Fly-tipping: West Midlands

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for bringing forward this really timely and important debate. As she rightly and eloquently illustrated, fly-tipping is an absolute crime. It blights our landscape, risks pollution and disease, and costs thousands of pounds to clear up. It is shocking that many people actively choose to dump their waste, causing huge cost. That is not only to the taxpayer for clearance but also the detrimental impact on the many local communities where not only fly-tipping but littering takes place.

What a timely day to bring forward this debate, as many of our litter pickers have been getting out there as part of the Great British spring clean. I would therefore like to comment on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on his work with Keeping Duns Blooming Marvellous. He has been not only advocating on their behalf but getting out with many other litter pickers across his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills commented on Walsall Wood Wombles and many others who she has been out helping in her constituency. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) was also out litter picking this weekend. I am surprised he managed to get back to Westminster given the huge amount of rubbish that is on the streets of Birmingham this week, but it is noted that he was out litter picking on Sunday.

I should like to pick up on the points made on litter picking before moving on to the bigger challenges that are faced across the west Midlands. It is right to make the point that our parish councils, which are at the grassroots of facing these challenges, do need extra support to try to deal with some of the litter waste that exists within their communities. I want put on the record my thanks to the Ilkley litter pickers, who meet every month. I have been lucky enough to go out litter picking with them across Ilkley and up at The Cow and Calf regularly, helping them. They have vast numbers—about 60 people now—regularly turning up on a Sunday, when they meet, and it is incredible to see.

The situation in the west midlands is absolutely shocking, and it is no wonder that fly-tipping is getting considerably worse as a result, but the diagnosis of Labour mismanagement is no shock at all to me, because Labour-run Bradford council outrageously closed not only Golden Butts household waste recycling centre in Ilkley but Sugden End household waste recycling centre up in the Worth valley in my constituency early last year, despite massive protests by local people and a petition, which I organised, receiving more than 9,000 signatures. And guess what? In Craven, Ilkley, Worth Valley and Keighley West wards, the wards closest to the shut tips, we have seen fly-tipping increase as a result in the following year. By contrast, for those wards that are nearest the tip that remains open in the centre of Keighley—despite Labour-run Bradford council’s wanting to close it in 2023—fly-tipping reports are fewer.

Quite simply, Labour local authorities cannot see the wood for the trees. They cut waste services supposedly to save money, but they do not take account of the vast increases in fly-tipping that there will be as a result, and who has to pick up the cost for that? The taxpayer. Waste is far more expensive to remove once it is fly-tipped. It would be more properly disposed of at a proper waste facility. Just because Labour has removed waste services does not mean that waste will stop piling up. That is exactly what we are seeing in Birmingham, because Birmingham city council is failing to get to grips with the huge challenges over the last month, and who is being impacted by that? The residents, the council tax payers, on the back of their council taxes dramatically increasing in recent years.

[John Lamont]

I will make the same point to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister as I made to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), about the tactics that the Unite trade unionists are using: the blockade of the depots to prevent the refuse trucks from leaving, and the slow walking in front of the lorries to prevent the bin workers from getting out to collect the rubbish. The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield was a bit reluctant to call that out. Will the shadow Minister join me in saying that that type of action is completely unacceptable and should not be allowed in this day and age?

[Robbie Moore]

It absolutely is action that needs to be condemned. Why? Because those who are being impacted are the hard-working residents of Birmingham. They are dutifully paying their council tax—despite its having increased as a result of Labour’s mismanagement of the council—yet they are expected to be taking their waste to an allocated disposal site, either a site that has been allocated by the council to dispose of their waste or a waste wagon; but wagons needing to get out of the depot are being held up by those who are striking, yet the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield will not actively and openly come out and condemn their behaviour, which is having a negative impact not only on his constituents but the residents across Birmingham more widely. Does he want to intervene? I will let him use this opportunity to condemn their actions right now if he chooses.

Easter Adjournment

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is giving a passionate speech about his constituency, and is demonstrating yet again why he is such a powerful champion for Keighley and Ilkley. Does he agree that the volunteers who run these groups are an important part of our community, and that the skills that they teach young people stay with them for the rest of their life?

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely. That is why it is so important that all Members across the House support grassroots sporting organisations and the sporting facilities at their heart. They drive confidence in our young people, whatever sport it may be.

I also put on record my thanks to the Ilkley business awards committee, which, every year without fail, puts on an excellent business awards in Ilkley, recognising all those businesses across the LS29 postcode that go above and beyond. Such events showcase the brilliant independent businesses across our area. I thank in particular Julia Forrester, who leads the Ilkley business awards committee, for the continued work that she and the other committee members do to put Ilkley on the map.

Having been rated the best place to live in the United Kingdom back in 2022, Ilkley was officially rated by The Sunday Times as still the best place to live in the whole of the north of England. It is a very proud place and I am lucky to represent it.

Finally, in my remaining 30 seconds, I would like to give a huge shout-out to my incredibly brave younger sister, Becky. After an 18-month battle with breast cancer, she had her last chemotherapy treatment today, and prospects are looking good.

On that note, I wish all Members across the House, and all House staff, who do a great deal to look after us all, a very happy Easter.

Road Maintenance

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Roads are crucial to life in the Scottish Borders. They are a lifeline. My constituency stretches from Cockburnspath in the north all the way down to Newcastleton, just north of Carlisle. It takes the best part of two and a half hours to drive from one end of it to the other. Excluding trunk roads, in the Scottish Borders there are 1,857 miles of local roads that the council are responsible for. In addition, there are many more miles of trunk roads, which the Scottish Government’s Transport Scotland is responsible for. Looking around the Chamber, I ask whether any other Member present can challenge that figure of 1,857 miles of local roads that the council is responsible for; it is a uniquely high figure.

Roads are essential for people in the Borders to get around, see friends, go to school, get to work and go to hospital appointments. It is crucial that we have good-quality roads to just exist, never mind enjoy any of the luxuries in life. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that I receive so much casework from constituents expressing concern about the quality of some of the roads and the lack of investment, which I will come on to. Also, when I do surveys and knock on doors each week, doing my residents doorstep surgeries, consistently potholes will be the No. 1 issue that local residents raise with me.

I do not think any other Member has yet paid tribute to the hard-working council employees who do a very good job of fixing the roads under very difficult circumstances. They might not have the resources or all the equipment that they need, but they are doing the best they can in very challenging circumstances to make the roads as good as they can be. They often go above and beyond what is their job to ensure that the roads, which are often in the communities that they live in themselves, are maintained to the best possible standard.

Very often, what makes such employees’ life even more difficult is the fact that electricity, gas or broadband companies come into their communities and dig up the roads. The council employees might come and fix a road one week, then discover that a few days or weeks later, a utility company will come through and dig up the road again. Much more needs to be done, both by the UK Government and the Scottish Government, who are responsible for this policy area in Scotland, to ensure that these types of utility companies are under a much tougher obligation to restore roads to the standard that they were in prior to the work being carried out, or indeed bring them up to an even better standard. If they choose to do the work, they need to invest in the road so that it is brought up to a good standard once they have completed it.

My council, Scottish Borders council, has invested in the JCB Pothole Pro equipment, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) mentioned. Amid growing concerns about the state of the roads in the Borders, the council felt that it was a good investment. They bought one, and have now hired a second. This machine carried out 1,889 road repairs between April and the end of December last year, which resulted in a significant improvement in the local road network. There is still a huge backlog of road repairs, thanks largely to the lack of investment by the SNP Government; I will come to that shortly. Scottish Borders council has also set up a new interactive map on its website of the whole council area. People can identify roads and provide evidence of potholes that need to be fixed.

As a consequence of that investment, a recent freedom of information request to all United Kingdom councils showed that Scottish Borders council has spent millions of pounds on fixing potholes across the Borders. In 2020-21, it invested £2.5 million; in 2021-22, it invested £3.2 million; and in 2022-23, it invested £3.8 million, totalling over £9.6 million over three years. I commend my Conservative-controlled council for making this level of investment. But on the other side of the equation, it has had to pay out more than £17 million in compensation to road users and car drivers because of damage caused by potholes. Although the council has achieved a lot, there is much work still to do. I pay tribute to my Conservative colleagues on Scottish Borders council for what they have done.

Like many other councils in Scotland, Scottish Borders council is under severe financial pressure because the Scottish nationalist Government in Edinburgh are not investing in local councils, particularly rural councils like mine in the borders. The Scottish Government often ignore the needs of rural communities across Scotland and invest instead in the central belt.

Indeed, the cuts that the Scottish Government have imposed on local authorities, including my own, were recently described as “brutal” and “savage” cuts on local authorities, resulting in many, if not all, councils across Scotland having to make very difficult choices between investment and supporting vital local services.

Although a few Labour Members representing Scottish constituencies are present for this debate on road maintenance, it is telling that SNP colleagues representing rural constituencies like my own are not here to talk about the very challenging road networks in their constituencies. The fact they are not here to defend the Scottish Government’s decision to cut road investment—their Benches are empty—says a lot.

[Robbie Moore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just north of the border that these cuts are being made? South of the border, we have seen this new Labour Government cut the local service delivery grant by over £100 million. The grant is specifically allocated to assist rural councils in providing much-needed services, such as pothole maintenance, where the cost of delivery is much higher in rural areas. Does he agree that was the wrong decision for this Labour Government to make?

[John Lamont]

I do agree, and I will develop that point. My concern is that policymakers, whether here in Westminster or in Edinburgh, have an urban outlook to transport. They assume that people have access to buses and trains, but those of us living in rural communities do not, so roads and cars become much more important.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Scottish Borders council would be very grateful to receive the level of funding that Edinburgh council receives. Notwithstanding that, it is a problem that the Scottish Government do not invest in roads in the way we would expect.

The hon. Member will be fully aware of the scandal surrounding the A9, which does not affect my constituency or, indeed, his, but the delays and the broken promises that the SNP has made to upgrade that vital road linking the north of Scotland with the rest of Scotland—and the rest of the UK, for that matter—have caused huge frustrations to the rural communities it serves.

My criticism is not only directed at the SNP Government. As Labour Members will realise, the Labour Government are not immune from criticism either. The previous Conservative Government promised to invest in upgrading the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham, and this Government’s decision to cancel that upgrade has caused great upset not just in my constituency but in Northumberland.

The A1 is a vital road for the local economy in the Scottish Borders, and it is also a vital road in Northumberland. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) is no longer in his place, but that road supports local jobs and the local economy. Savagely cutting that funding and scrapping the investment to improve that road will undoubtedly cause economic hardship for the communities that rely on that road.

[Robbie Moore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this causes inconvenience not only to the many commuters who use the A1, who want better connectivity north of the border, but to the landowners who have been moved around in the negotiations for years? This Labour Government’s decision to scrap the funding allocated for the A1 upgrade not only affects local businesses in Alnwick and the safety of the crossings in Felton and Ellingham, and the like, but affects people who own land either side of the A1 who have been put through huge uncertainty.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and the local press in Northumberland is full of stories of people who are effectively trapped.

Thames Water: Government Support

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this really important debate. It was good to listen to all the contributions. As we all know, water is vital and we use it every single day, so it is deeply concerning that we have such great challenges in our water industry, particularly those that have been highlighted with Thames Water.

Under the last Government, we uncovered the true extent of the issues with our water system by increasing the monitoring of storm overflows, which no political party or Administration had previously attempted. Back in 2010, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored, but when we left office, 100% were monitored. That gave the Government and our regulators a proper and true understanding of the way in which those storm overflows were being used by our water companies.

[John Lamont]

I pay tribute to all the work that my hon. Friend did as a Minister. He has highlighted the percentage of overflows that are now being monitored in England. I am sure he is aware of research by Surfers Against Sewage confirming that 100% of storm overflows in England are now being monitored. In Scotland, the figure is only 4%. Does that not show the huge difference between what is happening here in England, which is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination, and what is happening in Scotland, which is far, far worse?

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Yes, that is the point: for any Government, regardless of political colour or make-up, to deal with the challenge, they need to understand the true extent of what they are dealing with.

It is frustrating that north of the border only 4% of storm overflows are being monitored. In reference to what is happening with Scottish Water, and to what the devolved Administration north of the border are doing in the Scottish Parliament to tackle challenges of pollution, how can any proper strategy be put in place with no reference point? That is why it is important to get to the 100% level of monitoring that we now have in England, which resulted in the last Administration being able to roll out the plan for water, which was about stronger regulation, tougher enforcement and more investment.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned the Thames tideway, which has 25 km of underground capacity that has now been extended from Acton to Abbey Mills. A £5 billion investment has been put into the project, which is now fully operational, having opened in February; I was lucky enough to visit and to go down into it before it was opened. The great thing about the project is that it is now draining about 34 of the most polluting combined sewer overflows in the Thames area, which will help to improve the quality of the water in the Thames.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam rightly raised the concerns about increasing water bills, the lack of trust in Thames Water and the poor level of service that his constituents are experiencing. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) picked up on the same issues and referred to the meeting that I had with her and with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in the short period for which I was lucky enough to be a Minister in the Department, about the challenges with the Teddington project. I urge the Minister to address those concerns, because challenges arise when there is no proper environmental impact assessment. Concern about the project is rightly being raised—it was certainly a concern that I had—so I urge the Minister to continue to put pressure on Thames Water.

The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) rightly raised the concerns of constituents on Clarence Avenue and in Brixton, relating to water shortages resulting from Thames Water not carrying out its duty to the level of quality that her constituents expect. She also raised concerns about the bill increases of approximately 30% or 31% for some of her constituents.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned the statutory duties that a water company is bound to meet and referred to the poor satisfaction levels that Thames Water is delivering. The hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) rightly raised the challenges that his constituents are experiencing with flooding, and Thames Water’s refusal to take responsibility. Finally, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned challenges relating to Thames Water’s bill increases and the poor service that his constituents experience.

Thames Water is probably the most distressing example of our water system going wrong. Bills are rising by about 33% this year, but unfortunately the Government have failed to take serious action and consumers are paying for it. That comes in addition to the pressures of the cost of living, council tax rises and so on. Rightly, there is huge frustration that Thames Water shareholders have simply wrung the business dry of capital, failed to invest to expand its supply, and failed to invest to clean up sewage spills. Thames Water’s exceptionally poor level of service deliverability has already been mentioned.

The last Administration took steps to address the challenges that constituents and residents face not only in the Thames Water area, but across England. We blocked bosses’ bonuses for water company executives, we ensured that dividends had to be linked specifically to environmental performance and we introduced unlimited civil fines by removing the £250,000 cap. More power was awarded to Ofwat so that it could impose levies on water companies in the circumstances. In August last year, Thames Water was fined £104 million for its failure to avoid sewage overflows. In other instances Thames Water was put under a cash lock-up, which prevents any dividends from being paid out without Ofwat’s approval.

Construction Standards: New Build Homes

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this important debate. As I said in my earlier intervention, it seems that we have both experienced the challenges of Harron Homes, and she has my full sympathy for having to deal with them. In my own constituency, I had the managing director come out—not that he wanted to, but I managed to get him there—and we had a meeting with residents to talk through some of the challenges. I share the concerns that she raised on behalf of her constituents, because it is not a good housing developer and it does not have its residents’ best interests at heart.

Construction standards are not just about bricks and mortar; they go into a home, and they go beyond that, into the sense of belonging that one feels when living in a good quality space. Construction standards are also about the process of planning, site security and development maintenance, all of which play a part in the experience of a resident who moves into a property.

I will use this opportunity to talk about some of the challenges that I have experienced in my constituency, particularly in Long Lee. In Redwood Close, a development is being undertaken by Accent Housing Group. I was called to look at the condition of an existing construction site about eight months ago. It is derelict because those involved in the construction went bust, but this is a site that is right in the heart of Long Lee and, dare I say it, has been causing a huge nuisance not only to those who wanted to move into the development and are now experiencing delays, but to those living in close proximity. I was invited along to see the access challenges to this particular site for myself. Neighbouring properties have had boundary walls, drainage and access all disturbed as the result of ongoing, existing construction. It is completely unacceptable.

I met again with the director for development, who came out on to the site with me around four months ago and reassured me that things would change at speed. I can tell hon. Members that nothing has changed at all, other than giving me further reassurance and then holding a residents meeting. They have told me that Esh Construction Ltd has now been appointed to complete the works, but those works are not due to start until mid-spring and construction of the site at Long Lee will not be completed until 2026.

All the while, those neighbours—who have had their property damaged, access hindered and boundary walls to their properties completely removed, allowing easy access to a dangerous site—have had to live with this right on their doorstep. It prompts the question: what has the local authority been doing throughout this whole process? Bradford council has not monitored the construction, nor has it carried out sufficient enforcement action; indeed, no enforcement action seems to have been taken at all. That is not a satisfactory outcome for the residents in Long Lee.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and he is right to highlight the important role that local authorities have. However, speaking as a former commercial property lawyer, I think part of the problem is that, when buying a new home, the purchaser is forced to take a contract package that is geared in favour of the developers. When someone buys a second-hand home, there is a degree of negotiation between the parties, but when buying a brand-new home they take the pack from the developer and the remedies for the purchaser to deal with snagging items are very limited. Does he agree that that is part of the problem?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree, and that point has been made by the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson): once someone has purchased a property or is tied into a contractual relationship, dealing with those snagging issues is a huge challenge. Where can they go from there? They have been taken out of the local authority’s remit to deal with it, because it has approved the planning application—having probably not carried out any enforcement action at all. That is the problem I observed with Bradford council’s lack of any attention to the challenges that we faced in Keighley, Ilkley and the wider area that I represent.

The problem is that, when someone is locked into a contractual relationship, or has even moved into a property, and there are snagging issues, they are effectively trapped and there is no real ability for any organisation with any weight to deal with that. Will the Minister address in her closing remarks what action the Government will now take to deal with cases where new developments have been constructed of a poor quality and concerns have been consistently raised?

It should not take a Member of Parliament to deal with those concerns—it seems that only housing developers only then suddenly realise they have to do something about them. What will the Government do to provide more weight to these concerns that are being raised, so that people with snagging issues can have reassurance that those problems will be sorted out?

I will conclude my comments by discussing the challenges associated with dealing with section 106 moneys. When planning applications have been approved, there is then effectively a negotiation that takes place between the developer and the local authority. I again have to rely on Bradford council negotiating the best deal for whatever that section 106 money is contributing to. Section 106 money is effectively a payment to deal with any mitigating factors that have been negatively imposed on our community through that development. I give the simple example: if those negotiations are not robust enough, that disadvantages the communities we represent. If that section 106 obligation is not spent or enacted within a reasonable time, our constituents are significantly disadvantaged as a result of a local authority—such as Labour-run Bradford council—not responding well enough. That disadvantages the communities we represent.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

There are so many points to address in the Bill, but I will keep my remarks to just a few. I have grave concerns that the Government’s agreeable aim of freeing up our planning system will be dragged further by this Bill into the bog of planning delay and indecision.

There has been a lot of talk about whether the Bill will afford special protections for peatland on sites of special scientific interest, but I have looked at the detail and have concerns that, rather than leading to better protections for peatland areas, the Bill does the opposite. I will start my contribution by explaining why that is such a huge issue.

Take Walshaw moor, which borders my constituency, just next to the Worth valley in my beautiful part of West Yorkshire. Most importantly, it is an irreplaceable blanket bog peatland and carries protected status. It is a site of heavily protected bird species and ground-nesting birds. Recently, it has become the proposed site for what would be England’s largest onshore wind farm.

I am firmly opposed to that development. The disruption that a new wind farm would cause, through the constructions of 65 turbines—each taller than Blackpool tower—would be devasting to the blanket bog peatland. In fact, peat bogs across the UK store many times more carbon than our forests. Disturbing that peatland by constructing a wind farm on top of it could release many tonnes of carbon back into the atmosphere, directly contradicting the aim of the whole development—namely, to reduce carbon emissions. It is simply nonsensical to use Walshaw moor when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has shown that the Government could achieve their targets for wind power without building on a single acre of protected peatland.

Let me come to the substance of the Bill as it relates to that development. The introduction of environmental development plans seems like a good idea: why shouldn’t developers pay some form of compensation for the environmental damage that their developments cause? As is always the case, however, things begin to unravel when we delve into the detail. What this change effectively amounts to is a mercenary approach to environmental protection that gives developers a much freer hand to negotiate their commitments. Indeed, local planning authorities will be given a much freer hand to take a looser approach in ensuring that developers do their fair bit for any environmental mitigation measures, particularly on protected sites, with the emphasis on a financial contribution.

Funding for restoration, either on site or indeed mitigated elsewhere, does not undo the damage caused by the development—be it to assets of scientific, natural or cultural value. In the case of a protected peatland such as Walshaw moor, that is exactly why the current proposed development is completely the wrong approach. The bogs themselves take millennia to reform, and sphagnum moss breaks down so slowly—by just 1 mm a year—to form peat. That is why the removal of the moratorium on onshore wind farms, which will allow more protected peatland to be built on, is the wrong approach from the Government. I cannot stress that enough. The Bill moves us from a dynamic in which we proactively protect what we value to one in which we barter what we can price up and pretend that value and price are the same.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Many aspects of the Bill will affect Scotland and make things much more difficult for local residents to oppose certain types of application, including those in my constituency who are fighting hard against a 94 km pylon route and battery storage plants. For me, democratic accountability should be at the heart of the planning process, but we seem to be moving towards a planning system that China would be proud of. Does he agree?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. It is why the Government should be honest with the public that, far from strengthening environmental protections, the Bill creates a direct avenue for developers to pay to do environmental damage and get around otherwise more stringent protection laws.

Rural Crime

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

Thursday 27th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. Crime is often perceived to be an issue confined to cities and metropolitan areas. While it is true that crime rates are often higher in these areas, it is easy to overlook the unique challenges of policing rural communities.

As many Members have eloquently said in today’s debate, the reality is that rural crime is often a complex picture for the police, ranging from minor incidents of antisocial behaviour to organised criminal gangs exploiting our rural communities through machinery theft, livestock theft, fly-tipping and county lines operations—indeed, many of the issues that have been outlined today.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) rightly outlined, many of the hidden challenges associated with rural crime are very complex and need the full weight of police attention. As NFU Mutual’s rural crime report indicated, the cost of rural crime has risen again this year to £52.8 million. We know that the cost is likely to be substantially higher, given how insurance policies work for those thefts.

Research from the National Rural Crime Network concludes that there is an unprecedented level of organised rural crime, with its datasets illustrating the point. This has led to the network’s focus on making sure it is working collectively with all stakeholders that are willing to interact, and on making sure that all police forces are working as collaboratively as possible.

It is therefore vital that the police have a full range of powers and resources to tackle rural crimes. It is also imperative that the Government work effectively with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that the next rural and wildlife crime strategy reflects the priorities of our rural communities.

Every Member has mentioned fly-tipping, which is an attack on our communities, nature and environment. It endangers wildlife and people alike, and the harm caused by these criminals must not go unpunished. For this reason, under the previous Conservative Administration, DEFRA grants were allocated to 58 local authorities specifically to enable them to provide additional enforcement powers.

I welcome the Government’s intention to act on fly-tipping through the Crime and Policing Bill. However, it appears that all they are offering is limited statutory guidance for local authorities. I am therefore interested to hear from the Minister about the extent to which the guidance will help local authorities by further increasing the powers available to them. What will the guidance seek to achieve? Will it be accompanied by additional financial support, like that previously made available to local authorities by the previous Conservative Administration, and will it enable further enforcement action?

Fly-tipping is probably one of the most prolific categories of rural crime, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned. A survey of NFU members found that 54% of respondents had experienced small-scale fly-tipping on farmland, while over a quarter—30%—said they had been hit by large-scale industrial fly-tipping. DEFRA statistics from January 2023 show that fly-tipping is estimated to cost the economy £924 million in England alone. Worryingly, instances of large commercial fly-tipping are ever-increasing, costing local authorities in the region of £13.2 million.

[John Lamont]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, with many councils closing tips and other community services, there is almost no other option for some residents to dispose of materials? Obviously, fly-tipping is illegal, but when councils cut back services such as tips, there is often no other alternative but for residents to do that. That is not a defence, as the action is totally unacceptable, but if there is no other option, some people are forced to do it.

[Robbie Moore]

As my hon. Friend makes clear, fly-tipping hits every part of our community. In Keighley and Ilkley, Bradford council recently made the decision to close two household waste and recycling centres, which has resulted in more fly-tipping not only in those parts of the rural environment that sit on the urban fringe, but sometimes in the most isolated of rural places. That is incredibly detrimental to many of our constituents. I would very much like to see, as we have previously advocated, a single reporting mechanism for fly-tipping, which would make it easier for police forces to manage the levels of reporting. This must continue to be a priority for all Governments.

Hare coursing has also been mentioned, and intervention is crucial to preventing wildlife crime. I thank all those involved with the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act under the previous Conservative Administration, under which hare coursing now carries the appropriate punishments that recognise the damage it causes, with powers in place to impose custodial sentences, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. As the Sentencing Council stated in its January 2025 consultation,

“The courts now have a fuller suite of sentencing powers, including new ancillary orders, to deal with hare coursing offences.”

Hare coursing may seem to many like an abstract issue, but for the many Members who represent rural constituencies, the offence unfortunately continues to take place. As a result of that Act, however, incidents are being reported. It is encouraging to see that, as of this Tuesday, 16 people have been arrested for the crime, but that underscores the need for the police to ensure that offenders are properly punished. It is highly encouraging that in areas where police forces are taking part in Operation Galileo, hare coursing has decreased by 40%. As I mentioned, the Sentencing Council is consulting on updating its guidance to reflect instances of this crime. I would be grateful if the Minister could keep the House updated.

Without doubt, the other big issue that has been mentioned is machinery and diesel theft. Based on data from the NFU and the Countryside Alliance, one of the most impactful crimes affecting rural communities is theft of agricultural machinery, including vehicles. Data from the NFU indicates that the theft of agricultural goods costs more than £10 million in just the last year, which is a shocking amount.

I give huge credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, whose private Member’s Bill, now the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, received Royal Assent back in 2023. The Act provided the Government and the police with wider powers to tackle the increasing incidence of vehicle and equipment theft from farms, including of quad bikes and ATVs, focusing on prevention. As my hon. Friend has consistently indicated, there is still a need for secondary legislation. It is comforting to hear that it will potentially be laid before the House by the summer, but the Government need to pass that secondary legislation to ensure the Act includes other agricultural equipment such as power tools.

Members have also mentioned livestock worrying, which involves livestock being attacked or chased by dogs that are not kept under proper control. NFU Mutual found that an estimated £2.4 million-worth of farm animals were killed by livestock worrying in 2023 alone, a rise of 30% on the previous year. Those deaths were not always because of physical attacks or injury. With the lambing season now under way, I worry that the issue will fill all our inboxes in the spring months ahead.

The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill, which is a critical piece of animal welfare legislation, was first introduced under the last Government, and it is now slowly moving back through the legislative process. It received an unopposed Second Reading in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024, having been reintroduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). I ask the Government to ensure that time is allowed for the Bill to progress as quickly as possible. This much-needed legislation would provide much comfort to many of our livestock farmers, because it aims to address the growing issue of livestock worrying by enhancing protections for farmers, introducing tougher penalties for offenders and expanding police powers. It would also expand the definition of livestock, introduce unlimited fines for offenders and grant the police powers to seize suspected attacking animals and to collect the DNA evidence needed for prosecution.

I reiterate the need for all our police forces to work collectively and collaboratively to deal with rural crime. Rural crime is often isolated, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk indicated, we must enable cross-border interaction and ensure that police forces like mine in West Yorkshire, which predominantly have an urban base but also remote rural fringes, focus on rural crime just as much as more rural police forces.

It seems that rural crime is often a bottom priority for our local leaders and police forces. It is difficult to measure, it is often difficult to observe and it generally impacts fewer people. Rural crime can be reduced, but it requires not just investment but an understanding and prioritisation by decision-makers across all branches of local and national Government. The Opposition are determined to put the prioritisation of rural crime in focus, and I hope that the Minister will be able to match our commitment.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[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).

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore]

I will not give way, because I do not think the hon. Lady will agree with me and many of the constituents across the Bradford district in opposing a nearly 10% increase in council tax. I hope that her constituents are watching.

Not only that; it also comes down to the absolute mismanagement of children’s services by Bradford council. Let us not forget that the previous Conservative Government had to step in and take children’s services off Bradford council because multiple damning Ofsted reports indicated that it was not through the fault of those providing children’s services and the level of care needed on the ground that the services were failing; instead, the disconnect in management at the very top of Bradford council was so bad and was failing our children that the Government had to step in and set up a children’s trust, which I must say is now having benefits.

Is it not ironic that the Labour Government will refer to our 14 years, but in 2021 the Labour administration at Bradford council submitted, as part of its statutory duty, a report stating that the council was in a “sound financial position”? Yet now the council is claiming that it is £150 million in debt and seeking a council tax increase of 9.9%, despite having requested a 15% increase. What on earth are this Government doing to hold to account local authorities that are failing constituents in the delivery of services? Where on earth is that accountability?

Bradford Live is not the only place on which huge amounts of taxpayers’ money has been misspent; One City Park, in the centre of Bradford, is another such venue. Car parks are being knocked down. That is not the job of a local authority. We should be relying on private sector inward investment to pay for regeneration projects. The job of a local authority is to focus on providing statutory-based services, not dipping in and out of regeneration schemes, and failing, at the cost of my constituents. Now we see through our city of culture status, which does not seem to be benefiting many of my constituents, the council wanting to construct a fancy art piece in Centenary Project. Who on earth in the Keighley and Ilkley constituency is benefiting as a result of that work?

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

As ever, my hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of standing up for his constituents in Keighley and Ilkley, and exposing the failures of Labour-controlled Bradford council. In Scotland, this finance settlement will not affect my council, but my council is having to deal with a £265 million hit, along with all the other councils in Scotland, because of the national insurance rise imposed by the Labour Government. As well as all the mismanagement by Bradford council, does he agree that many local authorities across the UK are having to take money away from vital services to fund this tax hike by the Labour Government?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. That point has been made not only by my hon. Friend, but by many Conservative Members. They say that the Government may, on the one hand, be passing down finance to local government, but they are, on the other hand, taking it away through the increase in employer national insurance contributions. This is a classic socialist policy: they are taking with one hand and telling councils how to spend it with the other.

Not only are my constituents going to be exposed to an increase of just about 10% in council tax, without the opportunity for a referendum to decide, but they are experiencing vast cuts to local services. We have had two household waste and recycling centres close in my constituency. The council is selling off assets. There are assets that have not yet been protected, despite the warm words coming from our Labour local authority. Assets such as the Ilkley lido, Keighley market and shops are now being considered for disposal, creating added worry to many of the occupants of those shops that the council own.

We have seen parking charges rise in villages such as Addingham, which means that the shops, which need those people to buy their products and to benefit their local economy, are now facing detrimental impact. Where does the issue of fairness kick in? In my constituency, the local council, which has increased council tax, spend that hard-earned money on a huge amount of mismanaged projects, wastage projects and projects that are not even open.

I submitted a freedom of information request to find out whether my constituents were getting a fair level of spending in the constituency. I asked the local authority how much had been spent on highways in my constituency over a two-year period. There are five constituencies across the Bradford district, so one would expect the figure to be about 20%, but it was about 7% on average over the two-year period. No wonder the state of potholes in my constituency is far worse than in the inner-city centre of Bradford. How can I justify backing any increase in council tax when the spending is so dire?

I want to come back to the issue of accountability. The last chief executive of Bradford council, Kersten England, held that post for a long period, and oversaw the mismanagement of finance and the diabolical handling of children’s services before the last Conservative Government stepped in, but—jobs for the boys—what is she doing now? She is chairing city of culture. What an absolute disgrace, in terms of who is being held accountable by the Government.

Let me quote some of the concerns that constituents have raised with me about council tax being raised by 9.9%. One said, “I will be 70 next year, and I am still having to continue to work to make ends meet.” Another said, “I am disabled and now, as a result of this council tax hike, will have to use my own savings to look after myself.” Another said, “I am a single mother with three children and I simply can’t afford this.” Another said, “I didn’t ask the council to throw money at a concert venue that is not open”—and therefore not benefiting my constituents—“yet they have done that and are expecting me to pay the price.” Another said, “It’s difficult to see why I would like to live through my retirement, having to spend this much more.” The list goes on.

There is only one long-term solution, and I will be interested to see what the Government have to say about it. I have long been campaigning, along with the former Member of Parliament for Shipley, Philip Davies, to pull our two constituencies out of Bradford council and create our own unitary authority away from the mismanagement of Bradford city.

Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

Monday 3rd February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely. That highlights the associated challenges for parents, and not only the financial ones that can unexpectedly be put on them, but the emotional challenges and anxiety-related issues. Whether the scenario involves a short-term care plan being put in place or something much longer, that anxiety is absolutely there and needs to be recognised.

As I was saying, a diagnosis for a child can come out of the blue, and a parent, of course, has to deal with it. They have no other choice but to make the situation work, and that can be incredibly difficult. Complexities will arise in the care programme of the child, no doubt, and it will be emotionally draining for all involved, but the parent has to get on with it. This injustice certainly resonates across the country.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is speaking very well about the challenges and issues. It was great to meet Christina and Skye before the debate started. Does my hon. Friend recognise that many employers follow good practice, paying parents during a time of care and keeping jobs open, but the petitioner and I are concerned about those employers who are not following good practice? That, I hope, is what the Government will address.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not all employers sing from the same hymn sheet by providing that good level of support and care to their employees while they are going through very traumatic situations. Some employers are very good, but not all carry out the same level of care for their employees during such difficult situations.

That is why Christina’s petition has been so well recognised in the amount of support that it gained, gathering 102,316 signatures. In my Keighley and Ilkley constituency, I have received many pieces of correspondence on this issue, and it can be harrowing—as a Member of Parliament, as I am sure all of us have done this—listening to some of the very real challenges that parents face in such situations, including the financial, support and emotional challenges.

In support, the Petitions Committee carried out its survey on the back of Christina’s petition, asking people who had signed it how the severe illness of children affects them as parents. I am thankful to the 9,609 people who submitted a response to the Petitions Committee as part of our review of the petition. The huge response rate to not only the petition, but the follow-up demonstrates just how much of an issue this is, and I hope that the Government will respond accordingly to some of the concerns that have been raised. The survey suggests that the majority of parents affected do manage to cope with the challenge, but crucially, this is only possible for those who have understanding and accommodating employers, as has been mentioned.

Responsibilities of Housing Developers

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the responsibilities of housing developers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am pleased to have secured this debate on housing developers and the challenges that my constituents face around the multiple housing developments that are currently taking place in our area.

Housing developers have a huge impact on local communities and our national potential. We are all acutely aware of the challenge of our national housing supply. It is vital to supply the right houses in the right places and to the right people, and without developers that would not be possible, but new housing also has a huge impact on local people. Done poorly, new developments can completely change the existing settlement. They can reduce access to local services and make it harder for a child to secure a school place. They may also make it more difficult to get a doctor’s appointment, or they may add to traffic congestion. Those practical effects make a huge difference to people’s lives. For towns such as Silsden in my constituency, a perfect storm of planning regulations can change the character of the local area.

From a town of a few hundred properties, Silsden has grown by hundreds of houses in just 10 years and looks set to grow even further. Given the huge power that local developers have in both urban and rural communities in areas like mine right across Keighley and Ilkley, it is vital that we regulate them and ensure that they act responsibly. We must not forget that developers are businesses and must rightly consider their profitability first, but it is beholden on this place and local councils to ensure that the desire to make a profit does not come at the expense of local people.

I want to talk through some of the challenges that my constituents face when developments take place. I will start with early consultation. It is vital, when new housing schemes are developed and initially thought through by a developer, that consultation with local people takes place before a planning application is submitted.

Since I became an MP in 2019, Silsden has seen Persimmon, Harron Homes, Countryside Homes, Barratt Homes, the Lindum group, Newett Homes and Skipton Properties all developing houses. Those multiple developments took place in one town. It is right for the local authority to look at the masterplanning associated with the whole town when looking at the collective impact and the level of services provided, and therefore work out any negative consequences of those individual developments.

The planning system currently struggles to take separate developments properly into account when consulting with the public. Proper early engagement is vital. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that in my constituency.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend speaks well about the challenges in Keighley and Ilkley. On the point about consultation, residents in my area might not object to the location of a development, but they are concerned about the impact on doctors and schools. When those concerns are raised with the developer, it pushes back and says that that is not its problem, but rather a matter for the local authority and the Scottish Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that that balance needs to be changed? Developers should take greater cognisance of the impact that their developments will have on services, working with the local authority to address those concerns as part of the consultation stage.

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend’s excellent intervention gets to the nub of the point that I want to make. When multiple applications or developments are coming down the pipeline, they must all be considered duly and properly by the local authority. Bradford council, the unitary authority for my area, does not do that, which is incredibly frustrating because in order to work out the negative consequences, or indeed the positive impacts, that multiple developments will have on a community, those issues all have to be considered in the round. Residents need to feel that infrastructure and services are being properly considered.

That brings me on to a point that I had planned to make later about section 106 money and community infrastructure money. All too often, a local authority awards planning consent and then enters into a negotiation with the developer to agree the section 106 moneys that must then be paid to the local community, via the local authority, to mitigate any negative effects of the development. Unfortunately, in my constituency Bradford council is not taking a sufficiently robust negotiating position with the developer to extract as much financial benefit as possible for the local community so that that money can be spent in places like Silsden, Keighley and Ilkley and properly set against any negative impacts of the development.

I will give an example. With the development on Occupation Lane on the outskirts of Keighley, it was agreed that Barratt Homes would put in play facilities for children of all ages, up to the early teens. But what did we see when the development was complete? We saw play facilities that were more suitable for one or two-year-olds. The developer did the very bare minimum, which was obviously not what the residents expected when they purchased the homes. I could give other examples.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about the SNP-Green Government’s bombshell tax plans to hike up the tax burden for many households, with people already facing pressures on their household budgets. As she will know, along with the record block grant, the spring Budget provided the Scottish Government with an extra £320 million over the next two years, on top of the £1.5 billion of additional funding that we provided in the autumn statement of 2022. Our economic priorities of halving inflation and growing the economy are the most effective way of supporting her constituents.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

In relation to the cost of living—the theme of these questions—the energy price guarantee will save households £160 for the period until July, bringing the total Government support for energy bills to £1,500 for a typical household since October 2022. We are also ending the premium paid by more than 4 million UK households for prepayment meters, bringing their charges into line with those paid by comparable customers using direct debit. This Government are absolutely committed to supporting people who face cost of living pressures.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I know that the Prime Minister and the Government are entirely focused on helping people to deal with those pressures. However, the focus of the SNP Government seems to be elsewhere, as we saw last weekend when the First Minister announced that the next election would be entirely focused on yet another independence referendum. Does the Minister agree that that is the wrong priority for Scotland, and that Scotland’s two Governments should be working together to improve the delivery of public services and help people with the cost of living?

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both of Scotland’s Governments—the UK Government and the Scottish Government—should be focused on delivering better public services and supporting people with the cost of living, but instead we hear the SNP cheering about another independence referendum. This Government remain focused on delivering for the people of Scotland; I am just sad that the SNP Government in Edinburgh fail to do so.

North Street, Keighley: Green Space

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

May I extend my thanks to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent debate? It is truly urgent, because in just 10 days’ time, people in Keighley will be heading to the polls to vote in a public referendum to determine the fate of a key strategic site in the heart of Keighley.

I am, of course, talking about the much-loved green space that adjoins North Street and the top of Cavendish Street, right in the centre of Keighley. It is a unique site, and people in Keighley quite rightly care about its future. They want to have a say in how it looks, how it feels, how it interacts with the remainder of Keighley’s streetscape and, of course, how is utilised long into the future.

The unique site was once the home of Keighley College, before the college was demolished and rebuilt on a bigger and better site, presenting a rare opportunity for a newly created open site right in the heart of Keighley, ready to be used by all. It was sown with grass and was quickly adopted, by all across Keighley, by the name “the green space”. Hope was raised and a new open green space was created. A new green lung right in the heart of Keighley was formed, with the potential to go on to be landscaped as a fantastic town centre space, perhaps planted with trees, wild flowers, and a permanent grassed area for all in Keighley to enjoy—because place, and a sense of place, are important.

If you were to join me in Keighley, Madam Deputy Speaker—and you are very welcome to do so, as is the Minister—you would see some of the fantastic architecture that we have there. North Street, for instance, has some beautiful buildings. Some, of course, are in need of refurbishment, but nevertheless, those buildings are stunning. Cavendish Street is the same. While our high streets face some challenges, as many high streets do, our town centre has soul, and I believe that the green space—uniquely positioned in the centre of town, at the junction of North Street and Cavendish Street, opposite the fantastically imposing beauty of the Carnegie library, adjacent to the town hall and the Town Hall Square with our awe-inspiring cenotaph—makes the soul of our town all the better.

All this is at risk, however. Labour-run Bradford Council is determined to build on this key site, stripping away that hope of Keighley’s town centre streetscape being improved by a permanent green space in the centre of our town. As I said earlier, place and the sense of place are important, and, in my view, Bradford Council’s determination to build on the site, no matter what, only illustrates its lack of willingness to consider the negative impact that that will have on Keighley’s soul. But there is a bigger, underlying, and much more detrimental issue. We are governed by a local authority that is unprepared to listen—to listen to what the people in Keighley want.

I am proud to say that this Conservative Government announced that Keighley would receive £33.6 million as part of its towns fund deal. That included some seriously exciting projects for our town, including a new skills hub, a new manufacturing, engineering and future tech hub, and more money for town centre improvements, regeneration, and cultural offerings such as Keighley Creative—but also funding for many, many other projects.

I am also proud to say that as part of the Keighley towns fund deal, this Conservative Government have allocated money to help deliver a new health and wellbeing hub, to improve local healthcare services and address some of the health and wellbeing inequalities in our town. I am delighted to have been directly involved in helping to secure these funds, along with the great team which forms our Keighley towns fund board, an advisory body in which many are volunteers and give up their own time to help Keighley in a positive way.

We do need a new health and wellbeing hub: one needs only to speak to representatives of the many great organisations in Keighley that provide health and wellbeing services to realise and acknowledge that. However, throughout the towns fund application process, even during the many years before my time representing Keighley, Bradford Council has been determined to ensure that the green space is built on, no matter what.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Yet again, he is demonstrating what a feisty campaigner he is for his constituents in Keighley and Ilkley. Although my constituency is, of course, some distance from Keighley, I do know the green space, and I understand the points that he is making. Does he agree that this is an example of the need for local authorities to listen and devolve decision making as close to the people as possible, so that they secure the best possible outcome that reflects the views of local residents?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If we want to place-make, and if local authorities are in the position to regenerate a town, it is absolutely crucial that they listen to what the local people and the town council want. In that way, we can make sure that when we are in a position to place-make and the local authority is being issued with Government funds, it will deliver on what local people want in the location where local people want to see it.

We are unfortunate because Bradford Council is fixated on ensuring that the green space is built on, no matter what. It has adopted the position that this is the only place in the whole of the centre of Keighley in which a new health and wellbeing hub can be located. That is despite the fact that Keighley has many other brownfield site options and many other empty buildings and vacant premises in the centre of our town, all of which, over many years—even prior to the existence of the towns fund—the Council has failed to properly explore. It has failed to carry out site analysis of other sites or openly consider other site options.

I very much want to see a new health and wellbeing hub built in Keighley. We need one, but we should not be railroaded into a corner and told by Bradford Council that building on the green space is the only option. This, in my mind, is a result of the council’s lack of preparation, lack of due diligence and lack of consideration of other sites for many years. This should not be an either/or choice. In Keighley, we should be able to have a new health and wellbeing hub and keep the green space on North Street green. In fact, it is surely far more beneficial for the health and wellbeing of Keighley to have both.

Local authorities have an important role in regeneration. If they function properly, with due thought and consideration for a town, they can have a real place in making sure that we develop and regenerate a town in the appropriate manner. They can help communities to grow and thrive, and they can deliver on the community’s priorities. But this involves listening to what the community wants, and I come back to the point that I made earlier. My issue is not with the identified need for a new health and wellbeing hub at all; it is simply about the location. Unfortunately, in this case, Bradford Council has failed properly to engage with Keighley. It has failed to consider just how much this green space—this unique space in the centre of Keighley—matters to the people of the town. The council’s lack of inquisitiveness, preparation and ability to engage with our community and listen to its voice is detrimental to the process of proper place-making.

This has not been without trying. Local campaigners such as Laura Kelly and our former Keighley town mayor, Councillor Julie Adams, have tried on many occasions to tell Bradford Council that residents in Keighley would like the green space to stay green. Likewise, the Keighley Central ward District Councillor Mohammad Nazam and Keighley West ward District Councillor Julie Glentworth, as well as Worth Valley Councillors Rebecca Poulsen, Chris Herd and Russell Brown, have tried to get Bradford Council to listen and to make their voices heard in Bradford’s City Hall, but no one in Bradford’s running administration would listen.

I have to say that Labour-run Bradford Council’s approach to debate on the green space has been shameful. All its Labour councillors in Keighley are failing to listen on this issue. Let us be clear: Labour is determined to build on this green space, no matter what. When the council’s political executive gathered to discuss building on the green space just over a month ago, Keighley town councillor and local campaigner Councillor Paul Cook turned up to a meeting at Bradford Council in good faith to put forward his views. He had a pre-registered slot to speak at the meeting, but he was silenced by the council and not given the time to speak properly on this matter. Place-making is about listening to what local communities want, not silencing them.

At the end of last month I, along with many other residents, attended a packed public meeting in Keighley’s civic centre. It was an opportunity kindly organised by Keighley Town Council to allow local people to raise their views. The mood of the room was strong and represented, I believe, the mood of the wider town, which is absolutely clear. We want to save our green space.

As a result, Keighley Town Council decided to hold a public vote on this very matter, triggered by Keighley resident Graham Mitchell. This public poll will take place in just 10 days’ time, and everyone in Keighley will have the chance to vote on Thursday 21 July between 4 pm and 9 pm. Everybody living in the town council parish area, which includes Riddlesden, East Morton, Beechcliffe, Utley, Ingrow, Long Lee and Thwaites Brow, Guard House, Braithwaite, Bracken Bank, Oakworth, Laycock and, of course, the wider Keighley area, will be able to vote in their regular polling station. Any constituent who is unsure of where this is can find out by searching wheredoivote.co.uk or by calling Bradford Council’s election office.

This really matters because people in Keighley will be asked three questions on the ballot paper, and the choice for all is very clear. The first question is, “Do you want a new health and wellbeing hub?” As I have said, we need a new health and wellbeing hub in the centre of Keighley, and I am therefore urging everyone to say yes.

Secondly, residents will be asked, “Do you want a new health and wellbeing hub on the vacant land at the corner of North Street and Cavendish Street?” This is, of course, the green space. There are other places in the centre of Keighley, which should be explored, where a new health and wellbeing hub could be located. Of course, I want to keep the green space green, and I am therefore urging all residents to answer no.

Finally, residents will be asked, “Should the vacant land at the corner of North Street and Cavendish Street be considered as a public open space?” This is our chance—the people of Keighley’s chance—to send Bradford Council a clear message to save this green space for many generations to enjoy into the future. To keep it green, I am urging all to vote yes.

This is an important moment for our town. Developments like the one proposed by Bradford Council are irreversible. If we lose our green space, this unique space in the centre of town, we will never get it back. I reiterate my call for as many people as possible to get involved and make their views known. I am urging people to vote yes, no, yes in the referendum. We must ensure this green space is protected for the future generations of Keighley, like the children at St Anne’s Primary School, which is located next to the green space, who kindly wrote to me saying that they want the green space to be kept green. If it is destroyed now, there will be no turning back.

This is not an either/or choice. I want to see a new health and wellbeing hub and I want to protect our green space, to protect and enhance the soul of our town. In just 10 days’ time, the people of Keighley will have a clear choice, and I urge them all to get out and vote on Thursday 21 July, to let their voice be heard. Let us keep it green.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill

Debate between Robbie Moore and John Lamont

3rd reading
Friday 21st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I am delighted to speak in the debate. Like others before me, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on all the work that he has done in bringing forward this important Bill. We have before us today a great opportunity to improve the safety of taxi passengers, particularly women and other vulnerable users. I am delighted to support the Bill and pleased that the Government are doing so, too.

Amending the law in this way to improve safety is most welcome across the board, but I think it is important to note that this measure is designed to target a minority of taxi drivers who have committed sexual offences, caused physical or psychological harm, or threatened or harassed another person, and for whom licensing authorities have refused to grant or renew a licence, or have suspended or revoked a licence, because of certain safeguarding or road safety concerns. In short, those are actions that make someone—often, a woman—feel unsafe or that put them in danger. Indeed, the Bill focuses on stopping a sinister few from abusing, threatening or causing harm to passengers. I think it is important to keep that in perspective while debating the Bill.

Before I get to the crux of the Bill, I want to take the opportunity briefly to speak more broadly about taxi firms and their contribution to wider society. I pay tribute R&L Taxis, based in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. R&L Taxis provide veterans with free taxi lifts through the “Fares 4 Free” scheme, allowing our veterans to get around properly and ensuring that they do not become isolated. During the pandemic, R&L Taxis have offered NHS staff half-price rides, with drivers even dropping off and picking up the same individual after long driving shifts. The owner of the firm, Bruce Mercer, is a veteran himself and has built up relationships with many members of the local community. This work and the service provided by R&L Taxis are to be commended; I am very glad to have the opportunity to recognise Bruce and all the drivers at R&L Taxis in this place today.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Bruce Mercer has obviously done a fantastic job. Does my hon. Friend agree that this illustrates that some taxi firms do fantastic work in providing safe transport for many of our constituents? Bruce Mercer is clearly going out of his way to provide that at a reduced cost so that many veterans and those who feel isolated are able to benefit from that service.