Support for Pig Farmers

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate.

The British pig sector is in crisis, and our pig farmers need our help. My hon. Friends the Members for Gordon and Buchan and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) rightly spoke the challenges north of the border. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) rightly called on the Minister to ensure that no independent farmer is unable to have their pigs processed. That is absolutely the crux of the issue.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. The British pig sector contributes about £14 billion to our economy—£2 billion at the farm gate, £7 billion in retail sales, and exports to 88 counties worth almost £500 million. It is a major part of our farming industry, and we cannot afford to let the current financial challenges go any further.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is right to outline the exports from the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, we export almost 80% of our product, so it is even more critical for us.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely. There must be a UK-wide approach.

The warning signs have been there for months. Since last autumn, the sector has been hit by oversupply, stagnant demand, falling European prices, factory disruptions and rising costs all at once. At one point earlier this year, around 100,000 pigs were backed up on British farms. That backlog has largely cleared now, but not without cost. The standard pig price has fallen by around 30p a kilogram, from roughly 208p to 178p.

That is only part of the picture, because the vast majority of independent farmers will be receiving much less than that, as was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan. No market can survive on those terms. Without urgent action, the sector faces being pushed towards collapse. It is our independent producers who are bearing the brunt of the pressures faced by the sector, with thousands now seeing their contracts terminated early by major processors. Somewhere between 12,000 and 14,000 pigs a week are affected by notices being served on producers.

The Government simply cannot stand on the sidelines and hope that the market corrects itself, because by autumn, the industry fears that up to 10,000 to 15,000 pigs a week could have no market at all. If nothing changes, we know what follows—more farm closures, more herds reduced and more businesses walking away from the industry altogether.

The fair dealing obligations for pig contracts were brought in to fix the problem exposed by the last crisis—unequal bargaining power, poor contracts and a lack of fairness between producers and processors. We can all agree that those were worthwhile aims but if, during the implementation period, producers are still seeing contracts terminated early in record numbers and our farmers are still losing money on every pig they sell, the Government have to ask whether the regulations are doing what Parliament originally intended. Will the Minister commit today to an urgent assessment of whether the regulations are fit for purpose?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) noted, there are also longer-term challenges. The threat from African swine fever and foot and mouth disease is real and ongoing. Protecting our borders from illegal meat imports and strengthening our disease defences must be a priority. What are the Government doing to work across Departments, including with the Home Office, to make sure that these live issues are addressed?

The industry also needs a sensible workforce strategy. Like much of agriculture, pig farming is struggling with labour shortages. It needs a strategy that builds a workforce based on domestic skills and apprenticeships.

We must also address the issue of transparency. Customers want to buy British and retail labelling has come a long way, but food services still rely heavily on imported pork, often with far less clarity about where that pork comes from. British producers deserve a level playing field and British consumers deserve to know what is on their plate.

That is why the Conservative party has proposed closing the loophole that lets imported food, once merely processed or packaged in the UK, carry branding that many shoppers reasonably mistake as British. What progress has been made since the Government’s response on the food labelling consultation? Do the Government intend to strengthen country of origin rules?

British pig farmers are not asking the Government to solve every single commercial challenge, but they are asking for regulations that genuinely protect producers rather than leave them exposed. Above all, they are asking the Government to recognise the strategic importance of British food production before more independent producers simply disappear for good.

We cannot lose more of this vital industry. For the sake of our farmers, our rural communities and our country’s long-term food security, the Government must engage with key stakeholders. It is disappointing to hear that the last bilateral meeting between Ministers and the National Pig Association was back in September 2025. I call on the Minister to have an urgent meeting—I understand there may be one tomorrow. If that is the case, will the Minister guarantee that those meetings will continue at pace and at regular intervals with the British Pig Association, so that we can make sure that this vital industry is protected long into the future?

State of Climate and Nature

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.

I am sure that no one in this House disputes the importance of protecting our climate or restoring nature; the real question is whether this Government are capable of delivering both. The Minister speaks about climate and nature as priorities, yet the Government have repeatedly chosen to target the very individuals tasked with delivering: our farmers, who are the frontline custodians of our natural world.

Let us have a look at the choices this Government have already made in the past two years, which are in direct contradiction to the ambitions the Minister has set out. First, part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 was rightly heavily criticised by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which warned that the legislation would

“rip the heart out of environmental protections and risks sending nature further into freefall.”

The Wildlife Trust directly challenged this Government’s growth-at-all-costs rhetoric, stating:

“Before the General Election Labour promised to restore nature”,

yet the Government are instead driving environmental regression. Both organisations took the extraordinary step of demanding that part 3 be completely removed, as did the Opposition.

Secondly, last September the Minister pushed through a blanket ban on the controlled burning of heather on deep peat. In doing so, the Government completely ignored the warnings of the National Fire Chiefs Council, the National Farmers’ Union and many environmental scientists who understood, quite rightly, that by blocking land managers from conducting traditional, heavily regulated rotational burnings, this Government are letting massive fuel loads build up across our moorland, effectively creating a tinderbox and vastly increasing the risk of devastating wildfires that destroy the very peatlands and biodiversity that this Government claim they want to protect.

Thirdly, the Government have completely undermined the sustainable farming incentive. With only £240 million allocated to this year’s applications, the Government have, in effect, made the whole scheme competitive entry. To make matters worse, by capping agreements at £100,000, they are actively pushing the most ambitious, large-scale nature restoration projects in the country out of the window. We cannot achieve a massive 30 by 30 target by cutting funding, reducing green options and telling farmers that large-scale conservation efforts are no longer welcome.

Fourthly, as a result of this Government’s choice to remove the onshore wind farm moratorium, we are now in the ridiculous scenario of applications coming forward to build large-scale wind farms on protected peatland, such as the proposal for the Calderdale wind farm in West Yorkshire, despite warnings from academics and groups like the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust that, if approved, these projects will release massive amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere. The list goes on.

Today’s statement offers no new protections, relying instead on a fragmented, reactive approach that tries to hit targets, rather than redefining how we count and reference land and actually doing anything positive about it. The choices that this Government have made in the past two years do not represent a road map to nature recovery. Before coming forward with today’s statement, what consideration did the Government make of the impacts of their choices over the past two years on the targets set out in this plan? Does the Minister agree that those policies are in direct contradiction with the delivery ambitions that this Government have brought to the House today?

[Mary Creagh]

I am disappointed by the nature and tone of the hon. Gentleman’s response to our attempts to right some of the wrongs left behind by the previous Government.

The hon. Gentleman asked in particular about the Planning and Infrastructure Act. What we have done through that Act is introduce strategic policy statements to prioritise outcomes over process, so that Natural England and the Environment Agency can speed up decision making while maintaining high environmental standards. We have given them £100 million over three years to fund specialist staff and modern digital systems to cut costly delays for planners.

It was clear when we came into government that the status quo for development and nature was simply not working. Fragmented site-by-site environmental requirements and increasing costs were adding to the delays to the much-needed housing and infrastructure that this country needs. It was not working for nature either, and the condition of many of our most important habitats and species was continuing to decline. The nature restoration fund will support development and ensure that the money spent by developers on environmental mitigation delivers more. It is a simple levy payment that Natural England will use to deliver impactful conservation measures at scale instead of having a piecemeal approach.

Let me talk a little about peat. Some 80% of England’s peatlands are degraded. We are investing £85 million in their restoration by 2030. Since we have come into government, approximately 10,000 hectares of peatlands have been brought into restoration through our nature for climate peatland grant scheme. Last week we announced £44 million for lowland peat—which I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s Government invested in—and we expect another 4,000 hectares to be restored this year. We have the target, which his Government set, to restore an additional 40,000 hectares by 2030.

Rotational burning is a contributory factor to 80% of peatlands being degraded. It makes it difficult to restore peat to its natural hydrology and impossible to return it to its natural state. It is also really bad for air quality locally. It damages peatlands, shifts species composition, disrupts the hydrology of peat and, crucially, releases stored carbon, increasing vulnerability to wildfire. Wetter, healthy and functioning peatlands are much more resilient to the impacts of wildfire.

We have published our farming road map, and through the new environmental land management schemes, we are supporting smaller farmers—those organic farmers that were excluded from the larger schemes that the hon. Gentleman talked about. We are spatially targeting, so that we get bigger, better and more joined-up protected areas for nature and wildlife.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Delinked payments dramatically reduced; SFI stopped and started and ultimately made competitive; targets to dramatically reduce livestock numbers recommended; the state given more power to buy farmland below market value; the fertiliser tax; the double cab pick-up tax; the introduction of family farm and family business tax; Natural England given more power; an EU realignment deal that is set to cost our farmers thousands and result in job losses; and the annual grant for young farmers removed for the first time—oh, but beavers have been released. Which one of those measures that the Secretary of State has introduced in the last two years does she think will support the long-term financial sustainability of our farming businesses?

[Emma Reynolds]

I would take our record over the hon. Gentleman’s record any time. The Conservatives could not even be bothered to spend the farming budget when they were in power. They sold farmers down the river on various trade deals, but we have not; we have protected farmers in our trade deals. We have set out the first-ever long-term road map and vision for the farming sector, and we have worked closely with it. We commissioned Minette Batters, the former president of the NFU, to do an independent profitability review, and we are taking forward the vast majority of her recommendations. We are working in close partnership with the sector. That is all in stark contrast with what happened under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

Draft Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The regulations represent an important step in enabling the deployment of small modular reactors in the United Kingdom. They are a necessary part of the regulatory framework and provide the legal basis for determining that the benefits of the technology outweigh the potential health detriments associated with ionising radiation. The technology has the potential to strengthen our energy security, support thousands of highly skilled jobs and grow our manufacturing base at a time when electricity demand is expected to rise significantly. It is vital that we have a diverse mix of energy, with nuclear playing a key role alongside other forms of energy generation.

The official Opposition welcome the selection of Rolls-Royce to build the UK’s first small modular reactor; Rolls-Royce has world-leading expertise in nuclear engineering, a highly skilled workforce and a proven track record of delivering complex nuclear technologies. The prospect of British designed and British built SMRs generating clean reliable electricity is something that Members across the House should support. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined a clear timeframe for when the generic design assessment process is expected to conclude. When will financial decisions be taken and when will construction begin? Most importantly, when will the first electricity be generated?

Small modular reactors are a promising technology, but they are only one form of nuclear power; they must be combined with large-scale nuclear power stations as well. If the UK is serious about becoming a global leader in small modular reactors, we must move with greater urgency. We need certainty from manufacturers, confidence for supply chains, and opportunities for apprentices, engineers and communities that stand to benefit from these projects.

The official Opposition will not oppose these regulations, which represent sensible progress. But we urge the Government to match this important regulatory decision with the ambition, urgency and leadership that the UK’s nuclear future requires.

Air Pollution

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I commend the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important debate. He has spoken about the issue many times in this place, so I know it is one that he cares deeply about.

Air pollution is one of the greatest public health and environmental challenges facing our country today: it contributes to thousands of premature deaths every year, worsens respiratory diseases, harms our natural environment and, as was outlined in the contributions of many hon. Members, places an enormous amount of pressure on our NHS. All of that reduces productivity and participation in the workplace, costing the UK economy about £27 billion annually. That is largely due to healthcare costs, productivity losses and reduced quality of life. When wider impacts such as dementia are accounted for, the economic cost of air quality not being addressed may be as high as £50 billion.

Air pollution also disproportionately affects the most deprived communities—13% of people in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom live in the 10% of areas with the highest air pollution, compared with only 7% of people in the least deprived neighbourhoods. The health impacts of that are seismic, as exposure to air pollution can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer. It can also cause damage to the reproductive and central nervous systems, as has also been mentioned by several Members. In particular, exposure to air pollution in childhood can have lasting, lifelong effects and can affect cognitive development or increase the risk of developing a chronic disease. Health risks from exposure to air pollution should not be a postcode lottery. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the Chamber what targeted action the Government will be taking to address that gap in exposure to poor air quality.

The Conservative party has a proud record when it comes to improving air quality, but there is much more to be done, as outlined in today’s contributions. Air quality in the UK has continually improved since 2010. The levels of all the key pollutants, bar ammonia, have fallen by over 70%, with levels of PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ falling by 27% and 20% respectively between 2014 and 2024. The previous Government’s 2019 clean air strategy was described by the World Health Organisation at the time as

“an example for the rest of the world to follow”.

The strategy set out the comprehensive action required to meet the legally binding targets to reduce emissions of the five key pollutants by 2020 and 2030 respectively.

The previous Government also passed the Environment Act 2021, which introduced statutory targets for PM_2.5 to achieve at least a 35% reduction in population exposure by 31 December 2040. Furthermore, the previous Administration’s 2023 environmental improvement plan set out a direction to support clean air, with measures including reducing the maximum emissions for domestic burning appliances in smoke-controlled areas by promoting best practices, challenging local authorities to rightly improve air quality, continuing to support the move away from petrol and diesel cars, and consulting on an extension to the existing North sea emission control area to cover the Irish sea, reducing emissions from shipping.

The roll-out of any strategy, legislation, guidance or regulation that focuses on improving air quality must also take into account the economic, social and environmental impact, so that the best strategy is adopted and there is the best buy-in from residents and businesses. Without their buy-in, air quality is simply not improved at the rate that we would all like to see. It is no good bringing out legislation that then has a wider detrimental effect.

That is why, as the official Opposition, we oppose the Government’s restrictions on wood-burning stoves. For many people living in rural areas, wood burners are an affordable, reliable and often essential source of heat where mains gas is unavailable and the alternatives are impractical and expensive to put in place.

We also committed to scrapping the zero emission vehicle mandate to reinvigorate the car manufacturing industry in Britain. There should still be a transition to cleaner transport, but it must be driven by affordability, practicality and technological progress. It should not be dictated by unrealistic mandates or the weakening of domestic manufacturing. Again, a balance must be struck if we are to improve air quality.

That is why a strategy of simply taxing motorists is just not the right approach. The Mayor of London’s expansion of ULEZ is having hugely damaging financial consequences on some of the poorest and most deprived residents and communities in London, as well as on many motorists and trade-related businesses.

[Uma Kumaran]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I would like to explore what the Mayor of London is doing for those travelling on the tube—the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) may be able to indicate this in her intervention, because I know she was involved—because there has been hardly any focus on that in the mayor’s strategy.

[Uma Kumaran]

The Conservatives in City Hall called the whole of ULEZ “bewildering” and have objected to it at every turn. I read out the statistics earlier: there has been a 40% reduction in nitrogen oxide levels and a huge positive impact in London from ULEZ. The Mayor of London won two decisive elections after its introduction. London has also been recognised as a global leader by the United Nations. The Secretary-General himself invited the Mayor of London to the United Nations to speak about ULEZ and London’s climate action. Should the hon. Member not congratulate London for its climate action and decisive air quality improvements, and actually support that good work?

[Robbie Moore]

I will specifically address that point, but I will use one further example before I do. The same approach as the ULEZ has been applied to the Bradford district, in which my constituency sits.

A clean air zone has been rolled out in Bradford, but it is a strategy that is again taxing motorists and some of the hardest-working people in our communities—including some of the most deprived communities, who are simply not able to afford the levels of tax imposed on them. Of course there are other ways of doing it, but before I come on to them I want to address the fact that if a resident or someone with a business on the outskirts of Bradford wants to travel into Bradford in a light goods vehicle, it now costs them £9 a day. That has a detrimental impact on business growth. It costs a coach driver, a heavy goods vehicle driver or a bus driver £50 a day to take their vehicle into Bradford. That is also having a huge detrimental impact.

Since the scheme was launched in 2023, £26.7 million has been raised. Of that, £9.8 million was raised through entry fees but £16.4 million was raised through penalty charge notices, the vast majority of which were for people who could not afford to pay, and who therefore had to go to court for that money to be extracted from them.

My point is that we cannot simply have a strategy that charges people if we want complete buy-in. That is why I use the example of the roll-out in Manchester. It will be interesting to see what the strategy of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will be, because when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester he opposed a chargeable clean air zone tax across Greater Manchester. Indeed, at the time, all five local authorities that make up Greater Manchester also heavily lobbied the Government for a non-charging approach to be adopted. Such an approach was therefore signed off, which resulted in investment in electrification, upgrade grants and traffic control measures. Those were all rolled out in Manchester—approved by the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, the right hon. Member for Makerfield—and they had buy-in at the local level.

I would therefore simply say in response to the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow that there are other ways of doing it, rather than simply having a taxing approach. Will the Minister outline whether he has had discussions with the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who is likely to become the Prime Minister, about what the future clean air zone strategy will be under the new Administration? Will the Minister also outline the cost to the taxpayer of all the infrastructure that was put in place but not used for the roll-out of that clean air zone—a tax to the motorist—across the Greater Manchester area?

It is therefore vital that when we consider how to tackle air pollution and improve air quality, the Government work across Departments to ensure that there are no unintended adverse impacts on businesses and indeed on our rural communities. I absolutely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Brent West: we cannot have a siloed approach across Government. I therefore ask the Minister to provide an assurance that any forthcoming strategy will not be siloed just within DEFRA but will instead take a co-ordinated approach across Government.

Communities across the country continue to breathe polluted air every single day. It is an unfortunate thing to say, but that is the reality. We must do much more, with buy-in from businesses and residents, and only if it is not detrimental to driving local growth. Parents worry about children walking to school alongside congested roads and elderly residents and those living with asthma or heart disease face unnecessary health risks. Those are not abstract narratives; they are everyday realities for millions of people. We must, therefore, work together to ensure that all of our constituents breathe cleaner, healthier air.

To have a clean air strategy, we have to have buy-in from all and not just use a one-size-fits-all approach by taxing those in our communities who are most deprived. They are the ones who need to benefit from the clean air zone strategy because of where they live.

Farming: Financial Sustainability

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this important debate.

I welcome the Minister to his place. His natural passion and enthusiasm for this vital sector is evident in the zero parliamentary mentions he made of farming prior to his appointment, despite his having been elected in 2017. Nevertheless, I wish him all the best. For the good of the sector, I hope that he gets out and engages with the farming community more than his predecessor, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle).

This debate is about financial sustainability for the farming sector. Over the past two years, this Labour Government have continually pulled the rug out from under our farmers. We have had the sudden and unannounced closure of the SFI scheme, the rapid acceleration of delinked payments, the introduction of the family farm and family business tax, the jobs tax and, soon, the fertiliser tax. The result? Record farm closures under this Labour Government, and greater food insecurity than we have seen before.

Our farmers are fed up, worried and increasingly concerned about the future of their farming businesses and their livelihoods. I know that because, unlike the Government, the shadow DEFRA team and I have been out and about, travelling up and down the country, attending agricultural shows and speaking to farmers across the United Kingdom. We have been to the Royal Highland Show, the Royal Cornwall Show, the Royal Cheshire Show, the Lincolnshire Show, the Essex Country Show, the Balmoral Show in Belfast, and Cereals—just to name a few. The locations may vary, but the same theme comes out again and again: devastating cash flow challenges as a result of the fiscal decisions made by this Labour Government.

Unlike in other professions, income from agriculture can be volatile. Farm businesses are price takers, and the determinants of the prices they receive are out of their control. By the time the crops or livestock reach the market, prices may have dropped, but goods must be sold anyway. Income schemes such as the SFI are so important—but not in the Government’s eyes, with their chop-and-change approach. Under this Government, the schemes are not providing any reassurance or support to the majority of farmers. Last year, the Government closed applications for the SFI scheme with no warning, and yet again they have announced a budget that does not meet farmers’ requirements.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend agree that another uncertainty is coming down the path? The Climate Change Committee is asking farmers to reduce livestock numbers by up to 40%. That would devastate and make unviable so many farms—complete madness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. On the day when the farming roadmap has been announced, this just shows the direction that the Government want to take: to destock and produce food less. The key question from the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the Secretary of State did not answer in the Chamber was: if that is the ambition of the Government, where is our food coming from?

The £100,000 cap for the SFI will be a disaster, resulting in lower environmental roll-outs. The changes to delinked payments that went through as a statutory instrument just a couple of weeks ago had no costed impact assessment associated with them. It is an absolute disgrace that Labour MPs all voted to drastically reduce the payments despite no impact assessment having been done.

The Conservative party has been clear that we will reverse the family farm and family business taxes. We will reinstall the 100% relief on agricultural and business property because we know the huge negative implications that is having on family businesses needing to mitigate any inheritance tax liability and on the investment they are able to put into their businesses. That is impacting not only our primary producers but the wider supply chain. I say to those Labour MPs that they should be ashamed of themselves for continuously voting that through.

Then we come to the challenges associated with input costs, including the fertiliser tax. If we want to increase or stabilise domestic self-sufficiency at 63%, why on earth are the Government coming through with the fertiliser tax? It has been raised as a concern, but the Government seem unwilling to tackle the challenge. The Conservatives will scrap that tax. [Interruption.]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. There has been a lot of chuntering while the shadow Minister has been on his feet. If you wish to try to intervene on the shadow Minister, please do—he may give way. However, do not chunter constantly when people are trying to make a speech.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank you, Mr Turner, for your advice to colleagues. If they wish to intervene, they are more than welcome to do so.

Red diesel has been a huge challenge: its price rose dramatically from 67p a litre to about £1.35p a litre at its peak. However, the Government’s rebate or reduction applies only to this year. If someone is growing crops or producing livestock, they need greater certainty beyond this calendar year. I call on the Minister to reinstate a level of reassurance that goes beyond the end of this calendar year.

We then have the EU reset. Pushed by EU members, the Government have put back the date beyond 22 July. However, CropLife UK has rightly estimated that the EU reset deal, as it is being promoted at the moment, could drain £810 million from UK farmers and sacrifice almost 9,000 jobs. What reassurance can the Minister provide to our arable sectors, which are suffering and struggling right now?

Today we had the announcement about the farming roadmap for the next 25 years. Where is the reassurance that cross-sector Government Departments have bought into that? Labour’s record on this is not good. It does not matter what food strategy the Secretary of State for DEFRA comes out with: if a Chancellor comes out with fiscal decisions like those under the last two years of this Labour Government, that will blow any food strategy out of the water.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I suspect that the shadow Minister is going to bring his remarks to an end very soon.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely, Mr Turner.

The financial sustainability and profitability of the farming sector is vital. Through the choices that the Government have made and voted on, they have demonstrated that when the revolving door of farming Ministers say that food security is national security, that is just warm words.

Water Safety

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing this really important debate. He has been a staunch advocate of this issue since his election to Parliament, and I commend him on his efforts. He works closely with the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) on this issue. I pay tribute to the bravery and courage of Vanessa Abbess, the constituent of the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen; she has been a tireless campaigner on water safety since the death of her son, Joe, in a riptide current in 2023.

I also want to acknowledge the work of several third-party organisations that have done so much good and important work on this issue, including the Royal Life Saving Society UK and Swim England, whose commitment to water safety and education has been tremendous and whose good work has saved lives. I also pay tribute to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for the work it does in saving lives at sea.

This is an emotive topic. I thank all Members who have spoken for their commitment on this issue and for the work they have done on behalf of their constituents. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen rightly advocated for better cross-Government support and a dedicated Minister. Having previously been the water Minister, I know how much of a struggle it is to pull together all Ministers with responsibility for water, so I commend and agree with the point he raised about trying to achieve better interministerial involvement. I also commend his work on raising awareness around a national campaign. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) rightly raised the important work of stakeholders such as national parks in this area. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised concerns about swimming in dangerous locations such as quarries, as well as the need for increased awareness.

The hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) gave an impassioned speech about Chiedza, a young girl from her constituency who unfortunately passed away after getting into difficulty. I commend the work the hon. Lady is doing on behalf of her constituents, advocating for swimming lessons and increased awareness. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme also gave an impassioned speech about Sam, who unfortunately passed away in the River Don. He rightly raised the concerns of Sam’s family about increasing awareness and the role of legislators in putting pressure on stakeholders, such as water companies, and on the education system. I hope the Government will consider the key points in Sam’s law, as there are critical recommendations they could take forward.

The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) rightly mentioned challenges in winter months, as well as hot periods, and the importance of water safety. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) again raised the importance of having water safety encompassed in the curriculum and spoke about the challenges facing West Coast Paddlers in gaining access to the leisure centre. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned the importance of creating safe spaces to swim outdoors; I wish her the best of luck with her lido application in York.

I have my own challenges in Keighley. There was a tragedy in the summer of 2021 when a 27-year-old man passed away after getting into difficulties at Ponden reservoir. I put on record my thanks to the Keighley Sea Cadets, who work tirelessly on behalf of constituents to raise awareness around water safety. I was lucky enough to join them recently at Ponden Mill near Stanbury to see their great work.

We have seen the terrible statistics that more than 19 people died in the water in one week during the most recent hot period. I reassure all hon. Members that we are committed to working cross-party with the Government to reduce the incidence of deaths in water, and increase the provision of swimming lessons and water safety education. We also need education for those involved in emergency situations. The figures are stark: between 2020 and 2025, more than 1,600 people died by accidental drowning, with three times as many drownings occurring during extreme heat as opposed to a typical summer’s day, and 47% occurring between May and August.

As several hon. Members rightly mentioned, education is key to preventing deaths in water, and that must start as early as possible. Under the previous Government, the Department for Education announced extra support for schools in a bid to ensure that every child could swim and be safe in and around water by the end of primary school, as part of the sporting future strategy. That was backed by £320 million through the PE and sport premium, with measures including extra lessons for children who did not meet expectations after core lessons.

Under this Government, work continues to improve water safety, such as the integration of the water safety code into new education guidance. I also welcome the additional funding put in place for this academic year for the PE and sport premium, which is used by primary schools to support swimming and water safety lessons.

There is, however, much more to be done, as all Members have noted. There remains a major issue regarding access to opportunities. A Sport England report estimates that just 74% of children now leave school able to swim 25 metres, which is down from the figure before the pandemic. That is not just a gap in ability but starkly corresponds to the demographic areas those children come from. Only 37% of children from low-income families are able to swim 25 metres compared with 76% of children from more affluent backgrounds—a point noted by the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). The result is that children from the most deprived areas are twice as likely to drown. I would be keen to understand from the Minister what steps the Government are taking to address that inequality, not only in the curriculum but in access to swimming facilities.

Another issue is the lack of suitable facilities in which water safety and water confidence can be taught. Swim England has found that 76% of publicly accessible water space has been lost over the last two decades. This is a twofold issue: on the one hand, water safety cannot be taught without pools, and on the other hand, the lack of publicly accessible water space could drive people to swim in unsafe spaces, as Members have noted. What are the Government doing to ensure that more facilities such as swimming pools are made available to our constituents, and that they remain open?

In addition to increasing access to swimming pools and delivering swimming lessons, there is a great deal of work to do to ensure that the general public are aware of all aspects of water safety. It is about not just teaching people to swim but ensuring that they are aware of the risks presented by entering water. Cold water shock, not an inability to swim, is identified as the primary mechanism of accidental drowning in UK open water, triggered by sudden immersion in water below 15°. The RNLI and the National Water Safety Forum’s “Float to Live” campaign teaches a specific counter-response: if you fall into cold water unexpectedly, do not fight it; lean back, spread your arms and legs, and float. Investing in and supporting awareness campaigns such as “Float to Live” is vital if we are to significantly reduce the number of deaths in UK waters. I would therefore like to understand what the Government are doing to help those organisations.

I would also like to understand what more the Water Minister feels could be done to the likes of bathing water regulations. It is constantly being advocated that the title of “bathing water” alone creates the presumption that the designated area is safe to swim in, but many of those designations are in river systems and on the coast where it is not necessarily safe to swim. The designations are more about water quality than the safety of the water.

It is clear that, despite the best intentions of current and previous Governments, we are not doing enough when it comes to water safety and the prevention of drowning. Many have rightly declared drowning a silent epidemic, and we must work cross-party to ensure that there is greater preparedness among the general public when it comes to water safety. I reassure all Members that the Opposition will work with the Government on this issue on behalf of all our constituents.

Draft REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 General Committees

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

The draft regulations will extend the current legislative deadlines for registration to submit information to the Health and Safety Executive under UK REACH. They will also extend the period during which downstream users and distributors who were importing from the EU before the end of the EU exit implementation period can continue to import chemicals from the EU without submitting a full registration. The official Opposition support this measure, because ultimately it seeks to serve businesses and save them money by extending deadlines.

The deadlines have already been extended twice, both times by the previous Administration: first in 2020, then in 2023. The Opposition agree that extending the deadlines further via the draft regulations will provide sufficient time for the Government to develop and introduce a new transitional registration model to cover registrations of substances that were already on the EU market at the time of EU exit. This approach aims to reduce industry costs significantly.

We welcome the findings of the impact assessment, which concludes:

“This policy is not expected to negatively affect businesses of any size.”

It also notes that the cost savings from discounted terms could benefit small and micro businesses “less proportionately” than larger businesses, and that this is

“due to shorter extensions linked to later deadlines for smaller tonnages.”

Of the 3,195 registered businesses in the chemical sector, 3,125—some 98%—are small, medium-sized and micro businesses, as the impact assessment outlines.

Although we support the draft regulations, I acknowledge that there has been some third-party concern about the impact of the proposed changes and the risk of divergence from the EU in this policy area, as noted by Wildlife and Countryside Link, which stated its concerns in a formal submission to the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I hope that the Minister can assure those organisations that have concerns that divergence from EU regulations will occur only when there is a convincing and compelling case for it, and not simply for its own sake. We will support this delegated legislation.

Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is perhaps not surprising that we are here talking about yet another piece of legislation that will impose further harm and unnecessary burdens on our farmers. We have already had the family farm tax, which has now regrettably come into force, the added financial costs of the increase in employer national insurance contributions, and, of course, uncertainty and mixed messages on things such as fuel duty and the rising costs of fertiliser.

After leaving the EU, the previous Conservative Government committed to transitioning farmers in England away from direct payments to domestic environmental land management schemes, or ELMS, as they became known, which pay for the direct delivery of public goods. To fund the new schemes, direct payments, now called delinked payments, were scheduled to be reduced gradually from 2021 to the end of 2028. This Labour Government, however, are accelerating that transition. The draft regulations propose a staggering 98% reduction on the first £30,000 tranche that a farmer would previously have received under direct payments, in effect limiting payments to a maximum of £600 per year in 2026 and 2027.

When the previous Conservative Administration brought forward delinked payments, we intended a gradual phase-out by 2028 in favour of environmental land management schemes, where farmers and landowners receive payments only for public goods. However, this Government accelerated that decline dramatically last year and have continued at a similar rate this year, which in effect has ended the seven-year transition well before the 2028 deadline that farmers had been led to expect. That was not announced before the last general election, so farmers were under a false illusion when the Labour Government came to power, which undermined their budgets at a time of already unprecedented worry and uncertainty.

This is not a party political point that I make here, but one that reflects the concerns of the whole sector. When the percentage reductions for 2025 and 2027 were announced in June last year, the vice-president of the National Farmers Union said:

“Having had significant reductions to delinked payments announced only last autumn in the Budget, to have further big reductions starting next year will be yet another financial blow to many farmers who haven’t had the time to effectively plan for them.”

The then president of the Country Land and Business Association said that

“the sharp fall in BPS payments was expected but is nonetheless unwelcome. It will hit especially hard those whose profit margins are now cut to the bone…While there might be a consolation that the new SFI 2026 scheme could be ready for applications in spring 2026, there is as yet no clarity on what that will look like and who will have access to it”.

This Labour Government promised that farmers would be able to access new income streams as direct payments were phased out, but that has not happened. The SFI closed to applications in March 2025 and it remains closed. While I accept that the Government have committed to opening SFI 2026 this month, it is not open yet, and it will only be open for smallholdings of up to 50 hectares. Currently, farmers lack access to replacement support during this period of high cost inflation and market volatility, much of which has been brought on by policy decisions made by this Government.

Many SFI 2023 agreements and countryside stewardship mid-tier agreements are due to expire at the end of this year and in early 2027. With no clarity on when farmers can expect to see an SFI 2027, or a further replacement from SFI 2026 opening to all from September, they face being locked out of funding schemes until early 2028 through no fault of their own, by which point, under these draft regulations, the delinked payments will in effect have ceased. Additionally, due to the first-come, first-served nature of the new SFI approach for 2026 and the long period of inaccessibility, demand for SFI 2026 in September is expected to be high. The NFU and the CLA have also expressed concerns about the capacity issues that the Rural Payments Agency is expected to experience. Farmers approaching the end of their environmental agreements face being unable to apply unrestricted for a new agreement until the window has already closed, due to the budget being allocated.

Given the well-documented cash-flow crisis in the farming sector, what assessment has been made of the volatility impact on farming businesses that have had their basic payments reduced by at least 98% and are unable to apply for SFI, capital grants or countryside stewardship higher-tier schemes? I also note that no impact assessment is associated with these draft regulations. Why has no full impact assessment been undertaken by the Government, despite the policy change that we are debating having huge financial implications for many—in fact, probably all—farming businesses in England?

We support the long-term fair transition of delinked payments, but we cannot do so at this accelerated pace. Conflict in the middle east has caused uncertainty about fuel and fertiliser prices and grain prices remain low, undermining arable farmers’ profitability, but it is not just external factors that add pressure on farmers. Deliberate choices made by this Labour Government have left many farmers more vulnerable. The early closure of the SFI window applications last year, the family farm and family business taxes, increased employer national insurance contributions and the Government’s refusal to consider the Conservatives’ cheap power plan to lower energy costs have had a cumulative impact. Ultimately, these draft regulations do not help farmers precisely at a time when global events and this Government’s choices threaten their viability, let alone their profitability. That is why the Conservatives will vote against the passage of the regulations. I urge the Government to rethink their plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I thank all those who have contributed to this short but perfectly formed debate.

The draft regulations were announced last June as part of a process that commenced under the previous Government following Brexit, when they announced a seven-year programme to transition away from the common agricultural policy, which makes delinked payments, to a much more focused environmental policy. The previous Government created that policy and the then Labour Opposition supported it, because we both accepted that farming has to be done on a more sustainable basis. We must see nature recovery, we must invest in healthy soils and in recreating healthy pollinator populations, and we must ensure reasonable food production rather than degrading our natural assets and resources to maximise food production at any cost. We are shifting to a much more sustainable model, and although the Opposition indicated that they will vote against the draft regulations, I hope that everybody can support that shift in principle.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said that we are going too fast, but the farming transition was a seven-year transition. All the ELM schemes and support for farmers will be involved in protecting nature and increasing sustainability, rather than going towards delinked payments. He seems to object not to the end point, but to the speed of the transition over the next two years. I understand what he is saying, but I think that he is dancing on the head of a pin.

[Robbie Moore]

If the Minister were speaking to a farmer, would she say that this is dancing on the head of a pin? We are talking about reducing an annual delinked payment to a farming business from a potential £30,000 to about £600. Given all the additional overheads placed on farming businesses that produce food, the Opposition believe that that is too quick a drop, and it comes without sufficient notification.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Sufficient notification has been given, since the transition began seven years ago—everybody has been expecting it. It is important that we get the transition done. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the money being taken away from delinked payments is going straight back into the system and will be available for the transition.

The Government remain convinced that delinked payments are not an effective way of supporting our farmers, protecting food security or restoring nature. Former Secretary of State Lord Gove certainly agreed with that when he began the transition after Brexit. We continue to invest in our environmental land management schemes and our range of grants and other support for farmers to deliver public goods, reward sustainable farming and boost productivity. Without the reductions contained in the draft regulations, spend on delinked payments in each of the years 2026-27 and 2027-28 would increase to £1.8 billion, leaving a shortfall in the remaining farming budget for each of those years that then could not be spent on financing the transition. Those who believe in the principle of the transition need also to believe in the means.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk spoke extremely well about his farmers, and I welcome his support. I understand that the transition can be difficult and worrisome, but it is crucial for the future of our farming profitability and resilience that we manage to get this done. The Government are determined to assist farmers all we possibly can in achieving the transition. The vast majority of them know that it has to happen, and we will see what we can do to ensure that it does.

The money released by reducing delinked payments is not being lost to the sector; it is being reinvested through our other schemes for farmers and managers. We are being transparent about how the money is used. Each year, we publish a farming and countryside partnership annual report, which shows how the farming budget has been spent. The report for the financial year 2024-25 was published last September. We will publish our next report later this year. That will be transparent about where the money has gone and how it has been spent. We have provided a breakdown of how we plan to spend an average of £2.3 billion a year through the farming and countryside programme, showing planned spend for each of the years between 2026-27 and 2028-29. That was set out in a farming blog, which is available on the Government website.

It is clear that we cannot achieve our environmental goals or have food security unless farm businesses are profitable. By increasing investment in our environmental land management schemes, we are helping farmers to protect the environment and the business foundations of farming—our soils, our water and our pollinators—which will help to reduce their input costs and boost productivity.

We know that there is high demand from farmers for our ELM schemes, so I am pleased that SFI26 will be opening to small farms later this month. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said that it was for small farms only, but the first window is also open to those without an existing agreement, so it is a slightly wider opening than he hinted at in his speech.

As was announced at the NFU conference, in 2026-27 we will invest £120 million in new productivity grants, which can help businesses to cut costs, improve efficiency and protect profits. Farmers can also boost their businesses through the animal health and welfare pathway, a programme designed to strengthen biosecurity, manage disease risks and improve animal health and welfare outcomes, which, in turn, boost farm productivity and profitability. We are also continuing our work to ensure fair competition across the supply chain, and have announced planning reform to unlock food and farming infrastructure development. The Government’s new farming and food partnership board has set out how it will work to drive growth in all sectors, improving productivity and profitability. It is beginning its work with two sectors—horticulture and poultry—but it will get on to work in others.

Our vision is to help farmers to improve their productivity and profitability, and to collaborate with them on delivering positive environmental change. Continuing to phase out delinked payments will enable us to invest in the long-term future of farming, by ensuring that funding is targeted where it can have the greatest impact. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.

We on this side of the House recognise the challenging situation that offshore wind developers face and the need to simplify the process to make schemes deliverable. Equally, we recognise the environmental issues. As we have heard, the regulations seek to shift how compensation for the environmental impact of developments is determined and delivered. Let me be clear: it is right that the Government prioritise energy security in cost-effective ways in order to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer, while also being responsible and honest custodians of our ecosystems in order to benefit future generations. However, I do have several concerns with the SI, which I hope the Minister can address.

First, the SI leaves much of the crucial detail to future guidance. While I can see that the Government are attempting to adopt a new approach, that is no justification for asking for approval before the full details have become apparent, such as how the new compensation scheme would work in practice. The Government conducted a six-week public consultation ahead of the reforms, so I am unclear as to why the draft guidance could not have been published to coincide with the legislative process, as opposed to being published on 21 May, once the SI has come into force, as the Minister has indicated. I am keen to understand from her why the decision was made not to publish the guidance before we legislated on the reforms. I know that their lordships also made their concerns known on that point. How can we be reassured that the guidance will be of the highest quality, as the Minister has outlined, when it is published?

My second concern relates to the compensation hierarchy. The regulations mandate the publication and use of a compensation hierarchy, which sets out categories of compensation measured on the basis of how the measures would benefit the UK marine protected area network. The secondary legislation states that tier 3 will cover compensation measures that provide ecological benefits to the UK marine protected area network more widely. My concern, however, is that that could allow for irreparable damage to key threatened species and habitats without any requirement for that species or habitat to obtain compensating benefit. That concern is shared by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which believes that the tier 3 approach will not deliver ecologically effective compensation for environmental impacts from offshore wind and would not maintain current levels of environmental protection.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

As I understand it, the purpose of the regulations is to take a pragmatic approach so that developers can develop inshore and offshore wind more quickly by providing a wider range of compensation. If the Government have a change of heart about the development of Rosebank and Jackdaw, does my hon. Friend expect them to take a similar approach to offshore oil and gas?

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent and valid point. We would absolutely expect the Government not only to open those oil fields, but to make sure that they apply exactly the same criteria when any energy project gets the go-ahead, and it feels that a one-size-fits-all approach is not being adopted in this case.

I want to expand on my concerns about the compensation hierarchy. It seems that the environmental protections are already not adequate to deliver favourable conditions for most sites or network coherence, so my second point to the Minister is to ask for reassurance that tier 3 will not become the norm or a simple way of bypassing the compensation hierarchy. What level of assessment has been given to that issue, and will she explain why no further detail has been published to date on the tier 3 compensation hierarchy? That concern has also been raised by their lordships in the other place.

My third concern, which has not yet been touched on, relates to fisheries and the impact of offshore wind on our fishing communities. The shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), recently visited Peterhead fish market to discuss the issues facing fishermen in Scotland, which include a lack of workers and fuel costs.

The Scottish Government plan to install up to 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040, a target that it has been warned is “far too high” and would cause irreversible damage to our marine environment while displacing the fishing fleet from grounds it has worked for generations. A report carried out for the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has shown that the surge in offshore wind farm developments will exclude the trawling fleet from approximately 50% of fishing grounds by 2050. I am sure the Minister will agree that the plans put forward by the Scottish Government show complete disregard for Scottish fishermen.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister share my astonishment that the Scottish Government refuse to talk about so-called spatial squeeze? It is a major issue for the fishing fleet, because it simply cannot trawl in between the wind turbines. The Government appear to deny the existence of the problem, but it is a massive difficulty for the fishing fleet, is it not?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It appears that the Scottish Government are not only ignoring the challenges associated with spatial squeeze—

[The Chair]

Order. The Scottish Government have nothing to do with this Parliament. We have to remain in scope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I will absolutely listen to your comments, Mrs Harris. I merely wish to make the point that spatial squeeze is an issue, whether it be north of the border in Scottish waters or south of the border in English waters, where there is a similar challenge to do with offshore wind farm development. Whether it be the UK Government or the Scottish Government addressing the issue, I would like to understand from the Minister what they are doing to address the concerns about spatial squeeze that our fishermen have raised, and how they will address their concerns in the future.

Briefly, I would like to make a point about the establishment of marine recovery funds. I know it is hoped that marine recovery funds will enable developers to compensate for environmental impacts for multiple projects, yet they are not mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. It is also important to note that marine recovery funds are voluntary schemes. Can the Minister explain what the Government anticipate the take-up of marine recovery schemes to be, and how significant a role they will play in environmental compensation?

To conclude, the central concerns that I present on behalf of the Opposition about the statutory instrument are focused on how the changes will operate in practice. The devil is always in the detail. To be clear, the Opposition support the development of affordable home-grown energy sources, which is why we are fighting so hard to oppose the Government’s ongoing ban on new oil and gas licences in the North sea.

With all subsidies, environmental schemes and regulations such as these, it is crucial that we do not lose sight of the big picture. We need to prioritise our energy security in cost-effective ways to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer while being responsible and honest caretakers of our ecosystems. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the various concerns I have laid out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I am grateful to hon. Members across the Committee for the considered points they have raised. Without these reforms, vital offshore wind projects will continue to encounter obstacles in securing appropriate environmental compensation measures, delaying progress towards clean renewable energy. This SI puts forward a balanced and pragmatic new approach to the environmental compensatory requirements for offshore wind, one that supports faster deployment of renewable energy and, crucially, unlocks new opportunities to improve the health of our marine environment.

I reassure the Committee that environmental protection sits at the heart of this policy, and our commitment to maintaining strong environmental protection remains firm. This SI makes targeted amendments to specific parts of habitats regulation in relation to compensatory measures for offshore wind. Robust environmental safeguards have been put in place to ensure that those changes will not weaken our existing protection, and to ensure continued compliance with all domestic and international environmental commitments.

In response to the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, this approach is fully consistent with the Government’s wider environmental ambitions, including our commitment to 30 by 30. The UK has already designated about 38% of our seas as marine protected areas, demonstrating our determination to protect the marine environment at scale. Under the Environment Act 2021, there is a statutory target for at least 70% of marine protected area features in English waters to be in favourable condition by 2042, with the remainder in recovering condition. We know that some of these sites continue to face significant pressure.

Let me turn to the points on the guidance made by the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley. In response to the concern that important policy details have not been included in this statutory instrument, I reassure the Committee that we have been fully transparent in the published policy note on what the statutory instrument policy intention is and on what the accompanying guidance will cover. The guidance will explain the key elements of the statutory instrument and how it should be implemented and understood. It will also provide clarity on broader elements of existing habitat regulation requirements.

As I mentioned in my opening speech, I recognise the concerns regarding the Department’s decision to lay the statutory instrument before Parliament ahead of publishing the draft guidance. However, the statutory instrument is essential in delivering the clean power mission and ensuring that progress is not delayed. Although the guidance is an important supporting document, it is a technical and operational, designed to explain to practitioners how to put the policies into action.

We have tested the draft guidance with users and held constructive discussions with key stakeholders on its content. Alongside that, we have worked closely with the Scottish Government to ensure alignment as far as possible with their respective guidance. I reassure hon. Members that that engagement has strengthened the guidance, ensuring that it will be robust and fit for purpose when published on 21 May.

[Robbie Moore]

Can the Minister expand on whether fishermen were included as one of the key stakeholder organisations as part of the guidance.

[Emma Hardy]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point on fishermen now—let me rearrange my papers. Regarding the impact of the statutory instrument on fishers, we are actively considering how best to engage marine users, including fishers, in the development of wider compensatory measures, particularly where those measures may affect their activity. Any future compensatory measures enabled by these reforms that could impact the commercial fishing industry will be fully assessed and DEFRA will work closely with the fishing industry to discuss practicalities, ensuring that any proposals are developed and implemented in a fair and workable way.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about spatial squeeze, which is a real issue for the fishing community and one that we certainly recognise in DEFRA. We have looked at the cumulative restrictions on the fisheries from offshore wind, as well as nature protection and how that impacts the spatial squeeze, and the Crown Estate is working with the sector to get its input into the processes to refine sites for future offshore wind leasing.

In many areas, different activities can co-exist and are able to work together. Marine Management Organisation data shows that there is some level of fishing in around 80% of the English sea. Depending on the fishing gear used, fishing can overlap with other activities. For example, fishing can still take place over telecom cables or in some other areas.

[Robbie Moore]

The Minister is being incredibly kind in giving way, but to push her on that point: has the guidance been stress-tested on the fishermen to date? The Minister said she will work with them. Have the fishermen been involved yet?

[Emma Hardy]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a list of all the people that we have engaged with. I have been reassured by the Department that the engagement has been substantive and extensive across all the different organisations. Of course, if what I have just said is found to be not correct, I will make sure that I correct it for him, but that is certainly my understanding.

How it will work with the marine recovery fund was also mentioned. That fund is exciting, and the statutory instrument works with it to support the acceleration of offshore wind development. By looking at the different types of compensatory measures available for offshore wind impacts, the statutory instrument will increase the number and range of compensatory measures that can be added to the library.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley raised an important point about moving through the hierarchy. To be fair, a number of non-governmental organisations have said that they do not want developers to go straight down, and asked how we ensure that the hierarchy is in place and a developer does not go straight down to tier 3. I welcome the opportunity to expand on that now.

What we are going to be doing—[Interruption.] I have had inspiration—it just arrived; it happens like that sometimes. The fishing industry did not engage on the wider testing on the guidance, but will be engaged on measures and met frequently on the policy and the statutory instrument. I thank my officials for that inspiration.

There are two circumstances where it is permissible to move through the hierarchy, as outlined in the proposed compensatory hierarchy, published in the policy note. The first applies to the availability of measures for a developer to move to tier 2, or in some cases tier 3, if they can demonstrate that no, or insufficient, suitable tier 1 measures are available, or they can progress to tier 3 if no suitable tier 2 measures are available.

The second circumstance allows a developer to progress through the hierarchy if they can demonstrate that doing so will enable a greater ecological benefit. Progression to tier 3 will be allowed only if a developer can demonstrate that no tier 1 or tier 2 measures are available, or where tier 3 measures would deliver a greater ecological benefit. Developers must submit clear evidence to the consenting authority who will assess proposals on a case-by-case basis, informed by advice from statutory nature conservation bodies before allowing progression to tier 3.

Where tier 3 is permitted, developers must draw from the library of strategic compensatory measures. Measures can be added to the library only once they have been approved by the relevant Minister. We have tried to put in various safeguards throughout to ensure that tier 3 measures cannot become the default or easy options.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley for the important issues he often raises—I am sure he will continue to do so. He is a passionate supporter of his constituents. I thank him for his support for the statutory instrument. I hope I answered all the questions from all hon. Members. I thank the Committee, and commend to it the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.