Commons Chamber

Monday 23rd March 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:34
14:34
14:34
14:34
14:34
14:35
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
None Portrait Q3. What guidance her Department has provided to police forces on the application of public order legislation in relation to the expression of religious beliefs. (908433)
-

Robin Swann number three, Mr. Speaker. committed to building a strong and integrated society where people can express their religious identity
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:43
None Portrait Q4. What her timetable is for publishing the Independent Review of Public Order and Hate Crime Legislation. (908434)
-

Sarah.
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
None Portrait Q10. What steps she is taking to help tackle financial abuse. (908442)
-

>> Mr Speaker Minister. >> May as well. Economic abuse can have devastating impacts on victims
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
Yeah, yeah yeah yeah. >> I mean, I would say to the hon. Gentleman, I think creativity is pointing a different dates in the calendar of a profile that he knows calendar of a profile that he knows has seasonal elements to it and trying to compare them as like for like, he knows that doesn't work, but in terms of, but he gives, but, but he is very, he's very kind. He's very kind in, in giving me the opportunity to say that with regards to tackling organised immigration crime, that work is at its record level, 37% increase under this government with 5000 disruptions.

That's the serious work. They'll throw rocks from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sideline, but that's what they do, isn't it? Max Wilkinson Liberal Democrats. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary's. Authoritarian tendencies. Often pleased. The Reform Party. In the Tories, but some in her own party are apparently less happy own party are apparently less happy with that approach to immigration and asylum. The changes to ILR, in particular risk busting efforts at social cohesion while harming public services and the economy, and creating unworkable bureaucracy and creating unworkable bureaucracy in the Home Office. Now, Liberal Democrats have expressed concerns about these proposals, and many on her own backbenches are now reportedly very unhappy.

So does the Home Secretary really feel comfortable that she might be comfortable that she might be reliant on support from the hon. Member for Clacton and the Tories to force through her flagship project? Yeah.
15:12
15:13
15:13
None Portrait Q14. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the introduction of the visa brake on Chevening scholars. (908447)
-

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have, of course, discussed the introduction of visa breaks across introduction of visa breaks across government, including the impact on the achievement scholars. The evening continues to attract and
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
To topicals. >> To topicals. >> Mary Kelly Foy thank you, Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, and I. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to address the terrible scenes in to address the terrible scenes in Golders Green last night where four Jewish community ambulances were set on fire. Mercifully, no one was hurt. And for that, we owe our thanks to the police and fire services who responded with speed and professionalism. An investigation is underway. We know the Metropolitan Police are treating this as an anti-Semitic hate crime, and have stepped up their support to Jewish communities across London.

That the attack was directed at Hatzolah, a community ambulance service, an institution devoted to saving lives, illustrates how warped those behind this attack are. I am pleased that the Health Secretary is providing replacement ambulances, but clearly justice is required. There have as yet been no arrests, but the perpetrators must be in. No doubt we will pursue them and make them face the consequences of this wicked crime. I urge anyone with information to contact the police who have the full support of my department.

This incident comes at a time of soaring antisemitism in our country, and today my message to our Jewish community is clear we stand with you. We will do everything in our power to protect you, and we will fight relentlessly to rid our society of antisemitism for.
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:22
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
Chris Philp I'll be pursuing these questions with the Security Minister in the statement later. Minister in the statement later. Mr. Speaker. Media reports suggest the Home Secretary is under pressure from the former Deputy Prime Minister on her ILR policy. So will the Home Secretary tell the House who is running the government's immigration policy now? Is it her or is it the former

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deputy Prime Minister? Will the Home Secretary confirm to the House now? Order, order, order. I'm just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order, order. I'm just going to say to both frontbenchers, these are topicals. There are members on both sides. I gave a lot members on both sides. I gave a lot of leeway in the first question. This one you've already asked one question. Now you come in with another question. It's not another question. It's not acceptable to either side of the House that I'm trying to look after. Please. One question in topicals, not the big statements. We've got a statement on the whole of the subject.

It's a very important issue. I am very concerned, but I've got to get back. Benson, it is unfair for both front benches. Take the time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Home Secretary Mr. Speaker, I've almost forgotten the question that almost forgotten the question that the hon. Gentleman had, but the assertion that he makes at the heart of what he just said is absolute rubbish. He knows that the absolute rubbish. He knows that the government has already said that we are going to be consulting on the changes that we wish to make, and I'll bring forward those proposals

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll bring forward those proposals in due course. Well. Thank you very much. Last week, I. Visited Estonia. With the Education Committee.
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
John Healey Portrait Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)
-
-
anti-Semitic attack in North London overnight? And our thoughts are with the Jewish community. Today, with the Jewish community. Today, the House will have a statement from the Security Minister after this. But let me start this this. But let me start this statement, if I may, Mr. Speaker, by thanking every single person across defence that is working flat across defence that is working flat out from our senior leaders to our junior ranks, military and junior ranks, military and civilians alike, our planners in Pjhq, our counter-drone units protecting coalition bases, our air defence teams in Cyprus, our fast jet pilots across the region, and our sailors in the Eastern Mediterranean.

I say to them, on behalf of the House, you approving yet again, you are the best of Britain in action. Mr. Speaker, with the fast moving events in the Middle East, we're maintaining a clear, consistent approach. And as I said in my statement to the House last week, the UK government's decisions and actions around three principles. The first is defensive, taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence. That's why I've been putting vital military assets into the region since January.

Second is coordination with allies, leading and coordinating our responses with NATO allies and with partners including the US, the G7, E5 and Gulf nations. The third is legal, ensuring a legal basis for our decisions, allowing Ministers to make sound choices and allowing our military to operate with the fullest confidence. And UK action remains grounded in these principles and our purpose to protect British people, protect British bases and protect British allies. Mr Speaker. Iran is a threat to us all.

It's lashing out and its attacks across the region are escalating. Since the start of the war, Iran has attacked 12 countries. It's fired over 3500 ballistic missiles and drones. Both military and civilians are in their sights. Oil refineries bombed embassies and bases targeted. Commercial ships hit some allies, such as France and the US, have had service personnel killed. And the House will want to join me in offering our condolences to their families and to their comrades in in conflict, you can never remove risk, but I am able to say that all UK personnel so far are fully accounted for.

Mr. speaker, Iran's attacks are widespread and disruptive. I can confirm to the House. In the early hours of Friday morning, two Iranian missiles were launched in the direction of Diego Garcia, our joint UK and US base one fell short of its target. The other was brought down short of its target. Neither got close to Diego Garcia. The UK was not required to take action and normal operations continue. I totally condemn Iran's reckless attacks. Iran must stop.

It must deescalate. We want to see this war end now. Mr. Speaker, my priority is defence Secretary. Is the protection of UK personnel and I continue to keep the force protection across the region at the very highest levels. And those measures are reviewed daily by both the chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of Joint Operations to ensure that our personnel are as safe as possible. Mr. speaker, we know, however, that Iran's aggression and intent reaches beyond the Middle East, so we continue to track the potential threats here at home.

And over the last year, we've been boosting our defence, cyber defences and tightening base security. And I want to thank the military, police and Police Scotland for their quick work to arrest, then charge two individuals who approached the Clyde base last week and unsuccessfully attempted to enter. Mr. speaker, in terms of our UK defensive operations in the region since last January, weeks before this conflict started, we took significant steps to pre-position typhoons, F-35s, counter drones, teams, radars and air defences in the region.

And it was these advanced preparations that made a real difference and meant that from day one we have been defending activity and mounting those actions to protect ourselves and protect our allies. And when Iran started hitting out putting British people and British allies and service personnel at risk, I committed further resources to the region, including more fighter jets, helicopters and a warship. RAF and Navy pilots have now racked up nearly 900 flying hours in defence of Cyprus, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

We have more jets in the region than at any time in the last 15 years. There are an extra 500 air defence personnel in Cyprus, and as more military capabilities are committed to the eastern Mediterranean, we're working closely with the Republic of Cyprus to coordinate the contribution of allies including the US, France and Greece, to reinforce the security of Cyprus. And I can confirm that HMS Dragon has arrived in the eastern Mediterranean, and tonight begins operational integration into Cyprus's defence alongside allies more widely, UK Space Command is monitoring daily Iranian missile activity and provided early warning to our armed forces and to our allies operating across the region.

Our military and our industry have a shared mission in the UK and that is to step up support and to help defend Gulf partners during this conflict. So last week, we brought together Gulf ambassadors and defence attachés with UK defence firms, and the MoD has now established task force Sabre with industry to support partners across the Middle East with rapid procurement. We will soon deploy lightweight multiple launchers to Bahrain, including with training, and we will be deploying rapid century to Kuwait and Rapid Century is a battle tested, ground based air defence missile system that has already proved highly effective for UK forces taking down drones in the region.

Turning to the Strait of Hormuz, Mr. Speaker, people and businesses are increasingly worried about the economic impact of this war and the Prime Minister will chair a Cobra meeting later this afternoon to discuss the economic impact, which I will attend, because Iran is holding the Strait of Hormuz hostage by laying mines targeting ships, including red Ensign vessels and putting lives in danger. This is complex, and any resolution requires close work with allies and multinational support.

So the UK, along with 29 other nations, signed a joint statement late last week which condemned in the strongest terms these attacks on unarmed ships strongly backed the freedom of navigation and expressed our readiness, I quote, to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait. I discussed this with E5 defence Ministers last week. We've now deployed UK military planners into US Central Command to develop options. We're looking to accelerate your UK mine hunting and drone technology, and on Friday we confirmed that the current permission we've given for the US to use UK bases for defensive strikes against specific Iranian targets extends to their missile sites and capabilities that threaten the Strait of Hormuz.

We are determined that the UK plays a leading role in securing the strait, so commercial ships can move freely and confidently again. Mr Speaker. This House knows the demands on defence are rising, and while we rightly focus on dealing with the immediate conflict in the Middle East, we will continue to step up our support to Ukraine to fulfil our NATO commitments, to sign vital defence contracts and to deal with Putin's serious threats to the High North. Mr. speaker, this House also knows that our adversaries will want us distracted and may try to take advantage of events in the Middle East for their own gain.

We will not let them, and as a government, we remain determined to make Britain safer, more secure at home and strong abroad.
15:47
James Cartlidge Portrait James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
So, Secretary of State James Cartlidge. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Speaker, and can I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for the sight of his statement and for the briefing I received from his officials this afternoon. But can I begin by joining the Secretary of State, by putting on record my utter condemnation of the arson attack committed in Golders Green last night? And on behalf of the opposition, I offer our sympathy to all affected and to the wider Jewish community.

Can I also join the Secretary of State in expressing our condolences to the families of all Allied personnel who have lost their lives in the current conflict, and in thanking the police for preventing potentially serious nefarious activity at Faslane. Mr. speaker, the potential economic ramifications for our constituents from Iran's aggressive closure of the Straits of Hormuz should concern us all. In that context, can the Defence Secretary tell the House what he understands to be the implications of the US president's latest remarks, specifically on deferring strikes on power plants? And can he also tell us what further naval capability he is intending to deploy to assist in securing the Straits of Hormuz? Mr.

speaker, it is extremely concerning that Iran fired long range ballistic missiles at UK sovereign territory on Diego Garcia. Now I'm grateful for his update, but why did it take so long for the government to confirm something that the whole world had been reporting on? And what action is he going to take to respond to those wholly unjustified attacks? Can he confirm if the potential firing range of this Iranian missile implies that it could reach well into Europe? Now, when it comes to our own air defence, it is very welcome that the RAF Regiment has excelled in using rapid centrally procured under the previous government to intercept multiple drones, and we pay tribute to all our personnel in the region at this present moment.

We also welcome the fact that this capability is now being deployed to support our allies in the region, and we hope that the air defence system he is sending to Bahrain will be in position as soon as possible. But we note reports that at least one of the Iranian missiles fired at Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer. Is it correct that the US intercepted this missile before the government decided on Saturday to grant the US further permission for use of our bases? Doesn't this once again underline Labour's extraordinary double standards? That until their latest U-turn, the government have been relying on the US to defend us whilst denying them the use of our bases.

And given reports that the Iranian missile headed for Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer. This underlines the critical importance of our type 45 when it comes to our own air defence. So whilst we welcome HMS Dragon finally arriving, does he regret not sending her much, much sooner? As he knows, the type 45 Sea Viper Air Defence System relies on Aster missiles. Last week I wrote to him urging him to use the HM Treasury funding for the Middle East operations to urgently procure missiles needed for the Middle East, including LM for our Wildcat and rapid century as RAM for our fighter jets and Aster for the type 45.

Since then, he's confirmed the order of LM, which I welcome. Will he now use the reserve to order more air defence missiles for our ships and fighter planes? Of course, if our type 45 are to intercept the most sophisticated ballistic missiles, they need the Sea Viper system upgraded to Sea Viper Evolution, which I have repeatedly asked Ministers to accelerate as it is currently scheduled to enter service in 2032. Now, when I was a defence Minister, Mr Speaker HMS diamond was under attack by the Houthis in the Red sea, using expensive missiles to intercept cheap drones.

So I scrapped a load of red tape that accelerated the in-service date of our Dragonfire Anti-drone laser from 2032 to next year. Will the Secretary of State take similar steps to accelerate Sea Viper? Of course, the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that in a written answer I received in January about sea Viper evolution, the dry Minister responded that, and I quote, continued progress remains subject to guess what the defence investment plan now in defence orals. On the 15th of December, there were just four sitting days left before the rise of the House, and the Secretary of State couldn't tell us then whether they would publish the dip before recess.

So given that there are once again just four sitting days left before recess, and that he must know his diary for the week ahead, can the Secretary of State tell us, will the Defence Investment Plan be published before the rise of the House on Thursday? If not, will you publish it during purdah? And above all, if the dip is not going to be published this week to break the logjam with the Treasury, will he urge his Chancellor to take the difficult decisions required to set a course for spending 3% on defence this Parliament, not the next? And finally, surely even the Secretary of State can see that hypothetical legal action in close by.

A country without a Navy or a standing army is less of a threat to our base on Diego Garcia than long range missiles fired by Iran. So isn't the best way he could stand up for our sovereign territory on Diego Garcia by scrapping Labour's crazy Chagos deal and spending every penny on the British Armed forces.
15:53
John Healey Portrait Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)
-
-
For defence. >> Mr. speaker, can I welcome his initial comments about the loss of initial comments about the loss of French and US personnel and recognise and respect those? He asked me first about the comments from President Trump today, which I'm sure the whole House will welcome. President Trump's statement today. It's recognition that there is progress in conversations about. And he says the complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East and his instruction to hold off further strikes against Iranian power plants.

This creates the opportunity and opening for further de-escalation. The onus is now on Iran to respond. Mr Speaker. The EU then went on to the. Strikes that I've reported of the missiles fired in the direction of Diego Garcia, and I would just say to him, look, we have been blunt and we have been open about the threat that Iran poses, the threat it poses to British nationals, to British bases and to British interests and partners, and to suggest otherwise is completely false.

And that's why we've been conducting the defensive operations throughout the region since day one of this war. Those missiles were fired towards Diego Garcia early on Friday morning, the same day I offered the defence shadow defence Secretary to come into the MoD for a secure briefing, and I welcome his thanks for that. But he above all as a former defence Minister, will know that no government routinely comments on the detail of such threats due to the nature of intelligence sharing.

He will also know that no government immediately confirms such events, partly because in any conflict, events are fast moving, but mainly because to do so may put at risk the safety of military personnel or compromise ongoing operations. And I just say to the hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind for the future, I want to reassure the public, however, about the concern and question he raises about long range Iranian missiles and any question of Iran targeting the UK and say quite clearly, there is no assessment that we're being targeted in the UK in that way.

We have the resources, we have the alliances in place in order to keep the United Kingdom safe from any kind of attacks. We operate a layered defence of this United Kingdom, our Navy, our RAF, our army, all involved. And of course, we operate our defence with other NATO allies. And so it's the layered defence against missiles or any sort of other threats, which is an important part of keeping this country safe. I say to the hon.

Gentleman, it seems to have taken a war in the Middle East for him to realise that air and missile defence systems for the UK are important. No, because in the last year of his government, they slashed defence spending on ground based on ground based air defence by 70% because when he was defence Minister he promised a munitions strategy which he never published and was never funded, and it was down to this government. Last June, as part of the Strategic defence review that announced an extra £1 billion for air and missile defence above the Tory plans that he left Mr Speaker.

It's UK under this government that has been leading NATO's Diamond Air and Missile Defence Initiative. It's this government that this year alone has boosted spending on Counter-drone systems fivefold from his last year in government and spending on ground based air defence systems by 50%. Mr. speaker, it's this government that's delivering for defence. After 14 years of underfunding and hollowing out under the previous government. And I have to say, I am still very confused about the Conservatives position on this war in Iran.

One week, the Leader of the Opposition said UK jets must go in to the source in Iran. And she said, I quote, we are in this war whether we like it or not. And then the next week, she said, I never said we should join the week after that, the shadow defence secretary said on Sky news there are no easy answers to this. Mr. Speaker. Finally, he talks about defence, investment, planning and spending. We're working to finalise the dip.

But he was, of course, the defence Minister. That left 47 out of 49 major defence programs not on Budget, not on time. He was the one that left a defence program that was overcommitted, underfunded and deeply unsuited to the threats that we now face. It is this government. It is a Labour government now delivering for defence 1200 major contracts signed since July 2024, 84% of them awarded to British businesses and the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War.
15:59
15:59
16:00
James MacCleary Portrait James MacCleary MP (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
James MacCleary Liberal Democrat spokesperson. spokesperson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Secretary of State for advanced sight of his statement today. We are four weeks on from today. We are four weeks on from the start of President Trump's illegal assault on Iran. Still, there is no plan, no end in sight. It is not Trump, nor indeed his partner in his ill conceived war, Netanyahu, who are paying the price. It is hard pressed British families, seeing in their energy bills and at the petrol pump, is billions around the world suffering economic fallout.

And it is over 100 little girls who will never be coming home from school. Rather than de-escalate the crisis, Trump is just making more threats. Instead of accepting responsibility, he is pointing fingers at allies, including Britain. There is much then, that I hope this House can agree on at this critical moment. Most importantly, that Britain's interests are only served by rapid escalation of hostilities. Liberal Democrats have not wavered from this view. I believe it reflects in many ways the broadly responsible approach this government, including the Defence Secretary, have taken to the war, emphasising the need for multilateral diplomacy while protecting our personnel and citizens under immediate threat in the region.

Nonetheless, the government's decision over the weekend to expand the use of UK bases for US strikes is grave and risks dragging Britain down the slope of Trump's war. It appears to be a significant shift in the government's position, so I would like to ask the Secretary of State, if I may, three questions. Does he agree with me that the government's definition of defensive is different today than it was when the House last sat? Will he commit to releasing in full the legal advice the government has received about this latest expansion of rights of US planes to use UK paces, and will he support Liberal Democrat proposed legislation to ensure proper monitoring of US sorties conducted from UK bases to ensure they are truly defensive in nature.
16:01
16:03
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:07
16:09
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:12
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:15
16:16
16:17
16:18
16:19
16:20
16:21
16:21
16:22
16:23
16:24
16:24
16:26
16:26
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:31
16:32
16:33
16:34
16:34
16:35
16:36
16:36
16:37
16:37
16:38
16:38
16:39
16:40
16:40
16:41
16:42
16:42
16:42
16:43
16:43
16:44
16:44
16:45
16:45
16:46
16:46
16:46
16:47
16:48
16:48
16:48
16:49
16:49
16:50
16:51
16:51
16:52
16:52
16:53
16:53
16:54
16:54
16:55
16:55
16:56
16:57
16:58
16:58
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Hatzola ambulance attack
-

Permission, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make.
16:58
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
attack in Golders Green, north London. I will begin with the facts as they are currently known. At 145 this morning, the Metropolitan Police and the London Fire Brigade Police and the London Fire Brigade were called to reports of a fire on Highfield Road, Golders Green. Officers attended the scene where Officers attended the scene where four ambulances from Hatzola, a volunteer ambulance service run by volunteer ambulance service run by members of the Jewish community, were on fire. The attack occurred in the car park of a local synagogue, where Hatzola vehicles for this area are based.

Now. Madam Deputy Speaker, I can tell the House that the vital work of this organisation will continue uninterrupted with its highly trained volunteers responding to calls as steadfastly as ever. Now the government is determined to deliver justice for this cowardly attack. Of course, we fully support the police in bringing the perpetrators to account, and we are equally committed to ensuring that Hatzola suffers no lasting impact as a consequence, as Secretary of State for health has confirmed, for replacement, ambulances will be in place by tomorrow morning and the government will fund permanent replacements to ensure that this essential service remains strong and fully equipped.

Nearby houses were evacuated as a precaution, with residents allowed to return quickly to their homes. Thankfully, no injuries occurred. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House will be aware that police are treating this arson attack as an anti-Semitic, anti-Semitic hate crime. The investigation is now being led by Counter Terrorism Policing. Although I should emphasise that this has not been declared a terrorist incident at this stage. No arrests have been made, but I take this opportunity to urge anyone with information to contact the police.

Now, officers are aware of an online claim from a group taking responsibility for this attack and establishing the accuracy of this claim is a priority for the investigation team, as the Home Secretary has told the House earlier, support for the Jewish community in London is being stepped up. The police have the unshakeable backing of this government and I am sure the whole House, in their effort to find the perpetrators of this awful crime, who should be in no doubt whatsoever that they will be pursued and made to face the consequences.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I also wish to echo the Home Secretary's words, thanking the police and the Fire and Rescue Service for the speed and professionalism of their response, which was vital in averting an even worse outcome. Now, shocking though it was to wake to this morning's developments, I know that for many, this outrage will not have come as a surprise occurring as it has at a time of profound distress and vulnerability within our Jewish communities. Now, given the vicious torrent of anti-Semitism that was unleashed following the October 7th attacks, a dreadful manifestation of which we saw to our horror in Manchester last year when Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue was the subject of a sickening act of terrorism on Yom Kippur, and today, as at that profoundly difficult moment, and as in the aftermath of the subsequent atrocity on Bondi Beach in Sydney, we declare once more that we stand with our Jewish friends, colleagues and neighbours, and with the oldest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hatred on the rise, we assert our unwavering commitment to defeat it. Yes. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear that this government will lead the way, including including through a including including through a relentless national security effort which is being mounted around the which is being mounted around the clock by MI5 and the police, who, of course, have our full backing in their work to detect and disrupt plots targeting the Jewish community in our country. Now, while those activities must necessarily take place away from view, our willingness to take strong and decisive action when threats present themselves has been underscored again in recent weeks.

With three men jailed over a foiled terrorist plot targeting the Jewish community in Greater Manchester and a separate investigation into suspected surveillance of locations and individuals linked to the Jewish community in the London area, which resulted in two men being charged last week under the National Security Act. Now, while our country's national security and law enforcement agencies retain a relentless focus on this threat, such is its perseverance and potency, that we have a responsibility to do more. It is a terrible indictment that we should need to do this, but we must, and we are now the demand for extra measures and precautions, such as those provided so expertly by the Community Security Trust, is only intensifying.

That is why, in the wake of the Manchester attack, we increased funding available via the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant to a record 28 million a level we are maintaining in the next financial year. We are also strengthening police powers for dealing with repeat protests, which have been a source of concern for many within the Jewish community. And the Home Secretary has commissioned Lord McDonald to undertake a review to consider how public order laws can be improved to keep hate and intimidation off our streets.

But we can only prevent the manifestations of this evil if we address the cause. By tackling the very existence of anti-Semitism in this country, that means adopting and enforcing a posture of zero tolerance in every part of our society. Now, the Online Safety Act will compel tech platforms to protect UK users from illegal anti-Semitic material. Meanwhile, we are acting to drive anti-Semitism out of the NHS with stronger mandatory training and an urgent review led by Lord Mann and in recognition of the critical importance of education in preventing young minds from being polluted, we have committed £7 million to combat antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities and we have launched a review led by Sir David Bell into anti-Semitism in schools and colleges, which is expected to conclude in the autumn.

We do all of this and more, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is right, because it is our responsibility and because, as the Home Secretary has repeatedly made clear, no one should have to live as small a Jewish life in this country. Now, I will finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, by addressing our Jewish community directly. Whether you live here in London or in any part of the United Kingdom, please know that we stand with you. We are here for you, and we will do everything in our power to keep you and your family safe, not just today after this appalling incident, but every day.

I commend this statement to the.
17:06
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
I called the Shadow Secretary of State. Chris Philp. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister, as always, for advance sight of his statement. This was a hideous anti-Semitic attack on a charity which provides ambulance services not just for the Jewish community, but for the whole community. I saw that myself some months ago when I visited the Stamford Hill branch of Hatzola, and my colleague the Member for Castle Point has been a great supporter of the Hatzola branch in her constituency.

Let me start by thanking Hatzola and the emergency services for their response. This morning. Anti-Semitic incidents are on the rise. The Jewish community has been targeted again and again, including by the Islamist murder at Heaton Park Synagogue last autumn, the Community Security Trust recorded the second highest ever number of anti-Semitic incidents last year. The truth is, the government must do a lot more to fight anti-Semitism. We have seen a recent anti-Semitic murder and a surge in anti-Semitism, but too little has been done, as this morning's outrage demonstrates.

This morning I visited the Hatzola branch in Golders Green, together with my right hon. Friend, the Shadow Foreign Secretary. I spoke to dozens of people this morning in Golders Green who are now living in fear, including a mother worried about sending her children to school, and anti-Semitism often goes hand in hand with Islamist extremism, a threat we know all too well. The murders on seven over seven. 52 people, the murder of Sir David Amess and the 22 victims of the Manchester Arena attack, all perpetrated by Islamist extremists.

75% of MI5's terrorism caseload relates to Islamist extremism, 94% of terrorist murders in the last 25 years were perpetrated by Islamists, and yet only 10% of the caseload is Islamist. So I ask the Minister again, as I've asked before, what is he going to do about that? In October, I asked the Home Secretary to use her powers under section three, subsection five of the Immigration Act, 1971, to remove any foreign national who expresses extremist views, sympathy for violence or terrorism or anti-Semitism, or any other religious hatred.

She said that she can exercise that power where someone is, quote, not conducive to the public good. It's a wide ranging power. She should use it. The Home Secretary said she was reviewing the use of the power and promised to update the House, but we have heard nothing since. And so I ask now the Security Minister to update the House on what the government are going to do with that power and will use those powers to deport the perpetrators of today's attack once they've been caught.

If they are not British citizens. Now, since Hamas attack on October 7th, we have seen protesters marching on London streets openly calling for jihad and intifada. These are express calls for violence. We should no longer tolerate chants at these marches, which encourage and endorse violence and which fuel anti-Semitism. They must simply not be allowed. We must do more to prevent anti-Semitic attacks happening in the first place. So will the Security Minister commit to authorising the use of intrusive surveillance powers usually reserved for counter-terrorism or counter threats, to also be used to identify and prevent anti-Semitic attacks, which are in the planning? And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, since July 2024, 67,000 illegal immigrants have arrived here by small boat, a 45% increase on the period before.

As I've said, the small boat crisis is not just a border crisis but a national security crisis as well. How can we be sure these unvetted illegal migrants are not linked to terror groups or extremists such as the small boat illegal migrant Moses, who had previously posted on social media brandishing a gun and spouting support for Hamas. If we are serious about protecting the public, we must leave the ECHR and remove all illegal immigrants within a week of their arrival.

Mr Speaker warm words for the Jewish community alone are no longer enough. We need to take the tough actions that will actually make a difference. Some of which I've alluded to this afternoon. The litmus test. Madam Deputy Speaker, is not the good intentions the Minister has expressed today. The litmus test is taking the tough, difficult actions that will actually eradicate anti-Semitism from this country.
17:10
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me begin on what I hope is a point of consensus between the shadow Home Secretary and myself. I think he will agree that any attack on the Jewish community isn't just an attack on the Jewish community. It's not just an attack on London. It is an attack on our whole country. And we send a very powerful message, I think as a House of Commons, if we stand together in saying that, that is completely unacceptable.

He referred, I think, slightly unfairly, to to warm words. These are not warm words. These are a statement of solidarity on behalf of government, and I hope on behalf of all of us in this place, to stand with the Jewish community at what is a very significant point of challenge for them. And we recognise that, and we give an absolute commitment to do everything that we possibly can and use every power that we have. And if there's a requirement for additional powers, we will make sure that we put those in place to keep that that community safe.

Now, the right hon. Gentleman gentleman mentioned the Community Security Trust. I do want to take the opportunity, and I know that he will join me in doing so, in paying tribute to the extraordinary dedication and work not just of those who are employed by the CST, but the extraordinary volunteer team who I've seen as other hon. Members will have done, doing an extraordinary job under difficult circumstances. They are an inspiring organisation. I spoke to the chief executive this morning, and all of us I know in this place will want to do everything that we possibly can to support them.

The right hon. Gentleman, he made a number of points, some of which I think were reasonable, some of which slightly less so. He did make, I think, an entirely valid point about the need to counter extremism in our country. These are measures that we are seeking to take. Again, I would never want to to have this debate in a party political environment. We do need to clamp down on those who seek to bring hate to our country. And Home Secretary is absolutely clear that she will use all of the powers that are available to her in order to do that.

Now, the Home Secretary, I think, made a reasonable point about prevent referrals, and he's flagged it with with me previously. This is not something that is new to this particular government. It goes back under the previous government, and we are looking very carefully at what we can do to ensure that there is much less of a mismatch in the way that he described. And I give him an assurance that we're looking very closely at that. He also referenced the concern that I know lots of hon.

Members will have about protest activity that has taken place in recent times, and that is precisely why the Home Secretary has commissioned Lord McDonald to look at this issue, and we expect him to make recommendations as soon as he's practically able to.
17:13
17:14
17:15
Luke Taylor Portrait Luke Taylor MP (Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Democrat spokesperson Luke Taylor. Taylor. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, like so many Londoners, woke up this morning to Londoners, woke up this morning to the news of this cowardly attack and felt that horrible pit in my stomach of disgust and also deep concern for my Jewish friends and neighbours. I want to express my heartfelt sympathies to Jews across London and the country, and to affirm that hate like this will never be normalised. It is the opposite of everything our city stands for.

We welcome the government's commitment to replace the ambulance as quickly. But can the Minister set out what immediate safety measures are being put in place for local residents and key Jewish sites across the country? I'd also like to reiterate that our efforts in this place must be not just on responding after the fact, but making meaningful interventions beforehand to stop distressing crimes like this happening in the first place. That means recognising that we have an antisemitism problem in this country and that, crucially, we must take action to tackle the root causes of it.

Will the Minister set out what steps the recently unveiled cohesion strategy will take to bring an end to the scourge that is antisemitism in this country? Likewise, will the Minister finally listen to our calls to reverse the cuts to the Metropolitan Police officer numbers? Since May 2024, it's estimated that 2508 officers have been lost. While the Met Commissioner has warned of the increasing difficulty in keeping Londoners safe with a shrinking force. Madam Deputy Speaker, Visible policing plays a key role in deterring and investigating this kind of crime, and it reassures communities like our Jewish community because no one should live in fear as a result of their religion.

So can the Minister explain what the government will do now to get more, not fewer, police officers on our streets in London, to stop horrific incidents like this from ever happening again?
17:17
17:18
17:19
17:20
17:20
17:21
17:21
17:22
17:22
17:23
17:24
17:25
17:26
17:27
17:27
17:28
17:29
17:30
17:30
17:31
17:31
17:32
17:33
17:33
17:34
17:35
17:36
17:36
17:37
17:37
17:38
17:38
17:39
17:40
17:41
17:41
17:42
17:42
17:43
17:44
17:44
17:45
17:46
17:47
17:47
17:48
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Well. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am, for the wisdom with which he brings to these matters, which he brings to these matters, and he speaks with great experience and passion on them, and has also been a very long standing champion of all those who seek to practise their religion. I hope through the remarks I've made today and previously, I've conveyed the seriousness and the importance with which we attach to these issues. Nobody, regardless of their religion, should be in fear that they are going to be targeted in this country, and that is why this is a priority for the government to make sure that we've got the right resources in place, the right legislative framework, and we're taking the necessary and proportionate actions that we are.

My final point, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, is just again, to thank those brave men and women, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will join me in doing this. Who serve in our police, who, as we speak, are out there seeking to apprehend the perpetrators of this attack. And we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wish them every good fortune with their work. That is the end of the statement on Hatzola ambulance attack. I'll on Hatzola ambulance attack. I'll give the Frontbenches a moment to give the Frontbenches a moment to shuffle over. To the. Shadow Minister seems to have crossed the floor, but is now back on his own side. Maybe not. We now come to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill program number two program motion to be moved formally. Wrexham move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, is that opinion say a of the contrary, no.

The ayes have it, the ayes have it. The clerk will now ayes have it. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.
17:50
17:51
Sharon Hodgson Portrait Mrs Sharon Hodgson MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Washington and Gateshead South, Labour)
-
-
Speaker, and I beg to move that this House agrees. With Lords Amendment number one. >> Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, and before I address Lords Amendment one, I would like to take this opportunity would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire for her work on this bill and wider prevention agenda. And I also extend my thanks to Baroness Merron for her work in the Other place, ensuring that the bill was expertly steered through the legislative process. Madam Deputy Speaker, This is a landmark bill and I am honoured to have taken on responsibility for it as the House considers the amendments made in the other place, creating a smoke free generation is the most significant public health intervention since the ban on smoking in public places in 2007.

Under the last Labour government, tobacco claims around 80,000 lives every year, and in England it is responsible for a quarter of all cancer deaths. Someone is admitted to hospital almost every minute as a result of smoking, and up to two thirds of deaths among current smokers can be attributed directly to smoking. These are not abstract figures. They represent lives cut short from an entirely preventable harm. The bill also takes decisive action to tackle the rapid rise in the use of vapes and other nicotine products, particularly amongst young people.

Protecting protecting a new generation from nicotine addiction. All of the amendments to be considered today are accepted by the government, starting with Lords amendments one, two, 39 and 40, which change the parliamentary procedure for the Age Verification Regulations from negative to affirmative. In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, these regulations will set out how retailers may ensure compliance when verifying a customer's age. These changes were made as a result of a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which the government accepts.

Lords, I'll give way to my own. I've always

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wanted to give way to my hon. Friend who sits on the other side. Thank you. Minister, so well done to you as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, so well done to you as well. It's been a joy for us all to see the elevation of the hon. Lady to the position that she now holds, to the position that she now holds, and I wish her well. Madam Deputy Speaker, Is the Minister aware that Speaker, Is the Minister aware that the DUP member and the upper House, Lord Dodds, had continued their push for changes to age verification within the Bill and that my party's primary motivation for these amendments was repairer protection.

Without strict parliamentary scrutiny of age verification rules, small businesses would face disproportionate burdens compared to large supermarkets and the moving age restriction raising raising by one year every year makes manual verification increasingly difficult for shopkeepers over time, and this must be addressed. Has the Minister had the opportunity to address this particular issue that concerned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

many people? Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. We do not intend to Deputy Speaker. We do not intend to place undue burdens on retailers, and it should actually be easier, because there's only one date that because there's only one date that anyone will have to remember when verifying somebody's age. And it's verifying somebody's age. And it's the 1st of January 2029. So it should be actually a lot easier. Nobody has to do any complicated arithmetic in their head anymore, but I thank the hon.

Gentleman for his intervention. So Lords amendments three and four provide a narrow exemption to the bill's ban on vending machines, allowing these to be used in adult mental health settings in England and Wales, and only in areas wholly or mainly for patients, and this aims to support adult inpatients who may face limits on accessing vaping products used to manage nicotine addiction, and the government remains committed to the wider ban on vending machines to prevent children and young people from being able to bypass the age restrictions on vapes and nicotine products.

However, we are aware that adults with long term mental health conditions have a much higher smoking prevalence than the general population, and ensuring that adult inpatients are able to access vapes from vending machines, support smoking cessation. So Lords amendments six, seven, 9 to 18, 20, 25, 27, 29 to 31 and 92 to 102 relate to the creation of a licensing scheme in England, and these amendments allow for the licensing authority to enforce a future scheme in addition to trading standards, and this change was made in response to feedback from local government stakeholders that this would strengthen the scheme and help it to be managed more efficiently.

Following its Introduction and Lords amendments, 21 to 24 and 28 allow the proceeds from the 2500 pounds fixed penalty notice for licensing offences in England and Wales, to be retained by local authorities for enforcement purposes, and the Bill previously required them to be returned to the consolidated fund after costs were deducted, and this aligns with the bill's approach to allow local authorities to retain the proceeds from the £200 fixed penalty notices, so local authorities will be able to reinvest proceeds into strengthening enforcement of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill and help tackle the illicit market. On that. Point, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point, I will. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Could I. Also welcome. The Minister to her post and say how wonderful it is to see her there leading on this important work? Just really a point of clarification that the measure that clarification that the measure that she mentions, I'm sure, will be welcomed by local authorities, and certainly my own experience in my area is that there are hotspots area is that there are hotspots where local authorities struggle with enforcement on a range of issues, whether that's anti-social behaviour, noise or other activities.

Does she know if that the measure will apply to all local authorities, or just local authorities in some parts of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country would be wonderful if all local authorities. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I thank my friend for that intervention, and as far as I'm aware, it is all local authorities. I'm getting affirmative nods from I'm getting affirmative nods from the box. So it is all local authorities, so I'm happy to be able to give him that reassurance. The government has also tabled The government has also tabled amendments 28 A to 28 C and 29 A to 29 C to correct an error arising from changes made at Report stage in the other place, because without these trading standards, officers in Wales would lose the ability to issue certain fixed penalty notices for a short period.

So these amendments resolve that issue and ensure consistency in the approach between England and Wales. Turning to the bill's ban on the advertising of vape and nicotine products, Lords amendment 72, 106 to 109. Create a specific defence and provide additional clarity for businesses, ensuring that businesses can promote non-branded vaping products and nicotine products. Where this is done in an arrangement with a public health authority for public health reasons, and it was always the government's intention to allow public authorities to continue to promote effective smoking cessation tools.

And these amendments strengthen that, and I am pleased that we can provide reassurances to healthcare professionals that they can continue to promote smoking cessation materials in agreement with public health authorities. There are also a number of more technical Lords amendments relating to advertising 71, 104, 105, 110 and 123. These ensure the delivery of the policy as intended, ensure consistency of approach and take account of changes to other legislation. These support the implementation and enforcement of the advertising provisions in the Bill.

Turning to the issue of filters which has been raised throughout the passage of the bill both in this House and the Other place action on filters has been proposed by parties from across the political spectrum because of concerns about environmental harms as well as those to health. However, parliamentarians have advocated for a number of different ways in which filters should be restricted. Lords amendment 32 to 34, 37, 38, 42 to 48, 51 to 59, 62, 77, 78 and 103.

Therefore, take a suite of powers that would enable secondary legislation to regulate filters. Should. Evidence should suggest it is necessary. These regulations could include banning filters in the future, as well as regulating their packaging, advertising and display the evidence of the effect of filters, including their direct health impact is still emerging and no decision, therefore has been made on the use of these powers. The government will only look to consult on using these powers. If we think there is sufficient evidence to justify action.

Lords amendments 89 to 91 bring forward the commencement of the Bill's updated definition of a tobacco product in existing legislation from two months after Royal Assent to the date of Royal Assent, and this reflects the government's position that the existing definition captures all tobacco products currently on the market. There is therefore no need for any notice to be given before the new definition comes into force. Lords amendments 49 and 50 provide additional powers to allow for the regulation of technology in vapes.

This responds to the emergence of concerning examples of technology being used to make vapes more enticing to young people, including puff leaderboards and rewards linked to increased usage. Lords amendment 80 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to review the operation of the act within 4 to 7 years of Royal Assent, and to lay a report before Parliament setting out the conclusions of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

review. I will give way. As much as thinking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As much as thinking. Of review of the act. Is the government in a position to give an absolute guarantee that this Bill, in all its parts, will apply to the whole United Kingdom, and in particular Northern Ireland, where we still, alas, are subject to the we still, alas, are subject to the subject to the EU's tobacco directive, which many believe conflicts with. A key part of this bill. Can the government guarantee it will apply? And if it turns out that it's overturned in Northern Ireland in that respect, will the government commit to legislate? So, as it does apply across the whole UK?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and we are content that the measures in the Bill, which are intended to apply to Northern Ireland, are compatible Northern Ireland, are compatible with the obligations under the Windsor framework, and I hope that Windsor framework, and I hope that answers his concern on that point. answers his concern on that point. As I said, within 4 to 7 years of royal assent, Lena. Report before Parliament and setting out the conclusions of the review.

We hope that this will therefore then be a clear demonstration of the government's commitment to monitoring progress against our smoke free ambition. And finally, there are various other Lords amendments five, eight, 36, 41, 60, 61, 63 to 76, 79 and 81 to 88 that make technical amendments to the bill, and this includes amendments that are consequential to the commencement of several other acts, as well as improving consistency in drafting across the bill. So I encourage all members to support all of these amendments.

These are meaningful changes that strengthen the bill and respond to concerns across the House and in the other place. And the government amendments tabled today will return to the Other place for consideration, and I look forward to their timely agreement as the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill completes its final stages. Thank you. Question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment one, and I call the shadow Minister, Doctor Luke Evans.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shadow Minister, Doctor Luke Evans. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and can I welcome the new Minister to her place like a technical to her place like a technical finishing substitute to step in and take this bill through. I too have been substituted in for my fellow colleague, the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who spent a huge
18:04
Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
amount of time in committee going through this. And so I'd like to place on record my thanks to her, because for what she has done, I because for what she has done, I haven't had to, which has been a much relief. But we turn to this bill now in front of us. bill now in front of us. Eradicating smoking amongst young people is a public health priority. There may be differences about how There may be differences about how we achieve that, but there's a shared objective across this House shared objective across this House and we will not be dividing the House tonight.

There have been important common ground. As my colleague Lord Kamall said. In the other place, smoking is harmful. Vaping is less harmful than smoking, and not vaping is better than vaping. Those principles should guide this legislation, and I think we can all agree they underpin the bill introduced by the last government. Since then, it has expanded and at times risk losing focus on its central aim reducing smoking, particularly among young people. We on this side of the House have been concerned, for example, about measures that have placed additional burdens on hospitality and retail and about restrictions on vaping that could undermine its role as a quitting tool for adult smokers.

I therefore welcome the changes made in the House of Lords and the government's acceptance of them. Further, the exemption of the adult mental health inpatient setting from the ban on vapes vending machines is sensible and compassionate. In its decision, Ministers were right to respond to concerns raised by peers, including my colleague Lord Moylan and mental health charities, and we welcome the changes to clause 12. It's also right that local authorities will be able to retain proceeds from the fixed penalty notices to support enforcement.

Under the amendments laid in clause 39. However, the bill marks not the end of the process, simply the end of the beginning. Key questions remain, including the regulation of flavours and descriptors, advertising and the designation of vape-free places. These decisions will pretty much determine whether the Bill works in practice, so therefore essential that the government proceeds in a way that is proportionate, enforceable and sustainable. We have already seen the importance of that balance, and I welcome the decision to drop proposals to extend restrictions in pub gardens, which would have placed further strain on the hospitality sector.

However, Ministers should take note. Restriction restrictions should be targeted at areas where there is clear and significant risk to public health. Possible considerations include outside schools and playgrounds, and I gently ask the Minister to reflect that approach as further regulations are developed. Now the Lords also strengthened Secretary of State's powers in relation to cigarette filters, enabling more effective regulation of components that contribute to environmental harm. And in addition, a series of technical amendments were agreed upon aimed at clarifying and clarifying definitions, improving compliance mechanisms and ensuring secondary legislation is subject to the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny.

For example, Lords Amendment one relating to age verification regulations under clause one require the affirmative procedure to be used, increasing oversight on the core principle part of this Bill. These are sensible improvements that reflect the spirit of constructive scrutiny, a key and central issue raised throughout the passage of this bill has been the risk of unintended consequences, particularly the growth of the illicit market. Now, whether you for this bill or against this bill, that one concern unites us all.

The black market, if regulation is too restrictive or poorly enforced, it will drive consumers away from legal market and into an illegal supply that would undermine both the public health and the enforcement. Now, the opposition proposed an annual report on illicit tobacco and vaping activity, which the government rejected. Given the concerns raised throughout the passage of this bill, will gratefully ask the Minister if they could set out clearly how the government will monitor and respond to changes in the illicit market.

We support the broad objectives of this legislation, but we will be watching closely. The success of this bill depends not on its intentions but on its delivery. Now, when this bill was first introduced, I spoke about my experience as a junior doctor on respiratory ward, my first hospital job. I shall. Patients struggling for breath, families in distress, and moments where despite everything, there was little more that could be done. The true test of this bill is simple that in years ahead, fewer families will have to experience the very same pain, suffering, despair.

So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

let's hope this works. Mary Kelly Foy thank. You, Madam. Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to begin by declaring an interest, as I'm proud to be the co-chair of the I'm proud to be the co-chair of the APPG Smoking and Health, and I'm very pleased to see this bill return from the Lords with minimal return from the Lords with minimal amendments. All amendments before us are either government amendments or have government support, and I hope that the Bill can achieve Royal Assent as soon as possible. And I understand that the amendments put forward today by the Secretary of State are simply due to a drafting error, so I assume it will only need some brief consideration by the Lords.

I'm proud that it is a Labour government that will see this bill
18:10
Mary Kelly Foy Portrait Mary Kelly Foy MP (City of Durham, Labour)
-
-
become law, and I hope that this government will be remembered as the one that began the end of smoking in this country and in a few decades time. I hope smoking is something that people will look something that people will look back on with disbelief, particularly young people asking, can you believe that selling can you believe that selling tobacco, a lethal product with the aim of getting us hooked, was ever aim of getting us hooked, was ever allowed before coming to this place? During my time as a councillor at Gateshead Council, I held the public health portfolio from 2009 to 2019 and chaired the Tobacco Gateshead Tobacco Alliance, and tackling smoking was a central part of my work during that time, and it continues today because it remains the single biggest driver of health and equality in communities like mine and across the northeast, and in areas of high deprivation.

Smoking is not just a public health issue, but a deeply entrenched, entrenched inequality. It's far more common in disadvantaged communities, where people are more likely to start younger, find it harder to quit and suffer the worst health outcomes as a result. And that means higher rates of cancer, heart disease and respiratory illness and lives cut tragically, almost as short. And I've seen that reality firsthand over many years. And it's why action like this is so important. Tobacco, we should remember, is the single most harmful commercial product on sale in the world.

It's sold for profit while killing around two thirds of its long term users and generating enormous returns for the companies that manufacture it. It's highly addictive, and many who start wish they hadn't. Over 80,000 people die in this country every year because of it, and it's unthinkable that if it was introduced today, it would ever be permitted. So this government is right to legislate for a smoke free generation, because there's a fundamental imbalance at the heart of this issue.

Companies making vast profits from a product that drives disease kills 2 in 3 of its customers, deepens inequality and places huge costs on our NHS and wider society. And we know how important it is to work towards a truly smoke free future. Driving smoking rates down as close to zero as possible. In the northeast, we have a clear declaration for a smoke free future endorsed by all directors of Public Health or Integrated Care Board Fresh, all 12 local councils and all ten local hospital trusts.

That kind of whole system commitment is vital not just for improving health but for tackling poverty, supporting a more productive region and preventing the premature loss of loved ones to smoking related disease. And the work that is already is already delivering results. In County Durham, smoking rates have nearly halved over the last decade, reflecting the sustained effort across prevention and support to help people quit. But we also know that rates remain higher in some communities, so we cannot afford to lose focus now.

And I'm equally pleased of the strong cross-party support for this bill, and we saw that clearly in debates. In the other place, the APPG on smoking and health is a great cross-party effort and I'm proud, proud to co-chair with my hon. Friend from Harrow East. But there's much there is much to welcome in these amendments. In particular, amendment 80, which requires the government to review the act, is an important addition that strengthens the bill. To be clear, this is not just a.

This is not a sunset clause, nor is it a test of whether a smoke free generation policy has succeeded in its health aims. The impact assessment makes it clear that we are playing the long game. Rather, it will assess how smoothly implementation has progressed and what burdens, if any, have fallen on retailers and I'm confident that it will report positively and that it will encourage other countries to follow our lead. And I note that a similar private member's bill is currently before the French Parliament, which I hope also reassures colleagues about the policy.

The policy's compatibility with EU law. The bill takes a wide range of powers to regulate nicotine products, including vapes, and this is very welcome as usage among young people is far too high and marketing is widespread. I mean, you can hardly travel on the tube today without seeing advertising for nicotine pouches. And while these products are certainly less harmful than smoking, and in the case of vapes are very effective, smoking cessation, the marketing often presents them as a lifestyle product for recreational use.

Yes. Thank you all for giving me, and commend her for all the work that she did as part of the APPG and in her former role as a counsellor. Does she find it shocking, as I do, that 4 in 10 adult smokers in this country believe vaping to be as harmful or more harmful than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

smoking, when it's one of the most effective tools to help people quit. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, thanks for that. That intervention. And I totally agree. We, we kind of take our mind off We, we kind of take our mind off the fact that it is smoking that causes the harm and the death, not not the vaping. So and it is used not the vaping. So and it is used as a very, very successful cessation tool. And I'm hoping that cessation tool. And I'm hoping that this bill will continue to push that. And powers in the bill cover marketing, display, packaging and product design, as well as flavours and the descriptions.

But there is a crucial balance to strike, reducing youth appeal without limiting the access, the access or the effectiveness. For those using the products. Quit smoking. We must keep those harms of smoking firmly at the forefront of our minds. And the review after 4 to 7 years feels appropriate to assess how the regulations are affecting usage and the market, and whether we're striking the right balance. And this should be considered alongside the disposable vape ban and the forthcoming vape excise tax.

And I would welcome reassurance today that the review will place the harms of smoking and the needs of smokers, smokers at its centre and many of the other amendments are technical in nature. I welcome the comprehensive definition of tobacco coming into force on Royal assent, with amendments 89, 90 and 91, as there's no need for a transition period there. The exemption for vape vending machines and amendments three and four is also welcome, as others have noted, because we must ensure that vulnerable smokers are supported as much as possible to quit.

And she's as she's recently taken up her role, I'd like to welcome the Minister for Public Health to her position, and I look forward to working with her as this bill soon to be act progresses so we can continue our work and hopefully set out a roadmap for a totally smoke-free country and to look again at the introduction of a polluter pays levy. And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, as someone who has spent many years advocating for a smoke free future, free of death of disease from tobacco, I know from speaking and listening to many people affected by smoking just how much the public want and need this action.

We've already shifted the social norms around smoking. And now, thanks to the work of organisations like Action on Smoking and Health, fresh and colleagues across the two houses, a smoke free future is now possible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And that's something to truly celebrate. Here I call the Liberal Democrat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Doctor Danny Chambers. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I'd also like to welcome the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd also like to welcome the Minister to her new position as Minister of Public Health. I had the privilege of serving on this bill committee, as other people did bill committee, as other people did see some some familiar faces here. And one of the things that struck And one of the things that struck me most was when the Chief Medical Officer gave his evidence. One of his comments was that this isn't only the most significant piece of legislation to affect public health in 30 years, it's probably the single piece of legislation will also help address inequality, because the main.

Well, it's multifactorial, but one of the main factors in the life expectancy difference between certain wealthier areas and certain more deprived areas are the rates of smoking. So I think this is going to have a huge impact on, especially on the communities that we're really trying to improve life
18:19
Danny Chambers Portrait Dr Danny Chambers MP (Winchester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
expectancy on. And I'm very pleased that the government has accepted so that the government has accepted so many amendments in the Lords. One of the particular ones the Liberal Democrats were really keen on was Democrats were really keen on was the fixed penalty notices. That requires all the money from these fines to go to local public health fines to go to local public health initiatives, as directed by local authorities. As we know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that public health is so important, and yet funding for such organisations is usually extremely limited given the pressures on local authorities.

And without this amendment on fixed penalty notices, this money would have gone straight back to the Exchequer. And we fundamentally believe, if we're serious about making a meaningful difference to people's lives, then this money must be used in local smoking cessation initiatives. And as mental health spokesperson. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm also acutely aware of the the benefits of this amendment that is going to ensure that those with long term mental health conditions who who have higher rates of smoking than the general public.

We know that going cold turkey is simply unrealistic and it can even be dangerous. The exemption on vape vending machines in secure mental health hospitals ensures that people who are supported professionally in quitting in a sustainable and maintained way, they will not further damage their mental health. And finally also welcome a number of cross-party support on this amendment, on the regulation, on filters. Not only is this, you know, an environmental issue, but it also provides a false perception of safety to smokers and ensuring that there is awareness on the lack of protection these filters provide.

And are smoking as a whole is imperative if we are to ensure that people can make informed decisions about their health and their well-being. So I'm very pleased to be supporting this bill. Going through Parliament. It is momentous. It is significant. We really appreciate the government accepting these Liberal Democrat amendments as well, which which do just slightly improve how it will be delivered. And this we're very pleased. This is going to be a very strong and impactful bill, and we hopefully will deliver meaningful change on public health for generations to come.

And we'll have a smoke free generation growing up. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much. Madam Deputy Speaker, and can I welcome the Minister to her new welcome the Minister to her new position and also her predecessors for all of the excellent work they did in getting this through bill did in getting this through bill committee and also in representations in the House of Lords. This is a. As has been rightly said by members across this chamber, this is a seminal piece of
18:22
Tristan Osborne Portrait Tristan Osborne MP (Chatham and Aylesford, Labour)
-
-
legislation which puts Britain at the forefront of smoking cessation, a bill which will be modelled in other nations around the world and which reflects the changing nature of tobacco use in the United Kingdom. I remember when I was growing up in the 2000, not that many years ago. Some might suggest that smoking was a real problem in schools. Under Eighteens in particular, 50% of cohorts were smoking. Fast forward to today as a former school teacher, and that has now dramatically reduced.

But we do see new technologies like vapes and chewable tobacco taking their place. And so I welcome many measures in this bill, and I welcome the fact that we're the cheerleaders and taking this forward. But specifically to the amendments, I do welcome the cross-party consensus that's been had, excepting many of the Lord amendments, and also accepting proposals from representative groups outside of this chamber, including the ban and restrictions on filters which are evolving as we speak and in cases, many cases around the world are quickly changing so that they still remain a problem.

I also want to accept also some of the changes to vending machines. I think one of the big things that was discussed in Bill committee was the nature of having vending machines in mental health and other health institutions as a use as a smoking cessation tool. And that came out of the debate in bill committee. And so it is welcome that we do accept that vaping does remain a smoking cessation tool. And it is one that, broadly speaking, until the evidence is presented otherwise, is a far more healthy product than cigarettes themselves.

And so vapes do continue to have a place in regards to smoking cessation. I also also want to thank the government for accepting government. Other amendments on the specific allocation of fines to local authorities up to 2500 that would be specifically ring fenced for those councils. We know that councils do outstanding work in challenging illegal tobacco, and my council in Medway in Kent, has some of the most successful track record of identifying illegal tobacco and challenging those who market the product.

But we know that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and certainly these products contain significant quantities of dangerous chemicals and other types of product, which can be severely damaging to people's health. And I also want to thank lastly around restrictions to advertising, we know that there is gamification around tobacco products. We know for generations that tobacco companies have sought to promote advertising to specifically young people to for them to become addicted at ever younger ages. This is not a new technique.

This has been happening for generations and I. I accept, and I'm glad the government has accepted amendments around advertising to ensure that we restrict those on television and other marketing efforts. So I do think that this bill and also all of the amendments submitted by members across this chamber and in the other place, respecting the views of different organisations in civil society, are, broadly speaking, extremely sensible. And I'm glad that the House is not dividing tonight. And just lastly, I want to pay testament and tribute to all of those people working in our health services that have been the most clear advocates for this bill, because they are the people who have been dealing on the coalface every single day with the consequences of tobacco, be that on their lungs or heart disease or concurrent conditions.

And it is with their work and over many years that we are here today in this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and these amendments. So thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Jack Rankin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having sat on the bill Committee, the subsequent process around scrutiny of this bill has been entirely as expected. I was disappointed, though not surprised, by a failure to engage critically by a failure to engage critically with its contents and to listen to the real concerns of, in particular, the high street businesses and hospitality industry. It will most impact. I disagree with the Socialist bill on principle, and I have a lot of time for my friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth.

I am sorry to see my frontbench to continue to support its broad thrust. It creates two tiers of adults and at its core is fundamentally illiberal. However, I was willing to look beyond that and engage constructively with the
18:27
Jack Rankin Portrait Jack Rankin MP (Windsor, Conservative)
-
-
government to improve the legislation. That is why I tabled a series of common sense amendments series of common sense amendments at both committee and Report stage in this place. These would have allowed for the advertisement of allowed for the advertisement of smoke free products in venues that are already adult, only required a consultation on the impact of consultation on the impact of advertisement bans on retailers, and permitted targeted advertisement of vapes and smoke advertisement of vapes and smoke free alternatives to existing adult smokers.

These proposals had some cross-party support in this House, and two were taken up by peers in the other place, notably by Lord Lister and Lord sharp for the opposition. Throughout this process, I've engaged with the Minister and her predecessors through letters and written questions, and I genuinely thank her for her timely responses. However, it quickly became clear that there was little interest from the government in improving this bill, which is driven more by Puritan ideology than evidence or practicality. As a result, we have seen this bill forced through by the Labour government and their little helpers, the Liberal Democrats in the other place, with no regard to implementation or unintended consequences.

Today, we are likely to again way through a hundred government amendments from the Lords with minimal scrutiny. All sides of this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, will welcome that smoking rates in this country have declined from 30% in the early 2000 to 10.4% today. The free market has played a key role in this, with companies creating less harmful, smoke free alternatives, whether that's vapes or nicotine pouches. There has been a consistent failure to recognise what an important role such products have played in the decline of smoking.

I hold concerns that the tight restrictions in this bill on flavours on advertising will stop adult smokers from making the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

switch. We will be doing these. I thank you. For giving way and although I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way and although I disagree with much of what he's saying, I recognise the passion in which he speaks. Would he not recognise that part of the issue recognise that part of the issue with vape products is that a number of people who are smoking vapes, that haven't previously smoked cigarettes, and that is a concern. cigarettes, and that is a concern. It isn't just about vapes being an alternative to smoking and, you know, an attempt to stop people know, an attempt to stop people smoking.

There is an issue that young people are being drawn to vapes rather than cigarettes because of their colours. Would you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognise that is an issue that does need to be addressed? So I. Would absolutely recognise that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would absolutely recognise that we should be making sure that these products are readily available to adult smokers. Children should never start, but I'm afraid I feel never start, but I'm afraid I feel that the heavy handed nature of this bill is at risk of giving the broad message to the general public broad message to the general public that vapes are bad, and that is not a message that we want to send to existing adult smokers. And the existing adult smokers. And the point was ably made by some of his friends on the opposite benches earlier.

And I believe we'll be doing a disservice and setting back the very public health aims of this bill. By advancing the bill as it stands, amendment 72 rightly protects the advertisement of vapes and nicotine products if part of a public health campaign. But this proves the great irony of the bill. The government knows that vapes and nicotine products are an effective quit aid and actively promotes them for this purpose, but at the same time, they are bringing in measures that will reduce their availability and attractiveness to adult smokers.

If Ministers were not, would not listen to members of this House and peers in the other place. I had hoped that they might at least listen to the hundreds of high street businesses who took the time to write to them. I share their concerns about the extra pressures this bill will place on corner shops, convenience stores and hospitality businesses and how it will change the face of our high streets. This is where the real impact of the bill will be felt. These businesses are already under immense pressure from high energy costs, increase in National Insurance contribution, the Workers rights Bill and changes to business rates.

I will admit Madam Deputy Speaker the government are nothing if not consistent. Corner shops and convenience stores now face losing customer due to the generational ban, alongside further compliance burdens throughout through advertising restrictions and licensing schemes. The ban alone is expected to cost 7680, store closures, cost 70,000 jobs and cost retailers 6.52 billion. Not my numbers, Madam Deputy Speaker the government's own impact assessment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And as those legitimate businesses struggle, yes will. For giving way. And he does raise very legitimate points about raise very legitimate points about the pressures facing small businesses at the moment. But does he not agree that there must be better ways of supporting small businesses than facilitating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children getting cancer? I'm not suggesting that at all, sir. I'm suggesting that the sir. I'm suggesting that the generational smoking ban, which is smoking adults, none of whom I have ever met, who did not know smoking is bad for them, is an illiberal policy which creates two tiers of adults. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with people making decisions that us individually might think is bad for them. And that's the evidence suggests. But there should be perfectly able to make those decisions should they choose.

And as for those legitimate businesses, as those legitimate businesses struggle, less, scrupulous operators will inevitably fill the gap. The rapid growth of seemingly dodgy vape shops is a real concern for my constituents in Windsor, and will be right across this house. On the high street in Windsor. There are eight such shops. This is not, I would argue, a response to the demand for vapes. And so we should ask whether there is fraud, money laundering or organised crime taking place. We already have much evidence to say there is.

During a mystery shopper exercise in Windsor and Sunningdale, I witnessed the sale of illicit tobacco in three shops. It was alarmingly easy to obtain. The price difference explains why a pack of illicit cigarettes can cost as little as £3.50, compared to £16.75 at retail. If such activity is taking place. Opening today openly today, it raises the question what else might be happening behind the scenes and where will this go? The bill with turbocharging, an already thriving black market, tobacco receipts are down £440 million, 10% in the last six months alone and have fallen nearly 30% over the last decade, far outpacing the decline in smoking rates.

Over 1 in 4 cigarettes consumed in Britain is now illicit, amounting to around 2 billion cigarettes each year, and the international evidence, including in Australia, should serve as a warning. Members who are sceptical should spend time with their local trading standards to see the reality themselves. It's why hundreds of retailers backed an amendment tabled by Lord Murray of Beardsworth that would have replaced the generational ban with a minimum age of sale of 21. This would have been more enforceable and less costly.

Naturally, it was rejected. Hospitality business have also voiced concerns about provisions in this bill. This is a sector so important to the economy in Windsor, and it's already struggling. Since the 2024 Budget, job losses in the sector have made up around 50% of job losses. Overall, UK hospitality has said that many businesses have no capacity to absorb additional costs. Labour has hiked alcohol duty. They are banning smoking and considering health warnings on alcohol. Labour hates fun. It's no wonder that that landlords are barring MPs from their pubs.

Amendments tabled by Lord Sharpe, of Epsom in the other place would have protected our beer gardens from being designated smoke free and would have allowed advertising of these products in age gated venues, similar to the amendments I tabled in the Commons. These would have gone some way to reassure pubs and venues that the government is not completely set on destroying them. Again, these amendments were rejected to understand, or am I to understand the government has U-turned on this? Before I conclude, I want to briefly raise one further concern regarding the powers granted to Ministers to prohibit cigarette filters in the future.

The justification for this remains unclear, and it is yet another example of the broad, and I would argue, excessive powers contained within this bill, along with a host of Henry the Eighth powers it grants. With this bill, the government has tied itself up to bring in further Puritan measures in the coming years without needing to consult this House. Any such steps will simply exacerbate the growth of the black market and decline in duties collected. Madam Deputy Speaker, Smoking rates are falling naturally, but this bill may well be that as it limits access to quit Aids, it will likely mean less revenue for the Treasury as the black market grows, and it will cost our high street businesses billions.

The amendment process has done little to address or even acknowledge these concerns. However, I will end on a more positive note. I do welcome amendment 80 requiring a review of this act within 4 to 7 years of its implementation. I believe that review will vindicate many of the concerns I have raised today and provide a future government with the opportunity to address, or indeed repeal those aspects of the bill that prove most unworkable. Not that I believe that this bill will get that far, Madam Deputy Speaker, it won't survive a change in government, which will happen at the next opportunity afforded to the great British people.

Thank you. Euan Stainbank Deputy Speaker First

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of all, I refer hon. Members to my declaration of. Financial interest and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Financial interest and. As a member, as the chair of the Responsible Vaping All Party parliamentary group, succeeding my hon. Friend on the benches across hon. Friend on the benches across from me as a member of the Bill committee and part of the envious generation who will proceed the smoke free generation this bill promises. I welcome the return of this bill to the House and the Minister for Public Health, a place Minister for Public Health, a place I think it cannot go without saying that we should also welcome the immense contribution of our predecessors.

The right hon. Member for West Lancashire, for our mammoth work guiding this Bill through Report stage and Third Reading, and members on all sides of this House for their contribution to this Bill. It is critical that going forward, that
18:37
Euan Stainbank Portrait Euan Stainbank MP (Falkirk, Labour)
-
-
the powers enabled, under the extensive secondary legislation in this bill, are carried out with our constituents health at the constituents health at the forefront of Ministers minds. My primary hope is that this bill drastically brings down smoking drastically brings down smoking related illness and early death, which is still far too prominent amongst smokers in this country. It amongst smokers in this country. It is proven by all current available evidence that for smokers, switching to vaping is switching to vaping is substantially preferable and healthier choice than continuing to smoke.

To put it simply, if you don't smoke, don't vape. But if you do smoke, switching to vaping is a far preferable choice for your health. This is a message we should never tire of repeating, especially when we consider that four in every ten smokers still believe vaping is just as, if not more, harmful than smoking. Despite the scientific and medical consensus. As we pursue a smoke free generation. For those turning 18 at the turn of the year, the government must reaffirm and recommit at every opportunity and under this bill, both in words and in actions, to rebutting this harmful misunderstanding of the relative harm of vaping.

Lords amendment 72 to clause 119 acknowledges this by providing a defence for public authorities to the offences in clause 113 on advertising to enable the on going use of vapes and nicotine products in the promotion of protection of public health, I note that this defence applies only to Non-branded vaping products and nicotine products. The Minister, in summing up, clarify whether this permits in pursuit of the promotion of protection of public health, the use of flavoured vapes or nicotine products, the written and verbal testimony of ex-smokers across the country who have made the switch to vaping, is clear that they rely on flavours to quit and to stay, quitting and to quit for good when use of secondary powers are considered under the powers available to Ministers in the Bill, we must fairly balance this crucial public health objective of getting adult smokers to quit for good.

Against the rising concerns about youth vaping across the country. What is driving youth vaping has far more to do with, sadly, two common and immediately apparent displays in shops ridiculous flavour descriptors and packaging associated with illicit manufacturing and retailing, rather than the flavours themselves. When we talk about the proliferation of vape shops and high streets, it is the illicit and unregulated market market that we must pursue as a priority, and certainly not by grouping those with specialist retailers who pursue strong age verification, muted displays, safe storage and the ability to support smokers to quit on enforcement.

Lords amendments nine through 13 make necessary clarifications on the definition of an enforcement authority in England and Wales in amendments 14 to 20. Subsequently clarify with the responsibility to issue fixed penalty notices sets enforcement of this Bill will be necessary for it to achieve its aims to crack down on illicit, illegal and illicit vape products. But we must not forget that the proliferation of illegal vaping business is still concentrated at points of entry to the UK market. It is an important objective that must be pursued because we cannot prejudice public and consumer opinion against the sale of legal vapes from the regulated industry by allowing them to be displayed alongside illicit and unregulated products that we all want to see off the shelves of our local corner shops.

Because these are the products which are driving youth vaping, not the regulated ones. Therefore, we must ensure adequacy of resourcing for Border Force training standards and local enforcement authorities, and would appreciate the Minister providing detail on how the government will seek to achieve this through outwith the scope of this bill. Lords amendments 21 and 22 to clause 38 are a welcome step by permitting relevant local enforcement authorities to retain the sums to be reinvested in connection with their enforcement functions, rather than through a national consolidated fund.

I would seek clarity on Ministers from what other hon. Members have raised about the purpose to which these funds can be utilised. As I understand it, would be only in connection to enforcement function and not necessarily to support, potentially swap, to swap, to stop schemes or any broader activity. So I would appreciate appreciate that clarity. In summing up the need for enforcement against illicit retail practices has rightly become an increasingly salient issue, especially in Scotland. Following the tragic fire earlier this month in Glasgow.

And whilst it is important for us to state that no cause has been definitively established yet and that it is rightly for the relevant authorities to investigate, I would appreciate if the Minister could expand on our summary about how the secondary legislation in this bill and associated government actions around trading standards could better enable local authorities to enforce against the illicit practices that this bill seeks to address, and encourage retailers to drag themselves up to the best practice of specialist retailers when it comes to display storage and age of sale verification.

To conclude, this bill's primary aim is to create a smoke free generation is very welcome, and I welcome that this bill will directly make that generation healthier, happier and enable them to live far longer than those of us who preceded them. But we must do all of this while enabling the millions of adult smokers in Britain we have in this country to quit quicker and to get healthier. Thank you, Madam Deputy.
18:42
Robin Swann Portrait Robin Swann MP (South Antrim, Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
Speaker Robin Swann. Deputy Speaker, And can I welcome the Minister to your place, having worked with their predecessors as health Minister in Northern Ireland when this bill first came about, when this bill first came about, and that I would like to I'm sorry that I'll disappoint both the hon. that I'll disappoint both the hon. Member for Windsor and for the City of Durham, because this legislation actually started exaggeration under the previous government, and there's very little has changed between what was debated then and what was actually before us now, because it is the right thing to do.

It's the common sense thing to do for the health of the entirety of our nation. And I remember having those conversations with the then MP for South Northamptonshire, Dame Andrea Leadsom, who was actually very passionate in regards to what this bill would bring about, because at that time she was receiving the same advice that I was from chief medical officers across the nation about how dramatic the cessation of smoking across generations will likely change, just not health, but also the economic income of many families in regards to those supports as well.

So it is in that and that support and that cross four nation approach that I do seek that reassurance, again, from government reassurance that I received from the last government on this government, that the application of this bill will apply equally in Northern Ireland to all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

parts of the nation, as was. I will give way on that point. He's right that this bill, if it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's right that this bill, if it does apply, should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, which the Northern Ireland is an integral part, but under the Windsor framework, the Sell-out, which is disgracefully named under my constituency, the. The Northern constituency, the. The Northern Ireland is subject to Tobacco Products Directive. Is it not? So? Is that possible in this case?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that possible in this case? That is the concern. But there's a point out to the. The Windsor framework, again was negotiated and implemented by the previous government, which has left Northern Ireland in the place that it currently is. I as I said at that point when I was in post, received reassurances from the previous government and this government, and I would like to be in a place that I can take both at their word that they have done the due diligence in regards to the applicability of this legislation, but I would ask the Minister she did respond to the hon.

Member for North Antrim previously, but within the EU bodies, at this moment in time, there is detailed opinions actually being laid against this legislation by Croatia, the Czech Republic, Italy, Romania, Greece and Slovakia. So I want to seek that reassurance from government that not just in their opinion, that this legislation will apply equally in Northern Ireland. But should that legal challenge come from within the EU, that this government will defend the health of the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that everything that is applicable in this Bill applies equally across all four nations, and it shouldn't be a case that the health of the people of Northern Ireland is any less than that of the health of the people of England, Scotland and Wales.

And that's why, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we do support this bill. This bill has been through its iterations and its legislative consent motions in both the last Assembly on this one as well, and received all party support, even the support support of members of the Legislative Assembly who were supporting this bill there, while their MPs in this place were actually opposing it, which was a strange. Well, the member it was the DUP MPs were actually prepared to oppose it in this House while their MLAs supported the bag in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was.

It was a strange, strange mixture at that stage as well. But but that's where we are and that's where, well, where they are at this moment in time as well. But but I, I am assured that their MLAs do support this legislation applying equally across Northern Ireland. And I think that was the part of the debate in the other place, and ask for their peers to do equally as well. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to seek those reassurances from the Minister in regards to the application of this legislation.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

All right. Jim Dickson thank. You, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I just want to say it's a pleasure to just want to say it's a pleasure to have this bill back before us today during many great speeches tonight, during many great speeches tonight, but also during the second and third readings of this bill, I think the great majority of people think the great majority of people were agreed that this is a world leading piece of legislation of which we should feel proud,
18:47
Jim Dickson Portrait Jim Dickson MP (Dartford, Labour)
-
-
which we should feel proud, creating that elusive thing, a smoke free generation in this country. And as a former smoker and as vice chair of the APPG on smoking and health, I am grateful to have spoken regularly in the debates on this bill and spent many hours on the bill committee going through it line by line. And as the Member for Winchester said, there's a sort of a bit of a a feeling of veterans of the bill gathered round to see it finally get over the line, which is a wonderful thing as a p as vice chair of the APPG on smoking and health, I did want to put on record my thanks to the.

My hon. Friend, the member of the Member for the City of Durham and the Member for Harrow East for their great work over the years, leading that APPG to the point where we now have legislation which very much embodies that all party parliamentary groups ambitions. Before I get into the detail, I just want also to offer my thanks to the Ministers and officials here and across the four nations of the United Kingdom for the work done to create a bill that will apply across our entire nation, and very much welcome the new Minister for Public Health to her place.

It's brilliant to have a champion for public health over many years as the new Minister and someone who was a very able spokesperson for public health for this party while in opposition just under a year ago Report stage, I tabled an amendment that would have introduced a ban on all cigarette filters, regardless of whether they contain plastic. There was. This was tabled in recognition of the fact that there are no health benefits at all to cigarette filters, despite the Member for Windsor being of the view that there seemed to be.

They were developed by the tobacco industry following evidence that smoking caused lung cancer in order to give a false sense of reassurance to smokers. The passage of this bill has also seen discussions of the merits of what has been described as biodegradable filters. But as Doctor Bas boots ecologist and senior lecturer at Anglia Ruskin University, who came and spoke last year to the APPG on Smoking and Health, has said all cigarette filters are harmful to the environment. Research from Anglia Ruskin shows the extent of this, with filters leaching toxic chemicals into soils and waterways call me, causing huge harm to plants and animals.

And although my amendment was not accepted by the government, I'm really pleased to see amendments, including those between amendment 37 and 45 from the other place that ensure that regulatory powers in the bill can apply to filters, and I understand from Action on Smoking and health that if the UK were to ban filters, we would be the first country in the world to do so. And I hope that when the Minister speaks at the end of this debate, she will be able to confirm when a call for evidence related to cigarette filters will launch in the future.

We also discussed at length in committee whether the change in this changes in this bill should extend to vaping vending machines in mental health settings, and I'm really grateful to the government for considering this carefully and altering the bill via amendments three and four to exempt vending machines in those settings from the overall and very sensible ban on them elsewhere, in the light of their obvious role in helping often vulnerable people to stay smoke free. I think the addition of a commitment via amendment 80 that the government reviews the implementation of the legislation 4 to 7 years is a really sensible one.

It's important that we look how we look at how it is working and share any lessons learned with other countries who may be pursuing similar legislation. And we all know that there are a number the last amendments I just wanted to mention, and I'm supportive of our 18 and 91, which ensure that a comprehensive definition of tobacco will apply from royal assent, as it should, and this will mean royal assent ends the practice of illegally marketing heated tobacco products, with the ability for the government to use powers contained in the Bill to specify that devices used for consuming tobacco cannot be promoted.

Finally, I just want to reflect on the key impact of this legislation as a result of this bill, when the age of sale restrictions for tobacco come into force on the 1st of January 2027, we will create a smoke free generation with those born on the 1st of January 2009, turning 18 and never being able to legally purchase tobacco. And as this century progresses, millions of UK

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lives will be saved and we will genuinely be on the road to a smoke free Britain. Julie Minns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Julie Minns. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and before I begin my brief remarks, and before I begin my brief remarks, can I say how good it is to see the Member for West Lancashire in her place? I think we owe her a debt of gratitude for both introducing and piloting this this bill through the House she leaves behind. I was
18:52
Julie Minns Portrait Ms Julie Minns MP (Carlisle, Labour)
-
-
House she leaves behind. I was going to say large shoes, but that feels a little bit rude. Significant shoes to fill. But I know there are shoes that my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South is more than capable of filling, and I'm very glad to see her in her place this evening. I wish to speak very briefly on Lords Amendments 11 and 61, which, as the hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk has said, clarify what we mean by a relevant enforcement authority and in particular, the duty that that it will be placed on that relevant enforcement authority to consider on an annual basis, whether it's appropriate to carry out a program of enforcement action.

We have, as has been said, acknowledge and know that vaping can support adults who want to move away from smoking, but we nevertheless can't ignore the rapid rise in youth vaping and the growing presence of illegal and non-compliant counterfeit vapes and cigarettes in all of our communities. And that's why a robust, mandatory licensing framework is urgently needed. This bill will give government the power to introduce such a framework, and this can only be strengthened by a requirement on licensing authorities to consider annually that program of enforcement.

One of the strongest arguments for licensing is its abilities. Contrary to what the Member for Windsor seemed to suggest, it is the ability to combat illegal cigarettes and vapes on our high streets. Local authorities and enforcement bodies have repeatedly warned that rogue sellers are flooding the market with untested high nicotine incorrectly labelled or counterfeit products, and my constituency of Carlisle is no exception. Just a few weeks ago, Cumberland Council trading standards C 6000 illegal cigarettes in raids and this was in addition to the £20,000 worth of illegal tobacco and vape seized last summer.

Therefore, the introduction of on the spot fines of up to 2500 pounds and the ability to revoke retailers licences entirely, are welcome. Mandatory licensing will also make it much easier to shut down dodgy shops that knowingly stock or distribute illegal vapes and cigarettes. Under the new framework, any premises found storing and displaying or supplying and regulated products will lose their licenses because licensing, because licensing applies not just to the act of selling, but to the possession of regulated products for retail purposes, that means that enforcement officers will no longer have to rely on repeated seizures or warnings.

They will have a fast, lawful route to close down problem retailers for good. In short, mandatory licensing is not just another layer of regulation. It is a powerful tool to crack down on illegal vapes, remove bad actors from our high streets and support safer and more responsible retailing. More importantly, it will give local authorities the powers they need to shut down dodgy shops quickly, decisively and permanently and I am therefore thankful. I therefore welcome both the amendments, the Lords amendments and this Bill in a step forward to cleaning up our high streets and ensuring that we have a healthier, happier country.
18:55
Sharon Hodgson Portrait Mrs Sharon Hodgson MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Washington and Gateshead South, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I would like to place on record my would like to place on record my sincere thanks to all members who have contributed to this thoughtful and constructive debate today and throughout the bill's passage in this House. It has been a real privilege to take this bill through this stage in the House, following in my elegant and tiny footsteps, but great ability of my hon. Friend for West Lancashire, who had, along with our colleague in the other place, have done sterling work on this bill.

I'm so grateful for the engagement from colleagues across the House and for the shared commitment to improving public health and protecting future generations. As members are aware, smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death, disability and ill health in this country. And despite significant progress, 5.3 million adults were still smoking cigarettes in 2024. And while tobacco remains the greatest threat due to its unique harms, we are also seeing a rapid rise in the use of vapes and other nicotine products, particularly among young people, creating a new generation at risk of harm and addiction.

And that is why this bill matters, and why the action we are taking today is so important. I will now turn to the points raised by hon. Members who were small in number, but mighty in their number, but mighty in their contributions. The the shadow Minister, the Shadow Minister and his is excellent speech and I really enjoyed hearing about his his thoughts and when he was a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

practice. He's not listening when I'm talking about. Just trying to be nice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just trying to be nice. I know I'm trying to be nice. And he's ignoring me. The shadow Minister I really enjoyed listening Minister I really enjoyed listening to when he was a practising doctor about his concerns. That made it so apparent why we had to do something apparent why we had to do something about this and that when he got here. I'm sure he's really proud to here. I'm sure he's really proud to have played a part in getting this legislation onto the statute book as well, for those very reasons.

He asked me about the illicit market and the smoke free generation prevents people from ever becoming addicted to smoking in the first place. And when the age of sale was increased from 16 to 18, this created 1.3 million more people who were no longer able to be sold cigarettes and in theory, would be in the market for illegal cigarettes. In practice, a number of illicit cigarettes consumed fell by 25% between 2000 and 5 oh 6 to 2007 eight, and the bill takes bold action to strengthen enforcement and crack down on rogue retailers.

And we are investing up to £10 million of new funding and trading standards annually until 2029 to tackle the illicit and underage sale of tobacco and vapes and help enforce the law. And this funding is being used to boost the training standards workforce by hiring 120 apprentices across England. And the Illicit Tobacco Strategy establishes a cross-governmental cross-government taskforce, enhancing HMRC ability to disrupt organised crime. From April 2015 to March 2020, three, over 10 billion non-UK duty paid cigarettes were seized by HMRC in Border Force and I think the hon.

Member for Windsor also asked about the illicit market. So I hope that answers some of his concerns around that. Also, the shadow Minister also asked about an appropriate balance, and the bill rightly takes strong action against youth vaping, whilst also recognising the important role vapes play in helping adult smokers quit smoking. And the government is being cautious to strike the right balance between reducing the appeal to children, while ensuring vapes remain an accessible tool for smoking cessation. And that is why the bill provides powers to tackle the issue of the appeal of vapes to children through elements such as packaging, display flavours and device features.

However, to avoid unintended consequences on adult smoking rates, the scope of restrictions will be carefully considered and consulted on. I will, yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Take it away and I'm glad she's addressed many of my questions that I posed. One was about the designation of vape-free places. I designation of vape-free places. I think there's consideration of what that would look like, so how the government will approach it would be welcome if she could set that out potentially, at least in in a framework. In a way, she might think about that in her new role.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think about that in her new role. Yeah, that is being looked at. And I can always write to the And I can always write to the shadow Minister with the details on that as we progress further with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that, I'll commit to do that. I will give them. And I do welcome her to her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I do welcome her to her place and congratulate her. And she does have a hard act to follow, but does have a hard act to follow, but I'm sure she'll be brilliant in her job. Could she say what metrics the job. Could she say what metrics the government will use to ensure to measure whether the bill successfully reduces youth vaping?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I suppose the the the measure. I will definitely write to the hon. Lady rather than just sort of guess. But I suppose that what we will see But I suppose that what we will see is less young people actually vaping. The numbers should go down. vaping. The numbers should go down. And to quote the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, and as Officer, Chris Whitty, and as someone, I think as someone included in this excellent speech earlier, if you smoke, vape, and if you don't smoke, don't vape.

And that is what we want the message to be going, going out. But I will commit to write to the hon. Lady about how we will actually follow
19:13
None Portrait Consideration of Lords amendments: National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
-

19:13
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The contributions The contributions from The contributions from my The contributions from my hon. Friend the member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend the member. For Naval. Air Base that we. Already own. Very good. That's a that's a question that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's a that's a question that you should put to his front bench, who obviously opened the negotiations over with Mauritius in the first place. And they come to the first place. And they come to this house, they come to a house making cheap points because they used to take seriously the job of government and have given up entirely. But I'm going to make some progress now, having engaged with the hon. Member who has obviously given up on doing the job of serious government some time ago now, I, I think that we're in a world where 95% of those earning £30,000 or less and contributing via salary sacrifice are unaffected does make the case for the £2,000 cap that I've set out.

But the government does agree with the sentiment raised in the Lords about keeping it under review, and obviously the Bill allows for that to take place in future. Now this leads me on to amendments two and eight, which would exempt salary sacrifice pension contributions over the £2,000 cap from being included in the calculation of student loan repayments, and it is right that we focus on the outcomes for younger generations. Too often, if I'm honest, let down by the failures of the previous government, I would just gently remind there's only there's only two of them here, but there's some Lib Dems who obviously deserve some of this credit as well.

I would just gently remind them of their track record on this matter trebling tuition fees, raising interest rates, scrapping maintenance grants and the rest. And that's before I get to not allowing anything to be built. That's what younger generations are being let down by on this specific proposal. It's worth noting that while salary sacrifice arrangements can reduce the student loan repayments made, they do not reduce the total amount due for repayment. But much more important than that is that the £2,000 cap means young graduates are broadly unaffected, and in fact, this is new figures that weren't available in the discussion in the Lords.

But since this has been raised and brought to the Commons I provided them, which is that the £2,000 cap means that 90% of graduates under the age of 30 repaying student loans who are saving into a pension would be unaffected in the sense that 90% of them saved less than £2,000 a year. So I hope that provides some reassurance to members who have raised this. Lords amendments three, four, nine and ten would make the regulation making powers in the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure, except for those which solely increase the contributions limit.

The government agrees on the importance of maintaining strong parliamentary scrutiny, particularly where changes could affect individuals National Insurance liabilities. However, the bill already contains a series of safeguards, and the legislative approach taken follows longstanding precedents for National Insurance legislation. In addition, the delegated powers in the Regulatory Reform Committee is carefully scrutinised. The powers in the bill, including the proposed level of parliamentary scrutiny, and concluded that there is nothing in the bill that they wish to draw to the special attention of the House.

I'll now turn to amendments six and 12 which seek to exempt small and medium sized enterprises, alongside smaller charities and social enterprises, from the provisions of the bill. Again, the government agrees on the importance of supporting small businesses. I'm sure that's a matter of cross-party support, but small businesses are much less likely to use salary sacrifice than larger businesses. Furthermore, the £2,000 cap means that 90% of employees in SMEs making pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected.

Indeed, the largest benefits from uncapped salary sacrifice accrue to larger businesses, not smaller ones. In practice, the changes in this bill will help level the playing field between small businesses and their larger competitors. Those wanting to see support small businesses should be supporting the measures. In this bill, the government is engaging with employers, payroll professionals and software developers to ensure that these changes are implemented in the least burdensome way possible for employers of all sizes. I hope that honourable and hon. Members will understand why it would not be right to support these amendments from the other place, even though we all recognise the valuable objectives that in many cases have motivated them.

The government, as I said, spends over £500 billion each year on various tax reliefs within the tax system. That is more than double the entire annual NHS Budget. The size of this spend means that the government must always keep the effectiveness and the value for money of those reliefs under review. These are necessary, pragmatic and fair reforms which protect ordinary workers while ensuring the public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. And I respectfully propose that this House disagree to these amendments.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment one I call Shadow Minister Mark Garnier. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Well, thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I also start off by also thanking the Lords for their very hard work? Lords for their very hard work? Well, I think the government didn't win a single vote during the passage in the House of Lords. Madam Deputy Speaker, over the last few months, we have seen how enthusiastic this government is to raid savings. In particular, they raid savings. In particular, they are very keen to raid pension pots, whether it is by taking powers to mandate private pension funds to invest in government white elephants or this bill we are debating tonight, this government has established beyond any doubt that it has no interest whatsoever in savers and strivers.

Pensions are important. They provide for security and retirement, the pact that has been established between the state and the pension saver that goes Fuentes, is all about not just helping savers but taking the strain off the state, encouraging saving now and you won't have the burden on the state
19:25
Mark Garnier Portrait Mark Garnier MP (Wyre Forest, Conservative)
-
-
of an impoverished pensioner in the future. Under the last government, we saw the rollout of auto enrolment, bringing 10 million people into the savings culture and we introduced a triple lock to reverse the decline in the value of the State Pension under the last the State Pension under the last Labour government. Despite these positive steps, we recognise that people still aren't saving enough people still aren't saving enough for their retirement, as the government's own analysis shows, 50% of savers are projected to miss their retirement income targets set their retirement income targets set by the 2005 Pension Commission.

So we need to do better, and I know that there is cross-party consensus on that point, if nothing else. So let's be honest about this. The changes to salary sacrifice arrangements will do the complete opposite. As the Abi and the pensions UK have outlined, we should be improving our current offering and providing new opportunities. Instead, what the government is doing is making the situation worse. In a desperate attempt to balance the government's books conveniently in three years time. Frankly, it makes little sense and this is why we oppose this legislation.

The point of salary sacrifice arrangements is that they incentivise certain behaviours. That is why people are allowed to use these schemes to put money towards not just pension, but also workplace nurseries, childcare vouchers and cycle to work schemes. These are all good things. However, in case in this case, the government has singled out pensions and is attacking one of the most important things that people should be saving towards their pensions. This is hard earned taxpayers money that could be going towards a good thing.

Instead, this bill will remove an avenue that 7.7 million employees are currently using. This bill will add even more cost to the 290,000 businesses and charities that use it. This bill will pile more costs onto students already saddled with student loans, and this bill will harm pensions adequacy and force more people to rely on the state, putting more costs onto the next generation. So I am proud that my colleagues in the Lords, as well as Liberal Democrats and crossbench peers, understand these concerns.

So while we remain opposed to the bill, these amendments do go in some way to addressing these issues and while supporting the stated objectives of this policy, even though we disagree with the fundamental policy. So turning to the list of these amendments. Amendments one and seven would make basic rate taxpayers exempt from this policy that would protect a group who typically under save and allow them to continue savings into their pensions. And the Member for Harlow may be interested in listening to this, because he raised actually a very important point about about lower rate taxpayers.

They are identical to the amendments to be brought in in the Commons, and that Labour MPs decided to vote down, as the government's own impact assessment clearly states they are trying to target higher earners or those making larger contributions. While this may be the stated purpose and political justification, in reality, this is not the case for two reasons. First, the cap will still affect 858,000 basic And in fact, reporting from the Financial Times has highlighted how this bill will disproportionately affect those people compared to those on a higher rate of tax.

Those on the basic rate of tax pay 8% National Insurance contributions, while those on the higher rate of tax pay 2% NICs. This means those on that. This means that on the National Insurance contribution alone, lower earners are being hit four times as hard by this policy four times. At the Second Reading, I asked the Minister how he how this could be fair. He didn't answer my question then, but I hope he'll be able to to answer that now. When he.

When he winds up. So maybe he can tell us now how this policy is fair for those hard working people, or whether they are just casualties of rushed policy making. Secondly, a behavioral outcome may be that employers will remove salary, sacrifices and option for all their employees. Salary sacrifice, we already recognize, is mutually beneficial for employees and employers. It is also more attractive to both sides as it is simple to understand. By enforcing this cap, this will not only change the viability of salary sacrifice arrangements, but employer's perception of them.

This may result in many employers removing them as an option altogether. This will mean 4.4 million people who are supposedly protected may be affected. So therefore, if this government was really serious about their policy objective, they would exempt basic rate taxpayers altogether. And these amendments give them the chance to do that and to back hardworking people. So turning to the other amendments, the government could now show support for hard working people again by backing Lords amendments five and 11. These amendments will set the cap at £5,000 rather than £2,000.

So we support this proposal as we remain concerned that the £2,000 cap is too low and will quickly become valueless through inflation and indeed, from the following debates in the Lords, it seems the government could not provide any rationale for the cap being set at £2,000 in the first place. So this House deserves clarity. So at the very least, the Minister should clarify why the government set the cap at £2,000 and not at a higher level, by setting the cap at 5000. As the amendments proposed, we can give more value to these arrangements in the future and mean we have to tinker less with the cap after years of dilution as a result of inflation.

It would also protect lower to middle income earners and ensure salary sacrifice arrangements remain viable for them. And I hope the government can think again here and see them as a practical proposals that they are intended to be. However, while we support this group of amendments, we fundamentally believe this Cap should be indexed and increase in line with inflation, given inflation sits at 3.2%. Madam Deputy Speaker Up from 2% when this government came to office and will likely increase due to the events in the Middle East.

This cap will become valueless in a shorter period of time, so it would be logical for the government to accept this now. Moving on to amendments two and eight brought forward by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, these amendments would exempt salary sacrifice, pension contributions over the cap from being included in student loan repayment definitions. Now, as many colleagues will know, over the past few months, there has been growing media coverage about student loans, particularly those with the plan to loan on these benches.

We have accepted that there is an issue that needs addressing and that change is needed. As the Leader of the Opposition said, policies that may have been fine for 2012 with low interest rates are not fine, are not fine in 2026. Student loans have become a debt trap. It is time for all of us. All of us. Madam Deputy Speaker to do something about it. We. We are trying to back students, which is why last week we brought a motion that would have set a fairer interest rate that would have stopped the freeze on repayment thresholds and would have created more apprenticeships for 18 to 21 year olds.

Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, every single member of the party opposite voted against that. Tonight, they have an opportunity to make up for their mistake last week by voting in favour of Lord amendments two and eight. They could make a real difference to our young people. So take the example of a graduate earning £45,000 a year prior to this legislation. If they sacrificed £5,000 of that salary, they would save a thousand £1,000 in income tax. £400 in National Insurance contribution and 4004 £450 in student loans, of course, has made up.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. We can't quite shut him up, but we'll do our best. With the £2,000 cap. And this is an important point because I know he's good at. He's not that good at maths, actually, but I know he's keen on trying to look good in maths with two with a £2,000 cap. It would mean that any salary sacrifice above the cap would be treated as earnings, as we know. So if a young graduate originally sacrificed £5,000 under the under the £2,000 cap for postal, £3,000 of that would now be subject to student loan repayment contributions as well as National Insurance contributions.

The effect is that the effect of that is severe, as it will mean that the graduate would now pay an extra £240 in National Insurance contributions and an extra £270 in student loans, and in total, that would make the graduate worse off by £430 a year and and also have a smaller pension pot. It's just another example of this government picking on students. That is money that could be going towards their pensions. It's money that could be injected into local economies.

It's money that could be used to improve their quality of life instead. This policy will take their money so the Chancellor can plug the holes in her economic credibility. Now, do you think the government intended for this policy to make it worse for students? I genuinely hope not. But it seems they haven't thought about it. The reality is that this policy makes it worse for students. We have an opportunity to address that and to keep salary sacrifice arrangements viable for our young people paying off student debt loans.

I would think Labour MPs of all people would be able to support that. Turning to laws amendments three, four, nine and ten. These are about the affirmative procedure of the bill and are common sense. The. Under the original version of the bill, the government would have to go through the affirmative procedure. If they decrease the level of the cap as is set out. That is important and we are not seeking to change that. However, one of the things that was evident during the passage of this bill through the Lords is that there is a lack of clarity on how this bill will work.

While the Minister's Dear Colleague letter, which was very kind of him, although I think he neglected to sign it actually. So slightly, strangely. But it's a small detail, but a nice one worth thinking about. The Minister's Dear Colleague letter has answered some questions, such as the cap applying per job. Many questions remain. For example, in that letter there is an outstanding policy decision on whether this per job cap will follow the status quo by operating on a pay period basis, or whether it will operate on a different basis, such as an annualised basis.

These are all serious questions and ones that won't be fully answered until further regulations come forward. And indeed, they are so important that we should be given the opportunity to scrutinise them when they are presented. There should be a proper oversight, due process and scrutiny of a policy that will affect millions of people, and under the government's proposals, we would not get that opportunity and have to automatically accept the government's decisions. We don't believe that is right. So we are simply asking for a minimum level of oversight without imposing a cost on the exchequer or undermining the government's objectives, and I cannot see how this would be disagreeable.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I turn to amendments six and 12 will exempt SMEs and charities through the passage of the bill. Many have warned about the cumulative burden this government is placing on smaller employers and just listen to their records so far. Madam Deputy Speaker, The record of a government burdening our economy, compliance and regulatory obligations mandated by the Employment Rights Act increase employers NICs of 15%. The jobs tax uncertainty around the national minimum wage being equalised for young people under 21, heightened anxiety around business rates and, worst of all, constant U-turns and endless drama from this government.

Altogether, this is making the situation incredibly difficult for SMEs and charities to thrive. So for me, I think about the many businesses in my high streets in Kidderminster, Stourport and Bewdley. The charities that support people across the whole of Wyre Forest. They all work hard, as they do in all of our constituencies, bringing our communities together. The last thing they need is another under the radar tax increase. The Chancellor promised them that she wouldn't come back for more. And yet this is exactly what this government is doing.

It cannot be a surprise, therefore, that we are seeing insolvency rates rise, business confidence plummeting, unemployment continuing to rise, and growth stagnating. And that's all before this bill comes into effect in their latest Budget. And as the government's own impact suggests, 290,000 employers will be affected. But it's even worse than that. As the Lord's Minister admitted during scrutiny. 33% of small businesses offer salary sacrifice arrangements. Therefore, 1 in 3 of these businesses will be potentially exposed to new costs and new complexity.

This bill introduces these businesses cannot afford much more. They are already struggling to stay afloat. At the same time, this government cannot afford to keep sending the same message. These amendments give them the chance to change that messaging and and to back our small businesses and our charities. Conclude. I want to clearly state I want to clearly say that we remain opposed to this policy, and the government should not be bringing this forward. People aren't doing enough to save for their retirement, and we should be encouraging them to save more.

Instead, the government wants to take away something that is beneficial to all parties simply to cover for their economic incompetence. If we could, we would stop this bill from proceeding any further. However, as we all know, that is unlikely. So therefore, I ask Labour MPs to look closely and help make a bad bill better. The amendments and laws have sent us are not about making the policy unworkable, but about making the policy practical. Voting for them will allow Labour MPs to back their rhetoric with their actions to back their constituents and say I back hard working people, I back small businesses, I back local charities, I backed graduates and I back people who save responsibly.

By voting against these amendments, Labour MPs will instead send a clear message to their constituents that if you work hard to make a decent income, we will tax you more. If you work hard to grow your business, we will tax you more if you. And if you save towards dignity in retirement, we will tax you more. Tonight, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a clear choice. I hope Labour MPs will make the right one.
19:39
Charlie Maynard Portrait Charlie Maynard MP (Witney, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Charlie Maynard. The Liberal Democrats have been clear throughout the progress of this bill that we think the government would be misguided to make this change. While it may raise some tax revenues in the medium term, in the longer term it medium term, in the longer term it discourages pension saving. It also puts an extra cost and admin burden on small businesses at the worst possible time. And for this reason, we support retaining Lords Amendment six and 12, which would exempt small and medium sized businesses and charities from this.

I would also like to note again, as I did in my speech at the Second Reading, that I am skeptical of the timing of this change. This change will, very conveniently for the government, perhaps only kick in during the likely election year of 20 1930, not 26, 27, 27, 28, 29, 30. So as. So it seems as if the government is motivated here more by a wish to fix their numbers, not to meet their fiscal rules, rather than because they genuinely believe this change is the right thing to do.

Turning back to the amendments at hand, I'm calling for you. I'm asking you to give us a reason as to why you've deferred. Sorry, the Minister to give us a reason as to why it's deferred and to explain that logic. Turning back the amendments at hand as set out in Lords Amendment five, put forward by my colleague Baroness Kramer, raising the proposed threshold to £5,000 from £2,000 on NICs exempt savings. This would at least mitigate the impact on many lower and middle earners.

We think this is a sensible way of ensuring that it is genuinely those who can afford to pay more who are impacted by this change. Whereas the proposed threshold of 2000 will undoubtedly hit people on relatively relatively modest incomes who are simply trying to do the right and sensible thing and plan for their future. The CBI has also expressed their strong support for a threshold at £5,000. Certainly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my friend for giving way. Will you agree with me that at times like these, we want to see times like these, we want to see the government encouraging those on low and medium incomes to be investing in their pensions and investing in their futures? And so investing in their futures? And so by increasing the threshold such as this would help people to do that, rather than the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disincentivizing people from doing so, as it seems to be their doing at the moment. I completely agree, and I thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for that statement. It's it sends the wrong message and it puts in place the wrong incentives. And that's a real problem. Ministers will have seen the analysis produced by the OBR in response to the former Lib Dem pensions Minister Steve Webb's request. He highlighted the flaws in the government's claim that these changes won't impact most lower and middle earners, i.e. those not saving more than 2000 the £2,000 threshold in any case.

In response, the OBR has published new analysis which highlights three main channels through which the effects of this bill could well spread across the wider workforce. First, employers may move away from salary sacrifice altogether by increasing ordinary employer pension contributions in place of wage growth, all by reducing contractual pay in exchange for higher contributions. The OBR's new analysis makes clear that any change of this kind would necessarily have to be applied across all of the workforce and couldn't be limited to higher earners, so the impact of these changes could indeed see lower pay rises or reduce base pay for employees contributing less than £2,000.

Secondly, the new analysis also spells out that some employees may move to make standard pension contributions, including through relief at source schemes, thereby losing the NICs advantages of salary sacrifice and increasing their next bill. Even if they contributed small amounts. And thirdly, the OBR models that employers would pass down around three quarters of the additional cost to employees, mainly through lower wages, which again would likely hit all workers regardless of the amount they save through salary sacrifice. So not only does this OBR analysis indicate the government has been wrong to frame these changes as something which would only impact those with broader shoulders, but crucially, when you assume a significant behavioural response from employers and employees.

The OBR also estimates that what this policy is expected to raise will fall by almost half, from £4.7 billion in 2019 30 to £2.6 billion in 3031, as these impacts feed through. So I'm interested to understand whether the Minister agrees with at that point or not, raising the threshold from 2000 to 5000 will not solve these issues entirely, but it would mitigate them by exempting a larger number of people on lower and middle incomes from the key change in the bill, and this will in turn reduce the number of employees impacted.

Now, I would like to come to Lords Amendment two regarding the repayment of student loans. This was also explored in the loan in the Lords, but I think it should be reiterated here because I think this is probably inadvertent, but nonetheless a significant issue. And I appreciate the minister's words. But the facts remain that for any graduate who saves above the threshold, not only will their next payments go up, but so will their student loan repayments. And this is a double whammy on a group who are already struggling with high interest payments, escalating debt and a very challenging job market.

So to conclude with 4 in 10 people in the country, whether it's in my constituency of Witney or anybody else's constituency here already, not saving enough for retirement and the pressures on the State Pension and social care system being well known, it is counterproductive to reduce the incentives for those who can afford to save towards their retirement. So once again, the measures in this bill are short sighted, and the government's justifications for them do not add up. So I support the amendments tabled today, which seek to iron out problems and mitigate the negative impacts.

But overall, my party and I cannot support this bill.
20:03
None Portrait Division
-

Alright.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and to my colleagues for their and to my colleagues for their enthusiastic. Welcome. And I'm grateful for the contributions from grateful for the contributions from the front bench. Let me try to just I won't reiterate the arguments for the bill as a whole, but let me try the bill as a whole, but let me try and respond directly to the points they have raised. The Member for Wyre Forest explained how the Conservative Party was opposed entirely to these changes.

Of entirely to these changes. Of course, he didn't explain at all which which bits of the NHS services they're planning to cut because they obviously don't support the revenue being raised from this sensible. Which would you. Which bit of the benefit system

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would you like to change? Let's go here. Here. Well said. And so here we have it again. The Conservatives faced with any difficult choice, the answer is higher child poverty. That's the answer to every question they ever answer to every question they ever do. They stand up here day in, day out, and what they want to see is higher child poverty. They did it higher child poverty. They did it enthusiastically just then. Anyway, I'll move on to the the hon.

Member. Not only can he not explain which bit of the NHS he'd like to cut bit of the NHS he'd like to cut because he opposes these changes, he can't even explain why the conservative government was planning to implement exactly these kind of changes when they were in government, as part of what I said, as part of the giving up, on the whole being serious people problem. Then he raises the question, the Member for Wyre Forest I will, of course, give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And would he accept that if these changes go through and people these changes go through and people save less for their future, that we're going to have pension poverty?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we're going to have pension poverty? That's the impact of this. These measures. Absolute nonsense. What you what members in this House should be members in this House should be doing is reminding that everybody in this country has a strong incentive to save for their pension, not misleading them by implying not misleading them by implying that they somehow lose out by saving for their pension. That is not the case. And it's really important that we're consistent in our messaging to the public about that.

But I'll come back to the wider point about the levels of saving in society now. The hon. Member for forest also raised the questions about savings gaps, and he's right to do so. Unfortunately, he talked nonsense about that. And he talked about the cases of the self-employed, the low earners, the women and those working for SMEs, all of whom do have lower pension savings rates. But all of those under savings groups are the groups least likely to use salary sacrifice. He raised the questions of those on lower income, but as I say, 95% of those earning under £30,000 and contributing to a pension via salary sacrifice are completely unaffected.

He claimed that the increases were largest for those, the impact was largest on those who were on low earnings. It's nonsense 86% of the contributions over £2,000 are higher and additional rate taxpayers. Those are the facts. He then went on to invent a brilliant story of a young graduate struggling to get by, who is somehow putting £5,000 into their pension every year. As I mentioned earlier, as I mentioned earlier, 90% of young graduates are saving £2,000 or less into their pension.

Why are they not saving more? Because their wages didn't rise under the party opposite. Why are they not saving more? Because the party opposite didn't build enough houses to help them get on the property ladder. Now he asked about he asked about. He asked about. I'm glad to hear that all members opposite will stop opposing building homes in their constituencies in the years ahead. He asked about the implementation. He asked about the implementation and as as he mentioned, I've set out that this will operate on a per job basis.

But he also asked about how that will operate over a pay period basis. Now, as he knows, National Insurance broadly operates on a pay period basis, but we're consulting with employers and payroll providers to make sure we get that right. And as normal with national Insurance legislation, we will set that out in the regulations. Now, just turning to the hon. Member for Whitney. As a Liberal Democrat, it's not surprising that he opposed this measures, but again, set out absolutely no idea how to pay for it.

And I looked for him. I looked forward to him calling for more spending later this week with again, absolutely no idea how to pay for it. He right. He raised the question of timing and then directly to his two questions about timing. The answer is that we think it's pragmatic to give employers and individuals time to adjust, and that's the basis for the pragmatic point he raises. He raises the scoring of that. And that is a technical issue, just reflecting how the national accounts deals with the claiming back of tax relief for some pensions.

He raised the OBR. But if he looks at the OBR's report, he'll find that they set out from the Budget will have no material impact on savings levels. But then to end on a point of wide cross-party consensus, because both hon. Members raised the case that people do need to save more for their pensions. As the hon. Member has just done, we all agree with that, particularly those who are currently saving nothing, which is currently 45% of the working age adults. As I said, that includes particularly groups like low earners and the self-employed, for whom neither, neither of whom is salary sacrifice available.

And the answer to that is the work of the Pension Commission, which I hope will continue to operate on a cross-party basis. Its interim report will be coming forward soon and I'll commend its work to the House. But for today, I'm afraid this party will be opposing the Lords amendments. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment one. As many as are of amendment one. As many as are of that opinion say I. I the contrary. As As on As on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion, say I of the contrary. No, no. Tellers for the ayes. Lilian Greenwood, J. Richards. Tell us for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, Yes, they Yes, they do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 280. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 161. The ayes to the right for 280. The nurse to the left were 161. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment two. I call the Minister to move the motion. To move. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment to as many as are of that opinion say The The question The question is, The question is, as The question is, as on The question is, as on the Order Paper.

I'll wait for members to sit down, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no. Tell us the eyes, Lilian Greenwood, Jake Richards, tell us. For the nurse, Rebecca. Paul. Order, Order, order! Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 279. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 167. The ayes to the right were 279.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 279. The nurse to the left were 167. So The nurse to the left were 167. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment three. I call the Minister to move the motion. Vector move. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment three. As many as are of that opinion say aye. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contrary. No. No. Division. Just Just sit Just sit down. Just sit down. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I of the country. No, no. Tellers for the ayes, Lilian Greenwood, Jake Richards, tell us for the nurse, Rebecca. Paul. Gregory. Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 280. The noes to the left. 164.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 164. The ayes to the right were 280. The noes to the left, 164. So the The noes to the left, 164. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. We now come to motion to disagree with Lords Amendment four.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion. Move formally. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment. For As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment. For As many as of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no division off. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Which brings us to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment disagree with the Lords amendment five. I call the Minister to move the motion. To move. The question is that this House disagrees with is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment five. As many as of that opinion say aye. As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, no. Motion.
20:30
20:30
None Portrait Division
-

opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, no. Tell us, for the eyes are Lilian Greenwood and Jake Richards, the tellers for the nos. Rebecca Order,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order. The ayes to the right. 281 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 281 the noes to the left. 167.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 167. The ayes to the right were 281. The noes to the left. 167. So the The noes to the left. 167. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unlock. Can we make space for tablets,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

please? We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment six.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disagree with Lords Amendment six. motion. To move. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Law Lords in their amendment six. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the of that opinion say aye. Of the Is Is that Is that this Is that this House Is that this House disagrees Is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment six.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as of that opinion, say I. Of the contrary. No, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The tellers. For the eyes of Jake Richards and Lilian Greenwood, the tellers for the nos. Gregory The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order. The ayes to the right, 278. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left, 164. The ayes to the right were 278.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 278. The noes to the left. 164. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unlocked.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment seven. motion. To move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their disagrees with the Lords and their amendment seven. As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment eight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion. To move. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment eight. As many as of that amendment eight. As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it. The no, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment nine. I call the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment nine. I call the Minister to move the motion. Beg to move. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment nine. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment ten. I call the Minister to move the motion. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment ten. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 11. I call the Minister to move the motion. To move. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 11.

As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 12. I call the Minister to move the motion. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 12. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Minister to move that a committee be appointed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons I. I beg to move. That a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments that Torsten Bell, Mark Ferguson, Alistair. Strathern, Kenneth Entwistle, Chris Vince, Mark Garnier and Charlotte Cain be members of the committee, but Torsten Bell be the chair of the committee. That three be the quorum of the committee, that the committee do withdraw immediately.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments. 1 to 12 that Torsten Bell, Mark to 12 that Torsten Bell, Mark Ferguson, Alistair Strathearn, Kira Entwistle, Chris Vince, Mark Garnier and Charlotte Cain, the Garnier and Charlotte Cain, the members of the committee that Torsten Bell be the chair of the committee. That three be the quorum committee. That three be the quorum of the committee.

That the committee do withdraw immediately. As many as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The. I have it. That concludes consideration of the Lords amendments to the National Insurance contributions, employer Pensions Contributions Bill. Motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

number five on education Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no, I say aye. I of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number six on electricity. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

electricity. Minister to move. I beg to move. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I. I Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The. I have it petition. Doctor Ellie Chowns.
20:58
20:59
Adam Dance Portrait Petition Adam Dance MP (Yeovil, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Petition River Wye pollution. >> Petition River Wye pollution. Petition Adam Dance. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following an online petition signed Following an online petition signed by over 12,000 people, I present this petition on behalf of Yeovil residents who declare that the residents who declare that the Yeovil Hospital Haizhu should not close without support from local evidence, particularly on travel times to Haizhu and other hospitals. The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urge the government to review the planned closure of Yeovil District Hospital Hyper Acute Stroke unit and ensure that the plans do not proceed until a comprehensive evidence base has been established regarding the impact of the proposed alternative arrangements on local residents and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the petitioners remain, etc. Petition hyper Acute Stroke unit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition hyper Acute Stroke unit at Yeovil District Hospital. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at Yeovil District Hospital. I beg to move that. This House do now adjourn. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. Julia Buckley Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm delighted to lead tonight's adjournment debate to discuss the need for rail connections between London and rural towns. As the Minister is aware, I represent the beautiful constituency of Shrewsbury, the county town of Shropshire and home to some 70,000 residents. We already have the nation's favourite market, winning the national award no less than three times. But this weekend we will once again named as one of Britain's best places to live, according to the Sunday Times.

In its annual guide, judges praised our period drama backdrop, our fabulous range of eateries and our cool suburbs. The Sunday Times goes on to say the award winning market is surely one of the most inspiring
21:01
Julia Buckley Portrait Julia Buckley MP (Shrewsbury, Labour)
-
-
places to shop in the whole country, and the town centre has enough quirky delis, bakeries, bars and quirky delis, bakeries, bars and cafes to keep you in top notch flat whites and espresso martinis for whites and espresso martinis for every day of the week. Culture comes courtesy of the arts, cinema and the old Market Hall and the and the old Market Hall and the boldly brutalist theatre. Severn and Shrewsbury even has its own cool suburbs in Colon and Bellevue, cool suburbs in Colon and Bellevue, where volunteers run an annual arts festival.

That's before we mention the 600 listed buildings, Tudor Castle and riverboat cruises along the loop of the River Severn. Remember, I'm grateful. I'm grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and Shrewsbury certainly does sound like a wonderful place to visit. I'm working hard on the visitor economy for Amber Valley at present, and of course an integrated transport system is and good transport links is vital part of that. Alfreton in my constituency used to have a daily station running from London to Alfreton daily until 2021, when it was unfortunately discontinued.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it's important that we encourage people to come out of the big smoke and into our rural areas to see what we have to offer, like in your constituency, sorry, like in the member's constituency and mine, and that it's important that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they're provided with the transport links in order to facilitate that visiting. I thank. You for the intervention. It

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You for the intervention. It makes a powerful point about the need to be able to visit these beautiful spots around the country. beautiful spots around the country. And I was just telling you about the loop of the River Severn that circles our medieval town with a beating modern heart on the border with Wales. And yet, before all the members here rush to book their members here rush to book their weekend break to Shrewsbury, there is a slight problem, because how can anyone get there from here? Because, you see, Shropshire is the only county in the UK without a direct train to London.

I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. An excellent speech and I can. I can really empathise with that because communities like Biggin because communities like Biggin Hill in my constituency are also completely without a train station. So even though it's 12 miles as the So even though it's 12 miles as the crow flies, it takes an absolute age to get there. So does she agree with me that communities like this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with me that communities like this need to be served by efficient bus services, which is equally as important? I thank him for the intervention. It's a very powerful point that public transport must combine both train and buses to make sure that all communities are well served. So, as we were saying, Shropshire is the only county in the UK without a direct train to London. We can of course change at Birmingham or Stafford or Crewe, doubling our chances of a delay or a cancellation, creating extra barriers for those with mobility issues and reducing work productivity for commuters.

So not having a direct service is such a missed opportunity, because our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

town is the economic powerhouse of the region, I will give way. Very grateful to the hon. Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She's my constituency neighbour and she's making an excellent speech about how wonderful Shropshire is. Also how wonderful Shropshire is. Also lovely is Oswestry in my constituency, another medieval town with a great history. I'm going to with a great history. I'm going to support the call. I think she's going to make for a direct service to London that runs through the whole of Shropshire, but in my whole of Shropshire, but in my constituency it goes to Gobowen, not Oswestry, and that's really, really important.

So I support the call for the service. But it's would you agree with me that it's really important that Oswestry is linked to Gobowen as well, so that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people in all of our medieval towns can benefit from the railway? Thank you. And I thank the hon. Lady for her point, which is about Lady for her point, which is about those inter-regional connectivity between our market towns so that we can't just get to London, but we can travel to each other. And in Shropshire, for example, we have three hospitals dotted throughout the county. And because of the lack the county. And because of the lack of buses between those hospitals, we are actually reliant on trains.

So she makes a very valuable point. So we were talking about Shrewsbury being the economic powerhouse of the region, and indeed, a recent report on our visitor economy shows that Shropshire's tourism sector is now worth a staggering billion pounds to the economy, supporting nearly 10,000 jobs across the county. And Transport for Wales. Recognize us as a net contributor into the Welsh network because we offer such fantastic employment, training and leisure opportunities for travellers. The Shropshire Chamber of Commerce's Quarterly Business Survey consistently reports the need for additional rail services and how much economic growth this would unlock in terms of securing additional contracts to increase employment for students.

They no longer have the option of studying at a university in Shrewsbury, so travelling to London or stations along the way is vitally important for skills growth and to fill the gap in existing services. There is a current bid for an open access operation from the Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway from Alstom, UK. They're offering up to four trains daily on their. Based on their economic modelling of the latent demand at Shrewsbury, and to join a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

total of six rural towns currently underserved like mine, with new connections to London. Will my. Hon. Member.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. Thank you. Nuneaton serves as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Nuneaton serves as a valuable interchange for services and an economic centre for the economic centres of Coventry, Birmingham, Leicester as well as other connections around Peterborough. Cambridge Stansted Airport. Strengthening these Airport. Strengthening these regional links is estimated to be worth about 500 million across the region. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that routes such as W SMR will deliver greater growth across our region? Because the more connections we can make, not just London but to these centres too will enhance the travel and services we can offer.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes a very powerful point that the connections between towns offer employment opportunities and connectivity, which adds to our local economy as which adds to our local economy as well as the wider peace. Now the Wsmr bid will not abstract, will not take profit from other not take profit from other operators because they choose not to serve our town. But instead this to serve our town. But instead this open access could save government funds by adding value and thousands of passengers to the existing mainline routes.

Already, 2.3 million passengers use the Georgian station at Shrewsbury as they access the gateway between the Midlands and Wales. Adding the direct train service to London is projected to generate £9 million in gross value added every year to our regional economy. This will surely magnify government investment on local housing growth and employment. In terms of that latent demand. What is so encouraging to see is that in just the last month, a petition from passengers seeking this service has now achieved over 6200 signatures in favour of the service and our local transport partners.

Transport for Wales and Network Rail have both committed their resources to a fresh master plan for Shrewsbury Station that can explore the investment needed to unlock our infrastructure to generate this additional capacity. So to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, could I ask the Minister to outline how the Department for transport seeks to work with other rail partners to maximise investment into under-served towns like mine? And what economic assessment has been made of the cost and social and economic benefit of a direct train from Shrewsbury to London in the near future? I will give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my friend for giving way. She's making a fine speech and she's a passionate champion for her she's a passionate champion for her constituency. Does she agree that there are many new opportunities for rural communities in a world for rural communities in a world post-COVID, where many rural communities actually are really attractive for people to live and work in, and there is a huge opportunity for the government to harness economic growth and potential rural communities. But we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

potential rural communities. But we need better rail connectivity to help achieve that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and it's a really important point, because most modelling shows that passenger numbers have not just recovered post-COVID, but actually grown significantly since then. And to achieve modal shift, we need to lean into that latent demand and make sure we're providing opportunities for people to travel by train. And so I'd also like to ask the Minister, how can we unlock the economic potential that comes from increased rail connectivity for the high growth county towns like Shrewsbury? And finally, as one of the 48% not yet in a combined mayoral authority, what strategic framework is available to support rural towns like mine with directing transport investment? And to wrap up, when will the Minister book his train trip to Shrewsbury to see for himself what a beauty spot we have to offer, and to find out just how much easier it would be with a direct service.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey. Wendy Morton. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will keep this short. I'm very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will keep this short. I'm very conscious of time, but I'm very grateful to the hon. Lady, the Member for Shrewsbury, for allowing Member for Shrewsbury, for allowing me to speak in her adjournment debate this evening, because rail connectivity between London and she connectivity between London and she refers to rural towns. My constituency isn't exactly rural. We're on the edge of the West We're on the edge of the West Midlands, but the rail line that she refers to runs right through Aldridge-brownhills.

Hence I'm standing here and I was very fortunate to travel on a recent charter service that took in the whole of the line, and a number of colleagues were able to hop on that train. For myself, I had to hop on in Walsall, and the reason being I will come to very, very shortly. But the the service passed right through my constituency and right through Aldridge. The proposed Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway line or the Wsmr line, as
21:12
Wendy Morton Portrait Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)
-
-
we refer to it should be, could be a huge opportunity for communities a huge opportunity for communities like mine in Aldridge-brownhills finally reconnecting us to the rail finally reconnecting us to the rail network, unlocking jobs, growth, investment, access to education and investment, access to education and social links. Some 60 odd years after the last passenger services after the last passenger services left Aldridge. But sadly, we. In Aldridge and in my constituency that has no train station, railway station at all is at risk or this opportunity is being at risk of being lost because of the Labour mayor.

At a time when we saw just last week new stations opening at Willenhall and in Darlaston, projects that were delivered thanks to the leadership and funding of former mayor Andy Andy Street Aldridge. By contrast, we are very much in the sidings at the moment because the Labour mayor has stripped away the funding for our station, a project that had been promised to my constituents. The funding had been set aside by the previous mayor, Andy Street, and I just want to be clear about what that means.

And that means that if Wsmr goes ahead, and I sincerely hope that it does be under no doubt about that. We could soon see trains running from Wrexham to London, which would be great, but there would be going straight through Aldridge, but there would not be able to stop, all because of the decision to build the railway station. This is the reality. Passenger trains coming back through our village, our communities. But my constituents will be left standing on the trackside, watching them all pass by, and that would be a complete failure of priorities.

So I cannot let this opportunity go. Madam Deputy Speaker, without saying to the Minister, this is a great idea, and this evening, the ability to assure our support for an open access bid from Wsmr. So please back this line, back the connectivity that our region needs. But I would also challenge the decisions that risk leaving communities like mine behind. Because Aldridge Aldridge doesn't just need or want passenger services that simply run through the constituency. It needs a station where the train can Breckinridge.
21:14
Sureena Brackenridge Portrait Sureena Brackenridge MP (Wolverhampton North East, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. on record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend for Shrewsbury and for the championing and the work that the championing and the work that she has done for for supporting the Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway proposal, a new service Railway proposal, a new service that will link North Wales through Shropshire, through the Midlands and onto Wolverhampton onto London. For many families in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, North Wales plays a very special part in our stories. We have all enjoyed day trips and summer holidays in the.

With the warmth of our Welsh neighbours and stronger rail links will bring. Not just better transport connections, but social and economic connections and more choices for families. Just as important is the service will strengthen local journeys linking Walsall and Wolverhampton through the recently opened. But long awaited new stations opened last week in Willenhall and Darlaston. W SMR will support economic investment, regeneration and growth. It will improve access to jobs, apprenticeships and education and better connect local businesses to wider markets.

From North Wales all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the way through to our capital. So on that. Point I will happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank my hon. Friend for giving way when she's making such an excellent and passionate speech? You know, I, I hope the SMR bid would succeed as it will benefit my would succeed as it will benefit my constituents in Paris and in Wrexham. But would my hon. Friend agree with me that the proposal agree with me that the proposal would be improved by an extra stop at one of the two stations, Chirk or Ruabon, as Wrexham's second busiest of five stations?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I will admit that I have had the pleasure of visiting my had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend. Beautiful constituency, and I am sure that cross connections will be incredibly important to your constituents and you are surely a champion for that. you are surely a champion for that. So this proposal will make the most of the current capacity, just work of the current capacity, just work better and maximise the investment that's already made. So I urge the Minister to back this proposal.

It has got cross-party support to to deliver the connections that my constituents are ready to use and will certainly benefit from.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey. Richard Ford. Thank you, speaker, and I'm grateful to the hon. Member for grateful to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury for enabling me to speak in in her debates, and I'm grateful for her securing it. I'd like to for her securing it. I'd like to welcome once again the news announced at the Spending Review last June that funding has been last June that funding has been allocated to reinstate the railway station at Cullompton, and I was pleased to see this reaffirmed pleased to see this reaffirmed recently by the Undersecretary of State for transport, who's in his place, ready to answer for this debate.

When he was at Bill Committee for the Railways Bill recently. Cullompton and Wellington are the two largest settlements on the line between Exeter and Taunton, and so it's quite right that these these towns should be afforded a means for people who live there to walk or cycle to stations, giving them access to London via Paddington. And so a station at Cullompton will be key to its economic growth, enabling connections for work and education. And I'm glad to see that the government has seen that case.

But today I would simply like also to bring to the minister's attention
21:18
Richard Foord Portrait Richard Foord MP (Honiton and Sidmouth, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the needs for people in East Devon and on the West of England line that connects Honiton and Axminster. Across Southwest Railways, 82% of trains arrived at their destinations within three minutes destinations within three minutes of their advertised time. But on the West of England line it was just 61%. And instead of the usual just 61%. And instead of the usual leaves on the line explaining this in last autumn, the culprit was in last autumn, the culprit was soil moisture deficit. Robert Glenn is a professor who works at Imperial College London, commuting from Honiton.

He. He compares the experience of the West of England line with his experience in Hokkaido, in Japan, where he works sometimes also not very well, not very populated. Also far from the capital. But there he travels at 190mph. We in in Devon were not asking for the Devon Shinkansen. We're not asking for a bullet train, even at HS2 speeds, but rather we just want a route that connects Devon to London Waterloo, the same standards that the rest of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country enjoys. Thank you. I. Have to sit down, though. I wonder whether the hon. Member would spare a thought for those people even further southwest than Devon. The nearly million people in Devon. The nearly million people in Plymouth and Cornwall who struggle when there is a storm on their one line, one in and one line out to line, one in and one line out to even get in and out of Cornwall. And I wonder whether the Minister would consider Great British Railways when they are set up, having recourse to look at transport strategies for those local authorities in places like Cornwall which have such a good transport plan to make that a thing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the past. She makes an excellent point and I recognise wholly the the the vulnerability of the line at Dawlish, and I know also that my hon. Friend for Newton Abbot has hon. Friend for Newton Abbot has been campaigning on that too, and I'm sure together Devon and Cornwall MPs can keep up the fight. So to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, Reliable rail links are Speaker, Reliable rail links are essential for keeping Devon connected and competitive with a convenient and clean form of transport that is fit for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

passengers. Thank you Amanda. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for Shrewsbury for bringing forward this incredibly important debate. I will never miss an opportunity to talk about how isolated my community is in terms of public transport. Getting to London by transport. Getting to London by train would be transformational for North west Leicestershire, but as my two main towns of Coalville and Ashby de la Zouch, based in a semi-rural constituency, haven't had passenger rail since the Beeching cuts closed the Ivanhoe line.

Getting a train anywhere would be a massive step forward and I would welcome the Minister to set out in his response what assessment the Department for transport has done on the economic benefits of connecting rural towns like mine to the rail network and onto London. That way.
21:21
Amanda Hack Portrait Amanda Hack MP (North West Leicestershire, Labour)
-
-
I thank. served by just one train that comes every two hours, and I've been fighting to get a train every hour for those particular for those particular stations in those communities. Now, Doncaster, where they go to is a great gateway for the rest of London. But would you agree with me that it's great having the hub there in Doncaster, but if we can't get people to it, we can't get them out. So we need to think about that in all of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forwards. May I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention? And I think he's absolutely right. Having these hubs,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely right. Having these hubs, but nobody to get there is really problematic, and I'll give. Thanks for giving way. It sounds

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thanks for giving way. It sounds like Derbyshire, Derbyshire towns across Derbyshire Dales, like Bakewell, currently lack any connection to the rail network, leaving 13 million people who travel to the Peak District mainly travel to the Peak District mainly reliant on cars. Reinstating the Peaks and Dales line would be more environmental. It would help young people get to work in education and make it easier for the millions of tourists to travel to the national park by creating a direct link to Manchester, and then to Derby and therefore onward to London.

So given these major benefits, would my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to look closely at the forthcoming feasibility study to be published by the Peaks and Dales line into this reinstatement here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I certainly think the minister's going to be the minister's going to be incredibly busy after this day. But but actually, you know what my hon. Friend identifies in terms of that tourism connection is so important. My constituency has got the heart, My constituency has got the heart, the national forest, and I think it's an absolute travesty that people have to travel by car to get people have to travel by car to get to the heart of the National Forest.

I think that that is something we have to look at. Coalville, though, is the largest town in the country not connected to the rail network. If you were to go to Coalville and catch a train by using public transport, the most suitable route to London would be via Leicester, and the longest part of your journey would be from your home in Coalville to the station in Leicester. It's quicker to get from Leicester to London. It would take you three hours to get from Ashby de la Zouch to London by public transport, and more than half of that time would be to get to Ashby, from Ashby to Loughborough to catch the train.

Since the Ivanhoe line closed in the 60s, it's fair to say my constituents have been left at a clear disadvantage in the context of the ridiculous and inefficient journeys they now have to make.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely, yes. Thank the hon. Member for giving way. My constituency of Glastonbury way. My constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton. There's a stretch of line that is the longest stretch of line that is the longest stretch of the country. In fact, there's only eight stations in Somerset and Somerton Falls right in the middle of that isolated area. Despite the Paddington to Taunton line running straight through the town, so a new straight through the town, so a new station could boost access to to London and drive economic growth.

So does the hon. Member agree with me that there is a huge opportunity to drive growth in rural areas through boosting access to the railway in underserved rural communities?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, and I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and and absolutely economic growth. And absolutely economic growth. And getting people to where they need to go is the most important part of this debate. My friend. Give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this debate. My friend. Give way. So I thank my hon. Friend. For giving way. She will be aware that giving way. She will be aware that I used to own a retail shop in her constituency in the town of Ashby constituency in the town of Ashby de la Zouch, and quite often constituents of mine in Atherstone ask me for a direct bus service to get to Ashby de la Zouch. Where would she join with me in campaigning for that direct bus service, which would then enable her constituents to catch the train at Atherstone Station, where they could get to London in an hour and 20 minutes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend and almost neighbour for her almost neighbour for her intervention. Absolutely. Buses and trains is the is the big bulk of my constituency casework. People are constituency casework. People are really struggling to get to where they need to go, so absolutely we would happily campaign alongside them. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them. Of course. I thank. Can I just say my hon. Friend has been really, really generous to the intervention she's generous to the intervention she's taken, and every time I see an opportunity to make my point, someone else has jumped in. So I thank her for giving me the opportunity to talk about Roydon, which is in my constituency of Harlow, which does have a train line. One of my concerns is Roydon is that at peak times that train is cancelled. Now, of course, the problem with that is if a train is cancelled, sometimes at short notice, you've got people having to wait around at railway on railway platforms for long period of time.

That's particularly concerning if there are someone on the road, maybe a young lady waiting on the platform. So would she agree with me that I actually recognise the points being made about the importance of having a connected system, and some of these big towns need that stations, I absolutely recognise. But you also agree that we need a reliable train network where cancellations don't happen,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particularly at short notice. As I've just mentioned. I have every sympathy with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have every sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make. My train has been cancelled for six decades, so this is the this is really the impact in my constituency. And I think there my constituency. And I think there is a real issue about connectivity, and I would welcome the Minister to his response. What assessment has his response. What assessment has been done on the economic benefits of the previous lines in the Restoring Your Railways project? Since the updates of the Green Book, particularly in light of the recently opened Northumberland Line

**** Possible New Speaker ****

service, which has actually smashed his projections by 40% more passenger onto the network. Well, member friendly way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, member friendly way. Thank you. I'm sorry for intervening, but as her constituency neighbour, I'm sure she will understand why I'm sure she will understand why I'm intervening because many of her constituents do use East Midlands Parkway in my constituency to get Parkway in my constituency to get down to London. We are fortunate to have that direct line, but she will know, as many of my colleagues here know, as many of my colleagues here know, that that line is not electrified.

Therefore, it is not the quickest line and it is also a polluting line. The procurement of the next phase of Midland Midland Main Line electrification was delayed by the 2024 general election and then by the spending review, despite it being worth £400 million in socio economic benefits. So would she support me and colleagues here? I know there will be another one talking about it later in saying that that decision really needs to be looked at. Again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for my hon. Friend, for his intervention. Absolutely. The electrification of the Midland Main Line is long overdue, and it's Main Line is long overdue, and it's something that I worked on as a as a county councillor before I came to this place. It really will be to this place. It really will be important to the East Midlands going forward. My constituents tell me that if they're getting into me that if they're getting into their car to drive to the nearest station, they may as well just keep driving.

And that's what happens. driving. And that's what happens. On that point. It's unsurprising that roughly 80% of the East Midlands commuters drive, and that's half the average of the railway journeys per resident at just seven per year, which is half of that of the West Midlands and a third of the east of the east of England. I'd welcome the minister's view, not only the economic impacts of connecting rural towns to London, but the added advantage of connecting rural towns to each other with a point made by my hon.

Friend for Shrewsbury. In her opening remarks at my Ivanhoe debate in Westminster Hall at the start of the year, the Minister responded told me to keep holding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the department's feet to the fire and I will just continue to do that time and again. Andrew George.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andrew George. Deputy Speaker And I'll make a brief intervention because we want to make sure the Minister has ample time to respond to the many points which have been raised. I must congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury for bringing this debate and for telling us about her wonderful constituency as well. It is indeed a very attractive constituency, but I'm afraid second constituency, but I'm afraid second best in comparison with West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which no doubt will have further
21:29
Andrew George Portrait Andrew George MP (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
debates on. But nevertheless I didn't stand purely to make make didn't stand purely to make make that make that competitive point to to a certain extent the Cornwall, West Cornwall and the. And the West Cornwall and the. And the Isles of Scilly has a justification to engage in all debates about rail to engage in all debates about rail in that the very first steam locomotive actually ran in in locomotive actually ran in in Cornwall, and the very first steam rail service ran as a good service from Angarrack to to Hayle in west in West Cornwall.

So we were very much at the, at the beginning of, of the story of, of, of rail and rail services across across the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country and very, very proud of the Heritage which Cornwall has contributed to the United Kingdom contributed to the United Kingdom in that. In that respect, my my primary point, which I simply wish to get across to to the Minister to get across to to the Minister this evening, and my constituency is at the the end of the line at Penzance. The the the padding to to to Penzance line is, is simply not to Penzance line is, is simply not to be mesmerized by speed in that in that the the whole debate about about HS2 has been one which is about cutting a certain amount of speed off off rail journeys to, to, to, to certain destinations.

And and as far as I will in a second, I, I'll be pleased to because in the case of, of Penzance, the, the rail services are generally five, 5.5 hours to, to Paddington or back. And, and and of course we have a sleeper service which takes eight hours. And. And the issue really for us in that in that part of the country isn't one of speed, but of reliability, of comfort, of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

competitive pricing, etc. But I'll give way to my hon. Friend from south East Cornwall. Thank you. On that point, I thank the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point, I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Yesterday I, alongside many constituents, were alongside many constituents, were trapped on the main line. The one line that we have between Cornwall and London, with a fire on the line and London, with a fire on the line causing havoc for businesses and constituents. I wanted to pay tribute to the emergency services tribute to the emergency services who responded so well to that incident, but just to highlight that a journey that would take a couple of hours became much, much longer than that.

With people trapped and taking taxis and lots of disruption, that is a real indicator of how vulnerable we are in Cornwall and the resilience that needs to be built into that line, and I look forward to hearing more about that in the debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I'm enormously grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point about about the vulnerability. And about about the vulnerability. And there are there are a number of points along the line, not just Dawlish and not just the, the, the, Dawlish and not just the, the, the, the areas where the line has been singled out and therefore where a fire can cause catastrophic consequences for the for the thousands of people who are seeking to travel on that day. And to travel on that day.

And certainly a member of my staff was attempting to travel from Bristol down to the lizard Saturday afternoon, and instead of taking him three hours, it took over 11 hours to, to, to undertake that journey. And so often we have those stories whereby the services, especially to the far west of Cornwall, the further west you go, the more vulnerable you are to being affected by those vulnerabilities. And so my message really to the Minister is, is that if we're going to be investing in the future of rail, I know there have been lobbies amongst the business community, for example, in Plymouth in the past where they've said, if only we could take half an hour off the journey, it would change the economic perception of the of the city of Plymouth.

I mean, taking half an hour off a five hour journey really means nothing to to people in in the far west of Cornwall. What we really want is reliability, comfort, low pricing and space for people to put their luggage. Reliability of the services themselves so the toilets don't constantly break down and you don't have to sit in the vestibule

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trying to find a seat. I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend for true. I'd just like to interject there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd just like to interject there and say, of course there is the opportunity at the moment, because superfast satellite Wi-Fi has been superfast satellite Wi-Fi has been tested on our part of the line. So although we have very slow trains, there is a possibility that we could have the rollout of fast could have the rollout of fast Wi-Fi. So while you're sitting on your train for 5.5 hours, at least, you can work or you can watch a film. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

film. Yeah. And my friend actually makes a point which, which, which indeed I was, I was going to come on to, which is, which is that if you're sitting on, on a train as a busy member of Parliament or other person that is engaged in, in a, in a very busy life, you know, we don't want that five hours to be dead time as far as your as far as your working day is concerned, and that therefore, if you have reliable Wi-Fi services, you can actually continue your working day, continue with online meetings and, and continue to communicate to, to everyone as, as you're traveling along.

But at present, the vast majority of services that that, that Wi-Fi is very often interrupted. It's very, it's very unreliable. So in contrast to the billions of pounds, the multi billions of pounds that is required to achieve the kind of HS2 standard that that has been set by successive governments with regard to the north south connectivity. Indeed, there are many parts of the country where it would be a question of many millions of pounds, significantly less in order to achieve the comfort, resilience, reliability, high, you know, superfast Wi-Fi and competitive pricing of the kind that I'm I'm describing to the Minister this evening.

Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. Michelle Taylor. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to thank my hon. Friend I'd like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury for securing this really important debate. She has spoken passionately, debate. She has spoken passionately, as she always does, about the benefits of a new route to link together towns and cities from Wrexham through the West Midlands Wrexham through the West Midlands to London, and this proposed route would make a real to my constituents, particularly those living in Coleshill villages who currently don't have a direct link
21:35
Rachel Taylor Portrait Rachel Taylor MP (North Warwickshire and Bedworth, Labour)
-
-
to London. For them, this lack of connectivity represents not just an inconvenience but a barrier to inconvenience but a barrier to opportunity. For too long, parts of the West Midlands have been left disconnected from each other disconnected from each other because of poor planning and underinvestment. We're rightly encouraging sustainable travel and balanced regional development, and the strong local rail and the strong local rail connections cannot be overstated. Constituents in Coleshill and surrounding villages like Curdworth, Lea, Marston, Nether, Whitacre and Shustoke deserve rail routes that take them directly to London and to other West Midlands towns and cities, opening up opportunities for work and leisure, particularly in the motor manufacturing supply chain.

Across the Black Country, we've already seen the benefits of improved rail connectivity for constituents in Atherstone, who can now travel directly to London from the town station every hour, although it would be good to have a later service back home so we could enjoy the theatre and still get back, it's removed the need to drive to neighbouring stations like Nuneaton, or endure long, indirect journeys, with multiple changes and cold waits in platform shelters. It's made travel simpler, quicker and more accessible.

I intend to work with constituents and ensure that everyone can benefit from this particular route by improving bus routes from Polesworth and villages in the north of the constituency. My constituents who use Coleshill Parkway deserve the same quality of rail service. A direct, reliable connection to London. They should be able to travel easily to nearby towns and cities across the West Midlands, such as Walsall and Telford, as well as Shrewsbury, without the need to travel into Birmingham only to come back out again.

This kind of inefficiency discourages rail use and, much like other members have said, once you're in your car, you will stay in your car to make those relatively local journeys. It. Yes, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. One issue that people use their car, use their car instead of the railway is because they can't access the platform they can't access the platform because their steps are no lift. Would you agree with me that restoring step free access to restoring step free access to stations like Whitchurch in my constituency is critical to making sure people use the benefits that the railway can bring and don't get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the railway can bring and don't get in their car. Yeah. Yeah, it's absolutely is. And I,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, it's absolutely is. And I, I have disabled constituents and disabled friends who want to use the railway, but sometimes just getting on to the platform is too difficult. And unless they've pre-booked assistance and sometimes that assistance isn't there when they need it. So absolutely. I do agree with her. And at a time when town centres across the country face unprecedented challenges, strong transport links are more important than ever for people looking to move into the West Midlands.

This route will make Coleshill an attractive prospect for anyone who needs to regularly commute to London, and it'll also provide opportunities for those away football fans from Wrexham in the same league as Coventry City, who are hoping also to be promoted. Perhaps unlike Coventry, it won't be an automatic promotion. Coleshill businesses stand to benefit enormously from improved rail connectivity as well. A direct link to London would support growth, attract investment and encourage tourism to the lovely historic town.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give one. Connections to market towns in my constituency are vital for our tourism and hospitality industry. tourism and hospitality industry. We actually have a great branch line service, but patrons of the much lauded Gunton Arms and much lauded Gunton Arms and Suffield Arms will know that Gunton Station quite often suffers from having trains only every two hours, having trains only every two hours, which you agree with me that the frequency of these train services is just as important to support our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is just as important to support our rural, hospitality and leisure industries. I absolutely agree with with the hon. Gentleman, and I have used that very service myself on many trips to Cromer and Sheringham, and I use the service from West Runton to either get into Cromer or all the way to to Norwich and also the other way to, to Sheringham. So I absolutely know what he means. I, I think I might have had to get a taxi from the Gunton Arms one night because because of the lack of, of trains back from that particular station.

But this government has already done so much for rail users, including freezing rail fares for commuters, lowering the cost of getting to work and nationalizing West Midlands trains so we can put passengers above profit. I hope this proposal is considered very carefully. I wish my hon. Friend all the best with this campaign and I will continue to support her and my constituents to get the rail routes they deserve.
21:40
Jonathan Davies Portrait Jonathan Davies MP (Mid Derbyshire, Labour)
-
-
Hey Jonathan Davies. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm very pleased that my honourable. secured. >> This debate about connections between London and rural towns by rail, because many of the issues on which he touched apply to my own which he touched apply to my own constituency in Derbyshire. This morning I was at Broomfield Hall College, an agricultural college with a fantastic equestrian centre, to launch the findings of my survey of young people. Over 500 young people in Derbyshire contributed to that survey, and it's given me some really rich insights into issues which I must take forward on their behalf in this place.

And one of the issues which came through in that survey was a lack of good transport links for rural and semi-rural towns in Derbyshire, and when I come to London every week, it never ceases to amaze me how extensive the transport is, how resilient it is, how late it runs and how cheap it is. And that is not the experience of many people around this country, and we must address that. So that opportunity is in the hands of people, wherever they live, whatever their background, and not concentrated in London and the South East.

I know how serious this government is about the railways. Great British Rail is a very significant intervention, and we are very pleased that it will be hosted in Derby, because although there is some contention about this, I would contend that Derby is the home of the railways. We have the largest rail cluster manufacturing cluster in Europe and George Stephenson's final resting place is in Derbyshire two. But despite its railway pedigree, there is no electric electrified line through Derbyshire.

It stops in Leicestershire and then all the way through Derbyshire up to Sheffield. That section of the Midland Main Line remains unelectrified and the benefits that of doing so, of introducing electrification, are absolutely significant. We can reduce air pollution, we can reduce journey times and we can improve reliability. And the studies indicate that there is a potential to add five, half £1 billion, £500 million to the regional economy by pursuing electrification. It's a project that's been kicked into the long grass for too many times now.

I know money's tight. We don't have a golden inheritance as a government here, but I would just urge the Minister to take away the benefits of Midland mainline electrification, because in doing that, we can actually improve the connections to some of the smaller, more rural stations that we've got. There are three in my constituency, Belper, Duffield and Spondon. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you very much for giving way, and I just need to reinforce the point he's making, because the the point he's making, because the East Midlands already receives the lowest level of transport spending lowest level of transport spending per head of any UK region or nation, just 56% of the UK average. So while I don't want to undermine my hon. Friend's campaign, which is extremely important and I support, would he agree with me that the East Midlands in particular has to be looked at because places like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his constituency and mine constituency have not had the money they deserve? He makes a very important point,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He makes a very important point, and I am glad the government has begun to address this shortfall. The investment of £2 billion into The investment of £2 billion into the East Midlands Combined Authority under Mayor Clare Ward, specifically to used to be used for specifically to used to be used for transport, will go some way to addressing that, but there is a lot more to do because East Midlands has historically been left behind, has historically been left behind, so the merits of electrification of the East Midlands Railway will benefit our rural and semi-rural towns.

Belper is a town of nearly 25,000 people. It's in the heart of the East Midlands only Unesco World Heritage Site, the Derwent Valley Mills, and I very much hope that it will be England's next town of culture, the UK's next town of culture. It makes a very good, good case for that. But to help people get to Belper when it is a town of culture, as I'm sure it will be, we need to make sure that the rail connections are there and at the moment there's only one train in each direction on the Midland Main line that stops.

People have to go to Derby or Change, or they drive to Derby and get on the on the express train from there. So very much pleased with the Minister. Please take forward the benefits of Midland Main Line electrification

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because it benefits rural and semi-rural stations too. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Good evening, Madam. Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to respond to this debate, and may I start by congratulating my hon. Friend, the Member for Shrewsbury Friend, the Member for Shrewsbury on securing it and for speaking so ardently about the critical importance of rail connections in importance of rail connections in rural areas. But also she sets out a very strong case for the historic yet modern, classic yet avant garde town of Shrewsbury and all that it has to offer to people right across the United Kingdom.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would also be remiss of me to not reflect on the fact that what began in Shrewsbury at the start of this debate grew over its course into a fascinating over its course into a fascinating tour of the rail challenges and opportunities which face rural towns the length and breadth of our towns the length and breadth of our beautiful country. I'll very briefly give way.
21:45
Keir Mather Portrait Keir Mather MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Selby, Labour)
-
-
I thank Minister for giving way. My rural constituency of Dorking and Horley is lucky enough to be only 21 miles from London, but the train from Dorking travels at 21 miles an hour, which my ticket says takes one hour to get there. 1900 people have signed a petition calling for a faster train. The director of SWR has interest in this. Will the Minister meet with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

me to discuss faster trains to Dorking? Well, I'm very glad that the hon. Member managed to sneak in hon. Member managed to sneak in before the end of the debate, and I can't fault his maths on the challenge that he describes. I'll make sure that his request for a make sure that his request for a meeting is passed through to the Rail Minister, who I'm sure will be very glad to meet with him. very glad to meet with him. Colleagues will have to forgive me.

I've taken away the points that they've raised. I've reflected on them closely over the course of this debate and shall be certain to feed them into all of our processes in the Department for transport. To improve rail connectivity to rural towns, to London. However, my. The substance of my remarks will focus on rail connections to Shrewsbury because my hon. Friend has worked so hard to secure this debate and deserves a fulsome response to the issues that she has raised. But hon.

Members from across the House, members for Wolverhampton, North East, Aldridge-brownhills, Truro and Falmouth, North West Leicestershire, Doncaster East I could go on, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I won't. You'll be, you'll be pleased to know, have raised the absolutely crucial points that good rail connections are vital for connecting people to jobs, service and leisure destinations. They are catalysts for economic growth and irrespective of where you live in the United Kingdom, people deserve access to all of the benefits that the railway has to offer.

That is why it is so important that we deliver on the promises that we have made to bring the railways back into public ownership. Under Great British Railways, GBR will bring together 14 separate train operating companies and Network Rail into a single organisation that will be able to plan a fully integrated train service that passengers can rely on. GBR will be better able to offer the fast and frequent connections to and to, from and between major economic centres, and where people need to change trains, such as from a rural connection to an intercity service, GBR will be far better able to make that connection dependable, like it is for passengers on some of the world's highest performing railways.

Of course, in a system that needs to cater for many differing needs and connects many different towns and cities across the country, whilst improving performance and reducing costs for taxpayers. Some compromise is necessary, and while it may not be possible in every instance to provide direct services to all places, we are determined that GBR will ensure that people have excellent access to their nearest major economic centre for jobs and services, and to major

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rail hubs for onward connections. Really briefly, I'll give way. Really thank the Minister for giving way right at the end of this debate. My North Cornwall constituency doesn't have a single mainline station within it. The six mainline station within it. The six Cornish MPs would really love to meet with the rail Minister and if the Minister could perhaps also the Minister could perhaps also help us get a meeting, we have a plan. It's called Kernow Connect. We've got huge economic potential We've got huge economic potential in Cornwall with critical minerals.

We've got one of the world's deepest ports in Falmouth, but we don't have the capacity for freight

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on our railways. So I'd really appreciate the minister's help with setting up that meeting and moving that forward. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. I thank him for his intervention, and I will ensure that his request is put through to the Rail Minister, but I do want to turn directly to the matter of direct services between Shrewsbury and London. I between Shrewsbury and London. I fully understand my hon. Friend's desire for a direct connection to London. I would like to reassure London. I would like to reassure her, however, and the community that she represents that this government is determined to improve rail services across her constituency and elsewhere, and we will set out some of those ambitions in more detail within our forthcoming integrated national transport and long term rail strategies later this year, we have been clear that GBR must be a railway for everyone, and it will be required to engage widely with local leaders to deliver the best service for their area, supporting local growth in a way that is affordable and which supports a high performing railway for everyone.

So I welcome hers and other members advocacy and look forward to GBR working in partnership with them to reshape services so that they meet the needs of the communities that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

serve for the. For the final time, I'll give way. I just wanted to ask within GBR,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to ask within GBR, is there definitely a space for open access? Because the the Wsmr

**** Possible New Speaker ****

line that the hon. Lady for Shrewsbury specifically talks about was an open access bid. And I thank her for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thank her for her contribution. And she's made similar ones. On the point about open access, and I fully agree how important it is. GBR being able to manage capacity across the rail network, we believe, might in fact create more opportunities for open access services when the railway is run in a more cohesive way, and open access can absolutely be part of that picture. In a dynamic railway system. Now to turn to back to Shrewsbury, the majority of passengers from Shrewsbury choose to go to Birmingham or other stations along the same route, and very few passengers use the Avanti service, which was referenced when Avanti withdrew their service.

West Midlands Trains significantly improved their service by adding a new limited stop service to Birmingham between WMT and Transport for Wales. Currently, Shrewsbury residents can use three direct trains per hour to Birmingham, improving the most popular services whilst also insulating local train service performance from issues that may occur further down the line. Since the direct service was withdrawn, Avanti have increased the number of fast services between London and Birmingham, improving interchange options for those travelling between London and Shrewsbury, but I appreciate this may not go far enough for for the hon.

Member and I'm happy to take that conversation forward. But these steps do represent meaningful progress and it is not just on the rail where services are being improved in the interests of local communities. We are consolidating and simplifying local transport funding for all local transport authorities. As part of this funding, Shropshire County Council will receive £8.7 million from the Bus Services Fund, which can be used in whichever way they wish to deliver better bus services for local people. Shropshire County Council also receive £219 million in integrated transportations between 2627 and 2930.

However, I also recognise my hon. Friend's determination to pursue the open access application from Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway and the Department for transport agrees that it would provide important connectivity for communities including Shrewsbury, along its proposed route. That is why we have provided conditional support for SMEs. Application subject to the Author and Network Rail being satisfied that services can be accommodated without compromising network performance and without adversely affecting the rights of other operators. I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that under the current system, access to the is a matter for the Ora as the independent regulator for the rail.

Therefore, the Department for transport is unable to direct the IRR directly in its decision making. However, capacity remains constricted on the West Coast Main line, and this was a major factor in the Ora's rejection of Smr's original application. Improving capacity across our rail network is a long term priority for this government, and that is precisely why we are establishing GBR to put in place the strategic planning and the sustained investment needed to secure better connectivity and opportunity for communities in every part of the country.

To turn to the Railways Bill and access under GBR. Very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, once it receives Royal Assent, the Railways Bill will establish a new access framework. GBR will in future be responsible for decisions about access to its network, as the single directing mind for the railway, GBR will be required to determine the best use of the network according to its statutory duties, and this includes promoting the interests of railway passengers and delivering the social and economic benefits derived from railway services.

Open access will continue to play a role in offering innovative solutions and improving connectivity, where it represents best use of the network and the new capacity allocation framework will embed strategic planning and under the Infrastructure Capacity plan, GBR will be able to provide greater clarity and long term certainty for open access operators in a way that the current system does not do. Today, the government has committed to honour all existing access rights under GBR, including for open access operators, for the duration of those existing access agreements.

Therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker In closing, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury for her thoughtful and constructive contributions on behalf of her constituents and to thank all the other members across the House who have raised transport challenges in their constituency and held the department's transport for account on how we can go further and faster to deliver on those aspirations. I've listened to all the points raised this evening, and I would like to reassure her and other members that the government will reflect very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

carefully on all of them here. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn as many as are of that opinion, say I. The ayes have
14:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Home Office
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page