddened to learn of the death of an individual who worked tirelessly as chair of the Keighley towns fund. Unfortunately, Ian Hayfield passed away just a couple of days ago, and I want to put on record my incredible thanks for his tireless energy in driving positive growth in Keighley. I am sure everyone in Keighley will want to do the same.

I thank everyone in my constituency for their efforts in the run-up to Christmas, and I wish all Members a very happy Christmas.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

This morning, ordinary farming families across all four corners of our United Kingdom will be waking up to another day of hard graft. If it is anything like my upbringing, the kids will be out early helping their parents feed the livestock, dad might be milking the cows or perhaps out crop-walking with the agronomist, rightly concerned about the impact of recent wet weather, and mum will no doubt be battling the elements, keeping the whole operation running smoothly and somehow still finding time to make sure everyone has their wellies on the right feet.

Anyone with experience of rural life understands all too well the constant struggle of keeping a family farm afloat. It is tough work—long hours, barely any room to breathe and a financial struggle for many. As I have said many times in this House, our farming families are not multimillionaires; many will be striving to make a profit, but a lot of our families will not be, with many of our farmers earning less than the minimum wage. But today these farmers will also be waking up with the crushing reality that they now face losing everything they have ever worked for—everything that their mum or dad or the generations before them worked for—all because of this Labour Government’s disastrous farm tax.

I have spoken to hundreds of farmers in the days since the Budget, as have the shadow Secretary of State and many colleagues sat behind me, and we have learned that Labour’s catastrophic Budget really is an anxiety that very few farmers were ready for. We have heard about many of their concerns in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) spoke about those, such as Ross in her constituency, who may have ill health and other challenging circumstances, who do not have time to plan.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) talked about farming accountants raising incredibly distressing calls from farmers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) raised the impact on the wider rural economy and the whole of the UK production sector. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) rightly mentioned the challenges the whole Budget will have on our farming, including the dire consequences of employer national insurance.

My hon. Friends the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) rightly highlighted the concerns of family farms that will have been in the family for many generations facing being split up. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) rightly challenged the Government’s own data and figures and lack of understanding of values.

But the core issue is that this is all about trust. Before the general election, Labour looked our farmers in the eye and told them continually that there would be no changes to inheritance tax. Indeed, the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) even at a hustings before the general election classified this as Conservative scaremongering, and many Labour MPs now sitting opposite proudly stood with placards saying they would back British farming. Yet here we are, 35 days after Labour introduced the family farm tax and 15 days after thousands of family farmers rallied in London, and there is not a shred of contrition from the Ministers sitting opposite—not even the slightest bit of empathy for those ordinary farming families who know the value of their businesses and who have looked at the detail and have been hit hard by Labour’s family farm tax—and that is because their level of arrogance is stark, as we have seen in this debate.

The hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) could not even mention one farmer in their constituency who supported this policy. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) seems to be convinced that this will impact only the wealthiest. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who I believe is not in his place, and the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) both say they have engaged with their farmers and heard their views, but then failed to mention anything in support of scrapping Labour’s disastrous family farm tax. No wonder their farmers are up in arms.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) turned up but failed to mention anything about inheritance tax relief. And the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) rightly highlighted Labour’s broken promises. I pay tribute to him for mentioning it, but will he have the courage to commit, to back our farmers and to vote with us for scrapping Labour’s family farm tax?

The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) spoke, made no reference at all to inheritance tax, but did mention the Budget. I can tell him that after the Budget, in one single week ending 8 November, 1,022 companies filed to shut down. I also point out that we saw 1.1 million more businesses between 2010 and 2023. The NFU, the CLA, the TFA and farming organisations up and down the UK say that Labour’s Budget will tear apart British farming, UK food production and our domestic food security agenda. The Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, whose members’ job it is to determine the value of farms, says that the Government have got their figures completely wrong. Those very same tax experts who the farming Minister rolled out in defence of this policy just a few weeks ago have now gone on to criticise it.

The Government are looking incredibly isolated. Public support for this policy has been wiped out since it was announced, leaving Labour MPs as its only defenders. Up to now, they have all failed to publicly call out our city-dwelling Prime Minister and Chancellor’s callous Budget. Now, we have even had the Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) being wheeled out to open this debate, as the Government’s last remaining hope to try to defend this disastrous attack on our farming families. The Government have lost the experts, they have lost the industry and it now seems they have lost their own Secretary of State from the Front Bench—it is great to see that he has just walked into this debate and turned up—and it is weak and embarrassing.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

The shadow Minister says that Labour Members do not know any farmers—I do. I am proudly a sixth-generation farmer’s daughter. My brother still farms, but for how much longer I do not know. My dad died exactly a year ago today. My mum is a partner in the business, and she is now 81. My brother is not married and he lives in a rather lovely farmhouse, but we do not know for how much longer that will be. He is worried about his farm. He is worried that he will be the one to close the gates for the very last time. Does the shadow Minister agree that we must move to a compromise, a transition and a clawback mechanism? Let us look to incentivise our farmers, rather than this punitive tax.

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member highlights the devastating consequences that Labour’s Budget will have on our family farms.

Many questions remain unanswered, so with the opportunity of Treasury and DEFRA Ministers sat side-by-side, I will put a few to them. First, if this is a unified Government, why did the Treasury tell DEFRA about this policy only the night before the Budget? Secondly, why did Ministers not take into account claimants of BPR in the limited datasets they have released? I am happy to give way to the farming Minister if he wants to answer that specific point, because he has not answered it to date. Thirdly, why do the Government believe it unnecessary to take into account the size of family farming businesses when determining the impact of their £1 million cap on agricultural property relief and business property relief? Finally, for the sixth time of asking in this place, why has no detailed economic impact assessment for this policy ever been produced?

Our position is clear: we back our British farmers, and the Conservative party will reverse this family farm tax. That is exactly why we will force this vote today, but we cannot do it alone. I therefore conclude by reaching out to Labour MPs across the Chamber. I know there are some sitting behind the Front Bench who have first-hand experience of rural life, who understand the consequences of this family farm tax and who are saying in private that the Government have got this terribly wrong. I say to those Members that it is not too late to save our farming families from this cruel farm tax and from those faceless multinational corporations that will no doubt sweep up any land that is forced to be sold as a result of this policy. It is not too late to join our British farmers, many farming organisations across the UK and the tens of thousands of farmers who were in Whitehall just a few weeks ago. Many Labour Members committed to back British farming before they entered this place, and now is their chance to prove it.

British farmers are watching, and Labour MPs have a clear choice either to back British farming and scrap this catastrophic tax or to put party politics before the voices of their constituents and farmers. I urge everyone in the House to do the right thing: to put British farmers first and vote against Labour’s family farm tax.

Winter Fuel Payment

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I rise to voice my strong opposition to the Labour Government’s cruel choice to scrap the winter fuel allowance for an estimated 10 million pensioners across the country. I have been contacted by hundreds of pensioners in my constituency who are all incredibly concerned about the dire consequences of this Government’s decision. I met many of them in surgeries and at Keighley agricultural show this weekend, and they are telling me that they are going to struggle to pay their bills this winter. Statistics show that just over 64,000 pensioners across the Bradford district, including 20,000 in my constituency, will be negatively impacted as a result of the Labour Government’s decision. That, quite frankly, is a disgrace.

Citizens Advice, Age UK and hundreds of charities across the UK have also come out against these proposals, warning that low-income households that are already struggling to make ends meet will be forced this winter into impossible choices between heating their homes or putting food on the table. It is incredibly disappointing to see the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) from the Bradford district, vote with the Government this evening, ensuring that she does not stand up for the wider Bradford district, as I will be doing.

It is Labour’s choice that we are putting pensioners at risk as a result of this decision, and Labour’s choice that is putting my constituents, pensioners who are vulnerable, in the dire position of having to decide whether they heat their homes or put food on the table this winter. I only hope that quick changes will be made to ensure that pensioners are looked after in the run-up to winter.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I know how hard our teachers, doctors, nurses, armed forces, police officers and prison guards work to keep us all safe, healthy and educated. They deserve the pay awards that we have announced today. It was the independent pay review bodies that recommended those pay increases. It would be extraordinary not to honour them, and we have done so today.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

May I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? During the general election campaign, the now new Health Secretary and the local Labour party in Keighley and Ilkley told my constituents that they were fully committed to delivering the full rebuild of the Airedale hospital—one of those hospitals that struggles with aerated concrete—following my efforts to secure the full funds. With millions of pounds being spent on the project and works well under way, can I seek reassurance from the Chancellor that this new Labour Government will not deny my constituents their right to a full rebuild of Airedale hospital?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman says he secured the funds, but he did not; the money was not there. That is why I am having to make this statement today. I share his frustration and anger, but it should be with the previous Government, who did not fund these schemes.