(1 week, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) on securing the debate and on his work in championing the UK’s growing wine industry. It is particularly good that he has managed to get it in dry January.
Yes, nearly over. The UK has always been a major trade hub for wine. We are the world’s second largest importer of wine by value and volume, bringing in an estimated 1.7 billion bottles every year. The UK is also the 11th largest exporter of wine, so it is very much a two-way trade.
The scale and connectivity matter. The UK’s role as a global hub anchors expertise and investment across bottling, logistics, retail and export, and increasingly, as we have heard from my hon. Friend today, in viticulture. Our domestic wines have earned a reputation for exceptional quality, as demonstrated by the nine gold medals awarded to English wines at the 2025 International Wine and Spirit Competition in London. Nyetimber’s head winemaker, Cherie Spriggs, was named sparkling winemaker of the year for a second time, which is an exceptional achievement. She was the first person outside Champagne to win the award, thereby giving some credence to my hon. Friend’s claim that the only champagne to drink at the moment, even if we cannot call it that, is English sparkling wine.
Such achievements show the quality that British producers can attain when talent, innovation and investment come together and are applied to British viticulture. Across the country at fantastic vineyards such as Chapel Down’s Kit’s Coty in the constituency of my hon. Friend, the production of award-winning wines is translating into good jobs, as he pointed out, as well as tourism growth and renewed confidence in local, often rural, economies. We recognise the challenges the industry faces: a tougher trading environment, rising costs and tariffs. Yet through working in partnership with the industry, we intend to help it seize opportunities and ensure growth is felt by farmers and communities alike.
Exports of domestic wines are gaining real momentum. English and Welsh wines now ship to 45 countries, with exports more than doubling their share of total sales from 2021 to 2024. The 16 agrifood attachés from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs play a key role in this success by promoting UK wine, removing market access barriers and helping businesses navigate consumer demand and import procedures. The Government are supporting WineGB to boost the global profile of English and Welsh sparkling wine at Wine Paris in February. We want to ensure that British producers have a strong, confident presence in key global markets.
Our trade deals have enabled greater access to international markets for UK wines, whether through simplified customs procedures under our recently announced free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea or the approval of a greater range of winemaking practices for exports to Australia and New Zealand. The Government are working to make it easier and less costly for UK wine producers to do business abroad.
The success story of the UK wine sector does not start overseas; it begins at home. Industry forecasts suggest that the retail value of English and Welsh wines could reach £1 billion by 2040, but I wonder whether we can get there faster. With more than 1,100 vineyards, and production exceeding 10 million bottles, viticulture is one of the fastest-growing agricultural sectors in the country, and the Government are committed to supporting that growth. Through the farming innovation programme, we have committed at least £200 million through to 2030 to support viticulture. That will help producers invest, innovate and plan with confidence.
On whether we can change the regulations on single-serve wine portions, there has not yet been a decision on reforms, but we are keen to engage on ideas about innovation, including on that issue. I ask my hon. Friend to please keep in touch with me and the Department on that innovation and others so that we can see whether it is worth our while changing regulations that may have become out of date.
Wine tourism is a vital part of the success, as my hon. Friend pointed out. In 2023, about 1.5 million visits were made to vineyards and wineries, and tourism accounted for roughly a quarter of income for many estates. This is about jobs, economic opportunity and resilient rural economies. The Government are committed to supporting that vision, including by backing regional identity initiatives. Our ongoing efforts will ensure that regions gain the recognition that they deserve, both at home and abroad.
My hon. Friend mentioned cellar door relief. I would certainly welcome any data that he and the industry can provide me with so that we can see how we might deal with that. We have to get evidence before we can make changes to the way that such relief is given. If evidence exists out there, I strongly suggest that my hon. Friend gets in touch with the wine-growing bodies so that they can present it to us and we can consider it.
My hon. Friend mentioned packaging reforms. The Government are committed to moving towards a circular economy that delivers sustainable growth and reduces waste. Our collection and packaging reforms, including extended producer responsibility and the deposit return scheme, are designed to drive investment in modern recycling infrastructure. Extended producer responsibility is already used successfully across more than 30 countries and is a proven way to increase reusable packaging in the market and improve long-term environmental issues. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but we have to move forward and try to get to a place where we can recycle much more packaging to ensure it does not go to landfill. The Government recognise the pressures that alcohol producers face, and we want to assist in any way we can.
The Government committed to upskilling the workforce, and we are working closely with Skills England and the Department for Education on the growth and skills levy, which includes apprenticeships. If my hon. Friend wants to convene the industry to talk about how that might be applied with respect to viticulture, I am more than happy to hear what he has to say when he has done that work.
The growth of the UK wine industry is impressive, but we are only just beginning to realise its full potential. It is about far more than bottles sold or medals won, although they are very important and we celebrate them; it is about skilled jobs, thriving rural economies and the confidence that comes when communities seek growth and opportunity on their doorstep. This Labour Government believe in backing British industry, supporting working people and building an economy that works for every part of the country. That is why, as a Minister, I am committed to working closely with the sector to drive innovation, expand exports and ensure that rural communities across the UK fully share the benefits of this success story.
Question put and agreed to.
(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberThere is an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that extends the requirement to check illegal working to the gig economy, the zero-hours economy and all those areas that have non-traditional employer-employee relationships. I look forward to being able to operationalise that when the Bill becomes law.
Regarding non-crime hate incidents and the amount of police time taken to investigate them, does the Minister agree that the clue is in the name? They are “non-crime”. Does she also agree that already stretched police should focus their efforts on tackling real crime, rather than being the virtue-signalling thought police?
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
If my hon. and learned Friend wants to talk to me about any of the details, I would be happy to listen, but of course we want to operate that site properly and appropriately until we hand it back to the Ministry of Defence in September.
Given that the Government do not believe in sending illegal immigrants to third countries such as Rwanda, can the Minister explain how they plan to deport people who have destroyed their documents so that we do not know their country of origin? Or is the solution to keep those people here forever—in hotels, or in one of the 1.5 million homes that Labour plans to build?
Mr Deputy Speaker—sorry, Mr Speaker. I do not know why I am calling you Mr Deputy Speaker today; I have gone back a very long time to when you were, but that was so long ago that I can scarcely remember it. My apologies, Mr Speaker.
The right hon. Lady should remember that the Rwanda scheme was about deporting people for good, not dealing with their asylum claims. That is not in any way what this Government would ever consider doing, which is why that scheme was cancelled.
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Before I call Esther to reply, can I say that interventions have to be brief, especially in debates of this kind, where other speeches are not allowed? I have been lenient once; I will not be again.
Thank you, Dame Angela, and I thank my hon. Friend for that honest contribution, particularly with such great first-hand knowledge.
To continue with my other point, I was sat next to a very impressive woman who had served and done well in the Army, but who was struggling now that she had left. She, too, felt abandoned. She had gone into the Army to get away from her life. The Army was a fresh start and a new beginning for her. She had grown there and done well. However, on leaving, she felt she was put right back into the place that she had tried to escape from. That left her depressed, as if she had walked back in time, back into the problems that she had tried to get away from. She felt it was worse for her, as there were no other women close by who she could relate to and who shared her experiences. She had seen a lot during her time in the Army.
That woman is based in Cheshire. The support groups for women were in the cities, in Liverpool and Manchester, and meeting online for her was not the same as seeing people face to face. She wondered how she could connect with other veterans, particularly female veterans, who are scattered across the country, without having to incur all the significant travel costs.
All at the session were concerned about support for those with PTSD, particularly those who had been in Afghanistan and Iraq, understanding how it develops and the treatment accompanying it. I have another question for the Minister. How much research have the Government done—or are doing—into PTSD and its treatment, as well as into traumatic brain injury, which is linked to PTSD? Traumatic brain injuries are often overlooked, but they can have devastating effects on physical and mental wellbeing. They can cause memory loss, cognitive impairment, mood swings and a range of debilitating symptoms that can significantly impact a veteran’s ability to reintegrate into civilian life.
Many believe that, despite the growing body of scientific evidence linked to traumatic brain injury and PTSD, the UK Government have failed to allocate the necessary resources and funding for a comprehensive researched diagnosis into the treatment and conditions. If that is the case, we are doing a disservice to our veterans, which does not live up to the promises made in the armed forces covenant. I hope the Minister can reassure me that that is not the case, and that much work is being and has been done.
When he responds to the debate, will the Minister let me and my constituents know what the Government are doing to support veterans with mental health conditions and how they intend to support them and their families? My constituents are helpfully proposing that, either prior to or after discharge date, the MOD sends individuals to a medical facility for an all-round health screening, to diagnose any injuries that have been missed while on active service. That could also lead to an understanding of what might happen to them in future.
The armed forces covenant, established in 2011, was intended to be a solemn agreement that our Government and local authorities would provide adequate support, recognition and assistance to those who had served our Army in uniform. I would like an update on what the Government are doing to adhere to that covenant.
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Everybody wants to improve people’s lives. That is what we are all here to do, and that is what our work coaches do day in, day out. I hope that you will bear with me, Mr Speaker, if I refer to a letter I received. A lone parent wrote saying, “I was frightened to go into the jobcentre from what I had heard. Eight years ago, I was in the jobcentre, and the system did not work for me, so I was relieved and happy that I now have a job. Universal credit is working.” Since then, I have been collecting all those letters, because so many people—claimants and work coaches—are saying that this system is so much better than the one before.
I suspect that the Secretary of State decided that she had to come to the House to apologise when she received the unprecedented open letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General pointing out that she had used—let us say—not correct assertions on three occasions about a report that her own officials had agreed. Will she now finally admit that she has got things very wrong on this, actually accept the National Audit Office’s conclusions, and show some respect to the NAO?
If I may correct the hon. Lady, it was not to do with the letter. She incorrectly says that I came after the letter, but I asked whether I had got anything wrong and I checked things out myself. Nobody asked me or told me to come to House; I came here of my own volition. What I do not agree with—we stand by this—are the conclusions of the report in its entirety.
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
As ever, my hon. Friend is correct. We are spending more than £50 billion, and are proud to do so, to support disabled people who need it. This Conservative Government are supporting more people and giving them the higher rate they need, and we will continue to do that.
But the Secretary of State has been dragged to the House by an urgent question to talk about her decision not to pursue the appeal in these cases concerning activity 3 of the daily living component. She has very coyly failed completely to answer the question of how many people her decision affects. We know that 165 million people receive the component—[Interruption.] I mean 1.65 million—it is still a lot. Will she now answer: how many people are affected directly by the decision she took in the recess to withdraw the appeal, when will these people get the right amount of money and when will they be assured that they have not been illegally underpaid?
The urgent question was about two cases in particular. This is about those two cases: it is about two people who were affected, and who will receive their money immediately. We are assessing the position, but that is what the urgent question was about. If Members want to talk about matters outside the scope of the urgent question, that will be for a different occasion and a different day.