Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The EU summit is to take place in just 28 days’ time, but the Farming Minister cannot answer key questions, not just from us but from our farming community. We still have no confirmation that the precision breeding Act—widely recognised as a huge success—will be 100% protected. We have no reassurance that our current freedom to innovate in gene editing and bovine TB vaccine development will be a red line, and we have no acknowledgment that the alignment with the EU on plant protection products could slash £810 million from farming incomes in the first year alone. What guarantees can the Farming Minister give our farmers right now that this Labour Government will not sell them out to the EU, just like they sold out our British fishermen last May when they previously negotiated with Brussels?

[Stephen Morgan]

The shadow Minister has some brass neck, given all the deals that his Government did and tried to get over the line, selling out our British farmers. DEFRA continues to work closely with industry. When negotiations conclude, we will be able to provide more definitive answers on the exact nature of any alignment. I cannot comment on the specifics of the agreement, but we have been clear that we will only pursue an SPS agreement that has British interests at its heart.

Support for Farmers

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Yesterday, the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and I were once again out and about in the fields, talking to our hard-working farmers, this this time in Newbury. We spoke to them about the many hardships they face at the hands of this Labour Government. Week after week, from farm to farm, the message is the same: farmers are exhausted; they are worried; and they feel incredibly betrayed by this Labour Government. They do not feel that the Government are on their side or value the work that they are doing. They feel that the Government have turned their back on rural Britain. I welcome the debate, because it gives us an opportunity to say out loud in the House what every farmer in the country already knows: on Labour’s watch, it is our hard-working farming families who are paying the price.

Let me begin by addressing the fiasco that has been the sustainable farming incentive. As I said in this place just last week, I cannot stress enough how badly the SFI has been mishandled under this Labour Government—it has been a complete and utter debacle—and once again our hard-working farming families are the ones suffering. Let there be no doubt: this did not come out of the blue; there were plenty of warnings. The Government, having closed the scheme in March 2025, caused chaos, huge anxiety and additional financial pressure for our farmers.

[James Naish]

Does the hon. Member think it is better to close a scheme because it has overspent, or to underspend the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’s budget by £358 million?

[Robbie Moore]

What Government Members do not seem to understand is that when a highly sought-after scheme is closed, which is exactly what happened under this Labour Government in March 2025, demand inevitably builds up. That was coupled with the budget being reduced significantly. There was 18 months of this Government sitting on their hands, enabling demand to build. What was the result? When the scheme finally opened, it became a competitive scheme. On this Labour Government’s watch, it was “first come, first served”; those who got in were those who could press “send” the fastest. This Labour Government knew what the consequences would be, as was reported in The Times yesterday, but they carried on regardless. The result: approximately 40,000 farmers tried to get into the scheme, but only 12,200 were successful. The application window was slammed shut after just five and a half hours, all because the money had gone.

Last week, I stood in this Chamber and asked the Farming Minister very simple questions, but there were no answers. I will try again, so that he can address these in his summing up. The expiring agreements were worth more than £520 million, yet the SFI budget was cut to just £310 million. Where has the additional £210 million gone? It is vital that clarity and reassurance be given to our farmers. When will the Minister open SFI27? It is not good enough to say, “As soon as possible”; we need clarity. What will the Minister do for those who have agreements that are expiring, to stop the cliff edge in their cash flow? What budget has the Minister set aside for SFI27?

We must all remember that this situation comes on top of the Government’s disastrous decision to reduce de-linked payments dramatically, far more quickly than was ever agreed, to a measly £600 per farming business. I suspect that it costs the Government more in administrative charges to distribute those payments than it benefits each farming holding. Our farming businesses now feel the pain, financially and emotionally, as they struggle with their cash flow.

SFI is not some isolated incident; it is part of a pattern. Before Labour broke the SFI scheme, it crushed the family farm with its disastrous family farm and family business tax. Before the election, those on the Government Benches looked farmers in the eye and told them that they had no plans to change agricultural property relief and business property relief. In Labour’s very first Budget, which was its first opportunity to show rural communities up and down the country that it cared and understood them, it did not. It brought out the family farm and family business tax—a vindictive tax that strikes family farming businesses at their worst moment.

Each and every Labour MP who voted again last week to keep the family farm and family business tax should be ashamed of themselves. The narrative is, rightly, that there has been a partial U-turn—the threshold at which the tax applies has been raised from £1 million to £2.5 million—but that simply does not go far enough. Now, bizarrely, a person’s marital status can raise the threshold to £5 million. That seems ridiculous. Once the farmland, the farmhouse, the growing crops, the stocks, the machinery, the crops in store and the livestock have been valued, the value of a traditional farming business will be well above the £2.5 million threshold. That exposes any hard-working family farming business to an inheritance tax liability that they simply will not be able to afford. This was completely ill thought through.

That brings me to the Liberal Democrat motion before us, which only states that they regret

“the Government’s changes to Agricultural Property Relief”.

It makes no reference to business property relief. I thought that we were aligned on this issue, but clearly we are not. Many farming businesses rely heavily on business property relief. It covers trading assets not covered by agricultural property relief, including machinery, livestock, harvested crops and any rural diversification projects, including farm shops and holiday lets, so I am incredibly surprised that the Lib Dems do not also regret the Government’s changes to business property relief.

[Tim Farron]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is at least as au fait with Liberal Democrat manifesto policies as I am, so he will know that we oppose the family business inheritance tax changes as well. He will also know, having been here a reasonable amount of time, that there is a word limit on these motions; that is why those changes are not mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

This is a Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate. The Liberal Democrats have had many opportunities to prepare for it, but their motion excludes a crucial issue: business property relief. I take the hon. Member at his word when he says that the Liberal Democrats are also concerned about the impact that business property relief will have on many of our farming businesses, but given the huge impact the issue has, I am very surprised that it is not included in their motion.

Let me be clear: the Conservatives absolutely regret the continued roll-out of both the family farm tax and the family business tax, and we will continue to demand that the Government scrap both and put back in place the 100% relief on APR and BPR. On behalf of our farmers, our growers and our wider agricultural sector, we urge the Government to ensure that the Prime Minister does the right thing next week in the Budget and axes the family farm tax and family business tax.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am glad that he is brave enough to take an intervention from a Member from Somerset. He is absolutely right to emphasise our commitment to scrapping the family farm and family business tax, but does he agree that the fertiliser tax that this Labour Government will introduce on 1 January, and which the Liberal Democrats are too timid to oppose, will hit farmers and increase the price of food in our country?

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is completely right to outline the impact of the statutory instrument that was voted on just this week, which all Conservative Members voted against.

I was just about to come on to the point that this does not stop with the family farm and family business tax. As if the dramatic drop in de-linked payments, the SFI debacle and the family farm and family business tax were not enough, from 1 January next year Labour will hit farmers with yet another tax—the fertiliser tax—through the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Industry warns that this new fertiliser tax could pile up a further £75 a tonne, if not more, on current fertiliser prices. This is simply unfeasible. It adds an additional cost to many of our farmers at a time when they are already being pushed to breaking point. The fertiliser tax should not have been introduced, and the Conservatives voted against it last week.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Member will be aware that the carbon border adjustment mechanism was started under the last Government. The consultation was launched in 2023. With the benefit of hindsight, does he think it might have been a good idea at that stage to take fertiliser out of it?

[Robbie Moore]

I pleased that the right hon. Member, for whom I have great respect, has raised this point, but I will gently push back and say that we are two years into this Labour Government. He makes reference to a consultation that was started under the previous Conservative Administration, but we voted on the fertiliser tax this week, and it was predominantly Conservatives who voted against it. I have to say to the Liberal Democrats: where were you when we voted to stop the fertiliser tax? Not one Liberal Democrat MP voted to stop it.

Yet again, the Liberal Democrats are all over the place. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) said in a debate that I attended last week:

“We Liberal Democrats support the carbon border adjustment mechanism.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 12 October 2026; c. 7.]

However, in today’s motion, the Liberal Democrats propose that the House

“notes that farmers are deeply concerned about surging input costs, the impact of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on fertiliser costs”,

but they cannot bring themselves to be concerned enough to vote to stop it.

Far from protecting our farmers in this House, the Liberal Democrats simply demonstrate that they are Labour enablers, helping those on the Government Benches bulldoze their plans through while outside this House, I suspect their leaflets will be portraying a very different message to their constituents to try to keep everybody happy, but we see through that.

To conclude, the record of this Labour Government is clear for us all to see. They broke the SFI scheme and cut its budget. They taxed family farms and now are taxing fertilisers and assets. We have a Farming Minister who faints at the sight of meat. We have a countryside Minister who thinks that anyone who has a black Labrador and enjoys a warm pint in one of our rural pubs is far right. What an absolute nonsense. Farmers feed this nation—they deserve a Government on their side. It is clear that farmers can no longer afford another day of this Labour Government.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Drought Conditions: England

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Friday 16th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Today’s update reinforces what farmers, rural communities and households have known for months: England is in the grip of a drought, and the Government have been slow to react. Eleven areas are now in drought, with Yorkshire the latest to be declared. Ten water companies have hosepipe bans in force. Drought-related environmental incidents have already overtaken the totals of 2022 and 2025. This is the third drought in five years. It should not have caught the Government off guard, but here we are on a sitting Friday, listening to the Water Minister roll out an emergency statement, effectively saying she has been busy having meetings.

On 31 July, two and a half months ago, the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), wrote to the Environment Agency setting out six practical steps. Ministers have since said that they will adopt some of them, which is welcome, but it is highly surprising that in this statement from a Minister in the Department that represents food policy, there was not one mention of the impact the drought is having on our farmers and our growers. Why was that?

The key questions remain. The Government talk a big game about their new water Bill and taking back public control, yet the primary action announced today is instructing water companies to conduct daily monitoring. Does that mean they have not been doing that to date? If the national drought group has been meeting regularly since August, why are water companies only now being told to step up their drought planning? Why is the Minister willing to relax strict environmental regulations for water companies when they have failed to protect customer supplies through not undertaking significant investment in dealing with leakage and enhancing water storage? What does this say to the many households that are facing increased water bills?

The Minister highlights upgrades in investment and promises to build nine new major reservoirs, but she has also admitted that this is a decade-long journey. Our communities, our farmers and our businesses are facing severe challenges today. When exactly will the first reservoir be built, and will she release a timeframe for each? Some on-farm reservoirs are reporting being a fifth full or less heading into winter, yet farmers are still waiting for the reopened water management grant, and planning and licensing hurdles to building water storage remain far too high.

The Government announced a £65 million drought package, but what has happened to it? It was money already sitting unallocated in the farming budget. Most of it was poured into the sustainable farming incentive, and look what happened to that. Will the Minister update us on how she is making it easier for farmers to have on-farm reservoirs? The Opposition will work constructively with anyone serious about protecting our food and water security, but we will hold this Government to account when they fall short, and right now they are falling short—significantly short—of what farmers, rural communities and our households expect.

[Emma Hardy]

It is a shame that the Opposition spokesperson is not taking this as seriously as required. To respond briefly to his points about what this Government have done, there are many things I can do—unfortunately, I cannot make it rain, but what I can do is ensure that this Government are prepared, and that is exactly what we have been doing.

In February this year, DEFRA and Cobra ran a cross-Government drought exercise to test the current response arrangements, with lessons learned from the previous year. We have been planning for this since we came into government, because this Government actually believe that climate change is real. We are not a Government of climate change deniers. We are not a Government who wish to repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and think that when it is sunny, we should just enjoy more barbecues.

This Government have been preparing for drought since I became Water Minister. In February, we ran the cross-Government exercise, and we have been working with water companies on emergency drought measures. Last winter, a year ago, regulators and water companies were already looking to take action because we know that this is the new normal when it comes to our weather. That is why we are preparing for it.

The shadow Minister asks what we are doing to support farmers, but it is this Government who are giving £15 million for on-farm reservoirs, it this Government who are making the planning system easier so that farmers can build reservoirs, and it is this Government who are looking into flexible abstraction so that farmers can fill the reservoirs that we are helping them build. Frankly, it was the previous Government who failed to prepare for any of that during their 14 years in office.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the sustainable farming incentive.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)]

In summer 2024, we inherited a sustainable farming incentive scheme from the previous Conservative Government that had no budget control and no proper alignment of SFI actions to environmental sustainability targets. The farming schemes were underspent, meaning that millions of pounds were not going to farming businesses.

This Government implemented many improvements to the sustainable farming incentive 2026 to make it more focused, more transparent and fairer, so that as many farmers as possible could benefit from agreements. For example, we introduced the new rule that each farm business could have only one SFI26 agreement, which cannot exceed £100,000 per year. We also streamlined the number of SFI actions to remove complexity while still having plenty of actions available for all farm types.

We held the first application window earlier in the summer, which was open only to two groups: small farms and farms without existing environmental land management revenue agreements. Window 2 of the sustainable farming incentive 2026 opened on the morning of Tuesday 22 September 2026 and closed at 3.48 pm on the same day. It was open to all farmers and land managers with at least three hectares of agricultural land.

I recognise that some farmers who wanted to join SFI26 will be disappointed not to have secured an agreement this year. There was exceptional demand for SFI26, which demonstrates farmers’ desire to invest in the environment, because healthy soils and thriving habitats are fundamental to farm profitability, productivity, sustainability and resilience.

In anticipation of high demand, we allocated an additional £20 million to window 2 on top of the £50 million announced by the Prime Minister in August so that we could fund as many agreements as possible. We have therefore allocated a total of £310 million to nearly 19,000 new agreements across both application windows in SFI26, including £253 million and 12,200 new agreements through window 2.

We now have 70,000 multi-year environmental land management scheme agreements in place. Those agreements will invest a total of £930 million in environmentally sustainable farming over the next three years. That is nearly £1 billion of investment in nature-friendly farming as part of £11.8 billion in funding for sustainable farming in this Parliament.

We plan to offer an SFI scheme in 2027, and we will look to open the 2027 offer as early as possible to ensure that farmers can access funding. We are already looking to make changes to improve the SFI for next year, continuing our close work with farmers and stakeholders by listening to experiences and learning lessons from this window.

In keeping with the commitments made in “Farming Roadmap 2050”, we plan to offer an SFI scheme in 2027. As part of that, we will scrap the first come, first served application process. We will look to open the 2027 window as early as possible to ensure that farmers can access funding and we will work with farming representative organisations including the National Farmers Union to consider how we refine the scheme for SFI27. As set out in the farming road map published earlier this year, the Government are committed to a farming sector that is productive, profitable and resilient.

[Robbie Moore]

I cannot stress enough just how badly mishandled the sustainable farming incentive has been under this Labour Government. It has been a complete and utter mess, and our hard-working farmers and nature have once again lost out under this Labour Government. However, it was not without this Government having lots of warning well in advance. After 18 months of inaction following the Government’s choice to close the scheme in March 2025, for the first time ever the scheme was changed to operate on a first come, first served basis, making it competitive with no quality control. It was simply based on who could press “Send” first. The consequence was a build-up of nearly 40,000 farmers trying to get into the scheme when it finally opened, and only 12,200 were successful. The application window closed five and a half hours after it opened, after all the money had gone. Farmers had been designing their applications for months, and many are now under more financial and emotional strain.

Given that the value of the expiring agreements was more than £520 million and the budget for SFI26 was significantly reduced to £310 million, can the Minister explain where the £210 million has gone? With so many farmers being locked out of the scheme, clarity and certainty for next steps is needed now. Will he confirm when applications for SFI27 will open? Will he publish a forward plan now so that farmers can start preparing? What support will he give to those with expiring agreements to minimise gaps in cash flow? What budget has he allocated for SFI27 so that he can be certain that we will not see this same debacle all over again?

The farming Minister has now had a month to reflect on these issues. Our farmers want answers now—not more warm words or him giving out surveys, saying that he is in listening mode. Answers are needed right now to the questions that have been raised.

[Stephen Morgan]

I am not going to claim that this scheme is perfect or working as we want it to work, but we inherited this scheme from the previous Government, and we are fixing it. Under them, just a quarter of the funding went to 4% of farms, often large ones, with no targeting. We have already made changes to address that; there was a window earlier this year specifically for small farms and those that had not participated in the scheme before. If the Conservatives thought the scheme was not working, why did they not do anything to fix it in their years in power? If they did not think that it should be a first come, first served approach, why did they not change it?

I noticed that the shadow Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said at party conference:

“After 18 months of inaction, Labour chose to design this scheme, for the first time ever, on a first-come, first-served basis.”

That simply is not true, and I encourage the shadow Minister to correct the record. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to come here today with all these different things. He could have changed things when he had the opportunity to do so. The Conservatives could not even get all the funding out the door. They left money on the table when it should have been going into farmers’ pockets. I will not accept the criticism. This scheme was designed by them, but we are fixing it, and that is what I will continue doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Members themselves, not the Chair, are responsible for what they say in the Chamber. If the shadow Minister wishes to clarify his earlier remarks, that is for him, but he needs to keep it short, because I do not want to continue the debate.

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

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a matter of fact, when the SFI window was closed under this Labour Government in March 2025, that process in itself led to the huge demand that came up in September this time, therefore making it competitive and first come, first served. That is exactly the scenario that happened. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not going to continue the debate. The urgent question is over.

Bluetongue Virus in Livestock

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on bluetongue virus in livestock.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)]

I begin by recognising that this is an incredibly difficult time for livestock keepers, veterinary professionals and those who are working directly on the impact of the bluetongue outbreak. Responding to outbreaks is at the core of the work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and we will continue to use tried and tested methods to address this challenge.

Bluetongue affects cattle, sheep, goats, deer and camelids. It is spread by biting midges and can cause significant animal health impacts, although it poses no risk to human health or food safety. The first confirmed case of bluetongue serotype 3 in the UK this year was on 10 July in Staffordshire. As of yesterday, there have been 795 confirmed cases of bluetongue in Great Britain. We are supporting enhanced testing capacity. We have worked closely with the devolved Governments and industry throughout the outbreak, listening to farmers and jointly developing policies to ensure that farmers receive timely information and practical guidance. That has included regular disease alerts, social media updates, weekly communications to livestock keepers and a programme of industry webinars.

Vaccination remains the most effective and viable short and long-term control measure against bluetongue, both for this season and in the future. DEFRA and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate are working closely with manufacturers to monitor availability and taking proactive steps to ensure that additional vaccine stocks are made available as quickly as possible. I encourage all livestock keepers to remain vigilant, to monitor and vaccinate their animals and to report any suspicions of disease immediately.

Finally, I know that this has been a trying period for farmers, animal keepers and private vets. Support is available through Government guidance, the rural services helpline and Farming Help. We will continue to work closely with industry representatives to ensure that concerns are heard, information is shared promptly and support reaches those who need it. Through vigilance, vaccination and partnership, we will continue to meet this challenge and protect the health of our livestock sector.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Robbie Moore]

Bluetongue is spreading across Britain at an unprecedented rate, devastating livestock businesses and putting farming families under immense financial and emotional pressure. I thank our vets and those on the frontline in addressing the spread of the virus.

As of yesterday, 795 cases have been confirmed this season, but there are more than 2,500 potential cases still under investigation, yet farmers and vets are being forced to wait up to three weeks for blood test results, leaving the livestock sector without a real-time picture of the outbreak. Why was testing capacity not significantly increased over the summer period, and when will Ministers clear that backlog? In hotspot areas, will a proportionate risk-based approach be adopted?

These delays are more concerning given that DEFRA’s expenditure on bluetongue testing was significantly reduced under this Labour Government by 74% in this financial year. Why did the Government allow that spending to fall so dramatically, just as the outbreak was accelerating? Ministers rightly advise farmers to vaccinate livestock, but supplies can take up to three or four weeks to arrive. Why have the Government not acted to secure adequate vaccine supplies by working more closely with vaccine manufacturers, veterinary bodies and industry?

Farmers also face mounting fallen stock disposal costs, yet repeated calls to Ministers for financial assistance have gone unanswered. Can the Government confirm today that financial assistance will be put in place, and will they review environmental permit constraints to ease carcase disposal?

Finally, bluetongue presents similar symptoms to those of foot and mouth disease, which is already present in continental Europe. With testing for bluetongue taking weeks to turn around, there is concern that a positive foot and mouth case could be hidden in the backlog. What assurances can the Minister give that he is alert to that issue and is taking action? It seems that despite concerns being raised consistently throughout the summer, Ministers have been asleep at the wheel.

[Stephen Morgan]

I stress that vaccination remains the only effective long-term option for disease control, and we will continue to work with keepers of susceptible animals to discuss vaccine options with their vets in order to protect animals and reduce the impact of disease. I thank the shadow Minister for his questions, and we absolutely recognise that this is a difficult time for livestock keepers and the veterinary professionals supporting them. DEFRA is working closely with livestock keepers and the industry to facilitate access to vaccinations and ensure timely information. That has included webinars, engagement events attended by 1,000 farmers, disease alerts, regular updates on gov.uk and Animal and Plant Health Agency channels, and welfare support.

I stress that the Government have acted quickly to secure increased vaccine supply. Vaccination remains the only effective long-term option for disease control, and we will continue to engage with all keepers of susceptible animals to discuss vaccine options with them. On testing capacity at the Pirbright Institute, and alpha, we have stepped up capacity for testing and work closely with industry on such issues. We will continue to work with keepers of animals to ensure that the sector is supported, and I will continue to engage with the National Sheep Association, the National Farmers’ Union and others on the issues at hand.

Draft Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.

These regulations make necessary amendments to Northern Ireland’s legislation governing plant health, seeds, seed potatoes and plant propagating material and ensure that it operates in accordance with the Windsor framework. Maintaining strong plant health protections is essential to safeguarding Northern Irish growers, Northern Irish food security and the natural environment. An outbreak of a serious pest or disease could have devastating consequences for agricultural production and rural businesses across Northern Ireland.

Plant health legislation is included under article 5(4) of the Windsor framework. The amendments in these draft regulations ensure that DEFRA has the necessary powers to enforce the plant health rules applying in Northern Ireland. They update prohibited lists of plants and pests, phytosanitary controls that govern the movement of plants for planting and other objects and conditions in relation to planting material and requirements for reporting and disposing of infected material. The instrument also removes provisions relating to movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland that are no longer applicable, introduces a GB-NI code for official labelling and makes several technical corrections.

These are important protections and the official Opposition will not be opposing the amendments laid today. It is right that DAERA possesses the powers that it needs to enforce the rules properly and to act where non-compliance is identified.

However, we do have some concerns. The Minister mentioned that no public consultation was undertaken on these amendments, but while DAERA and DEFRA engaged with key stakeholders, it is important to note that Northern Irish growers, seed potato producers and other affected businesses must also have a meaningful opportunity to make their views heard. Therefore, I would like to understand from the Minister if a level of engagement was had with those growers and organisations involved in that sector. Will the Minister identify which organisations, if any, DEFRA engaged with?

The Government have not produced a full impact assessment or established specific monitoring arrangements because the regulatory requirements already apply in Northern Ireland. They may already apply, but that does not necessarily mean that they impose no cost or administrative burden to businesses. Could the Minister assure us today that any unforeseen costs or practical difficulties will be identified and addressed, particularly if they could disrupt the movement of plant and seed potatoes between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

The official Opposition will not oppose these regulations. Strong and enforceable plant health protections are essential, and these amendments will provide DAERA with the powers it needs to protect Northern Ireland from dangerous pests and disease. However, regulations introduced under the Windsor framework must be accompanied by meaningful engagement, proper democratic scrutiny and close attention to their impact and practical consequences. While not opposing these amendments, we seek clarity from the Minister today around the assurances on consultation with stakeholders and the protection of trade within the United Kingdom.

Local Authorities: Aluminium Recycling

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate, and I thank her for the considerable work that she has done to examine how aluminium is collected, recycled and ultimately reprocessed across the country.

We know that this is a significant issue. In 2024, 287,000 tonnes of aluminium waste was generated in the UK, of which only 54.7% was recycled. Across its different uses, the aluminium industry contributes an estimated £9.4 billion to the UK economy, supporting sectors all the way from packaging to car manufacturing, energy infrastructure and defence. Of course, the Government have rightly recognised aluminium as a critical material.

Aluminium, as has been referenced, is one of the most valuable materials in the household recycling stream, and it is therefore vital that councils have a clear understanding of what they are collecting, what the material is worth and what happens to it when it leaves their possession. If neighbouring local authorities are receiving dramatically different returns from comparable aluminium material, as has been rightly pointed out by the hon. Member and others, why is that the case? It would be very interesting to know whether DEFRA and the Minister are looking at the scale of those differences nationally, as such disparities have been raised throughout the debate.

This is also a matter of public confidence. Residents are repeatedly encouraged to recycle—and rightly so—but they believe that what they are doing is having a positive impact on the environment. Surely they are also entitled to know what happens in the recycling process itself. If a council cannot say confidently where the aluminium ultimately goes, how can residents do so? How can elected councillors scrutinise what taxpayers are receiving and whether it is value for money? I hope the Minister agrees that greater transparency is needed throughout the whole system, and I would like to understand what steps the Government are taking to ensure that councils have the information and expertise they need to properly scrutinise the process and ultimately make the right decisions.

That leads me on to the second major issue that has been raised in the debate, which is the sheer amount of valuable aluminium scrap that is leaving the United Kingdom. The figures are striking: the UK currently exports almost half the aluminium scrap that it produces, and at the same time, the UK spends around £5 billion importing aluminium. Make UK has warned that the rate of export risks affecting future industrial resilience, and estimates that the domestic aluminium scrap sector may need to grow by around 25% every year to meet the anticipated demand from British industry.

To be clear, the Conservatives strongly believe in free trade. Aluminium scrap is traded internationally, and it would be wrong to suggest that every ton of exported scrap represents a policy failure. However, the Government should not ignore the wider strategic consequences when increasingly large quantities of a material that they have designated as critical are leaving the country when demand from British industry is expected to rise. The Government have designated aluminium as critical because it is essential to defence, energy, car manufacturing and other key industries, so it is surely reasonable to ask whether we are retaining enough of our own secondary aluminium to meet our growing requirements.

We have British businesses investing in recycling infrastructure right here. British industries are demanding more aluminium, but councils are exporting large quantities of that material abroad. That cannot be right, so I ask the Minister what proportion of exported aluminium could be processed in this country. What assessment have the Government made of the implications of scrap aluminium exports for British industry and manufacturing, and what conversations is DEFRA having with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to ensure our recycling policy and our industrial strategy are pulling in the same direction?

That brings me to the extended producer responsibility and packaging. There is huge concern that the sheer cost of Labour’s implementation of these measures is having a detrimental impact. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that EPR will raise around £1.6 billion a year on average over the first five years, but it also recognises DEFRA’s estimation, based on its own information, that EPR is not likely to have a material impact on recycling rates or packaging waste volumes over that period. If businesses are being charged that much, and the cost of those measures is ultimately being passed on to consumers through higher prices, Ministers must be able to show how they are ultimately improving recycling rates in this country. I therefore ask the Minister how much more recycling of aluminium EPR will actually deliver, and how much of that funding will result in better local authority recycling services and decision making. We cannot end up with a system where businesses, consumers and families pay more, but recycling rates ultimately do not move at all. It is vital for the success of EPR that these measures are open and transparent.

In aluminium, Britain has an extraordinarily valuable and useful material. It can be recycled time and time again and supports industries that are worth billions of pounds to our economy. The Government themselves have designated it as critical, yet we are still exporting almost half of the aluminium scrap we generate. Local authorities do not always know where the material they collect goes, or where it ultimately ends up. Some appear to be securing dramatically better returns for their aluminium than others, while at the same time, British recycling businesses are investing in capacity and British manufacturers are increasingly needing the very aluminium that those local authorities are allowing to leave this country. That should concern Ministers.

The previous Government implemented much of the framework that is in place; the challenge for the current Government is to ensure that that framework works effectively. If businesses are being asked to meet enormous costs through EPR, they must see better recycling rates as a result. If councils are collecting valuable material, taxpayers deserve to know where it goes and whether they are receiving proper value for it, and if aluminium is genuinely a critical resource, Government policy should reflect that reality. We need a system that recycles more; uses that recycled material at home, not necessarily abroad; gives councils better value for money; protects businesses and consumers alike from unnecessary costs; and strengthens British industry. Ministers now need to show that they are capable of meeting that challenge.

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.