Blair Mayne: Posthumous Victoria Cross

Debate between Bob Blackman and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The subjects for debate today, including the titles of the debates, were determined by the Backbench Business Committee. The debate titles are not a matter for the Chair; the hon. Member has the opportunity to take that up with the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who I suspect might be about to speak.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I assure you, and the whole House, that no discourtesy was intended whatsoever? We did not get notice of whether we would get time for a debate, and when that time would be, until quite late on. I take what my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has said. We will take that point back to the Committee and will ensure that we correct the matter for the future, and have Easter and Christmas recess debates. The summer recess debate we have already rechristened the Sir David Amess debate. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for that clarification. That brings us to the Backbench Business Committee debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming—I believe I might have the licence—Easter adjournment.

Easter Adjournment

Debate between Bob Blackman and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee season ticket holder for his intervention, but I assure him that it will not get him any favours in his applications for further debates. I was saddened to hear that on Sunday night, Hamas yet again fired 10 rockets into Israel in an attempt to cause further harm and destruction, despite the civilians of Gaza being in desperate need of a ceasefire. If that does not show that they are a terrorist organisation, I do not know what would. They are focused solely on the destruction of not only Israel, but their own people. It is an outrage that they are still in position. With Passover coming, I pray that we can reach a true settlement, restore peace in the region, and ensure that no more life is lost in the war against terrorism.

Having just celebrated the Persian new year, Nowruz, we need a free and democratic Iran. In Iran, people continue to be supressed by the undemocratic regime, and are silenced and imprisoned for showing any opposition to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The regime is becoming increasingly brutal, with at least 230 people executed in Iran during the first three months of this year—double the number of people who were executed in the same period last year. The IRGC is a threat to global prosperity and security. It continues to fund external militia groups across the middle east. It is particularly concerning that Iran, Russia and China have been engaged in talks about their nuclear programmes. I hope that President Trump’s firm approach to their actions will make them think twice before causing further disruption in the area. Once again, I urge the Government to turn their promise into action and to proscribe the IRGC in its entirety as a terrorist organisation.

I am the chairman of the APPG on ending homelessness. We face a rising cost of living, increasing unemployment and, more recently, rises in council tax. Many more people are being forced to live in poverty, and are struggling to afford their rent. Rents have risen by 9% this year, taking them out of reach, and forcing many people into temporary accommodation—or, worse, on to the streets, where they have to sleep rough. In Harrow East alone, according to a recent report from Crisis, a mere 1.9% of housing is deemed to be affordable. That is unsustainable and exerts considerable pressure on local authorities.

In more positive news, I am pleased that my third private Member’s Bill, on homelessness and tackling rough sleeping, recently passed its Second Reading unopposed. The Homelessness Prevention Bill focuses on using prevention at the core of solving the rough sleeping problem, as it is often too late, much harder and much more expensive to help people once they are already on the streets. The Bill would increase the effectiveness of the current duty on local housing authorities in England to take reasonable steps to help an applicant threatened with homelessness to secure accommodation so that it does not cease to be available to them. I look forward to the next steps in securing Government support to achieve Royal Assent.

I am also pleased that we soared through the Third Reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. I welcome the Government’s ambition to inherit the goals of the previous Conservative Administration to eradicate smoking from society and tackle youth vaping. I hope that the other place will be just as favourable to ensure that we can swiftly protect future generations from this harm. I look forward to working on the Bill further, scrutinising it and ensuring that all appropriate amendments are adopted so that we can achieve a smoke-free society in our lifetimes. I pay particular tribute to my friends at Action on Smoking and Health, who have been tireless in providing briefings and meetings and hosting events for colleagues and myself.

In the first quarter alone, I visited nine schools in my constituency, with many more in the pipeline over the next term. I find it enriching and important to engage with tomorrow’s generation, as many MPs will, and to hear the views and ideas of students on improving the way in which the country is run. I am constantly astounded by the very high level of education in Harrow, the standards provided and the thoughtful questions I am posed by students of all ages.

Every visit has been extremely valuable in different ways. Some of my most notable visits include a visit to Shaftesbury high school, which is a special educational needs school. When we think of people with disabilities and special needs, it is important that we focus not on what they cannot do, but on what they can do. At Shaftesbury high school, they have created a coffee hut on site where students learn the skills to be a barista. Having tasted one of their brews, I can confirm that they will give Starbucks a run for its money.

I look forward to another SEND school, which was newly approved by the previous Administration, being created in Harrow. We have the land, the opportunity and the support of the headteachers; we now need Government support to make it happen. Another notable visit—mostly for my staff, who were watching me—was to Glebe primary school, where we had the Holi festival. I was literally covered in colourful powder by the students. It was a particularly joyous occasion, celebrating spring, new life and love.

While the Easter recess provides a well-deserved break for all Members and their staff, I will be hosting one of my three annual work experience programmes. I will be welcoming 19 eager and willing students to my constituency, teaching them what it is like to be an MP and how they can get involved in politics. Over the years, I have welcomed hundreds of young people on to the programme, with many going on to work either in my office or elsewhere on the parliamentary estate. It is a great way to engage with constituents and the younger generation, inspiring them to get involved and learn more about parliamentary processes.

As I come to the end of my remarks, I pay tribute to our great friend Sir David Amess, who so loved participating in these debates. May he rest in peace and remain in our thoughts. I wish everyone a very happy Easter and Passover. I hope that everyone can enjoy some rest and a well-deserved break, enjoying good food, chocolate and good company with loved ones.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With a birthday contribution, I call Alan Strickland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

One of the beauties of these debates is that they allow Whips to speak in the Chamber, and I congratulate both Whips on their contributions. I thank all Members who have participated. I end by wishing a very happy Easter to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, all MPs, our staff, and the staff who do such a wonderful job at keeping us safe and doing all the work that is required. May they have a peaceful Easter and a good rest.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his wind-up. I add my thanks to all the House staff, including the Clerks, the doorkeepers and the security people who keep us safe.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Christmas Adjournment

Debate between Bob Blackman and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I congratulate the Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury, the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), on finally getting her voice heard in this Chamber. In addition to the three Front-Bench speakers, we have had 18 Back-Bench speakers, which demonstrates the importance of this type of debate, where Members can raise whatever subjects they choose. They have chosen to talk about their constituencies, their particular causes, their charities and their families. This is a very important aspect of our parliamentary work; it demonstrates to the people out there that we represent how important they are to us.

I would like to correct the record. In my earlier speech, I referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) when I should have referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). I want to put that on the record straightaway.

Finally, I would like to wish everyone a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. Although this is a time when Parliament goes into recess, Members of Parliament will not just be having a holiday; they will be working hard on behalf of their constituents, and our constituents will value the work that we do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I get the opportunity to have the last word. Many Members have mentioned family, and I want to take this opportunity to say merry Christmas to our parliamentary family, making sure we remember our Doorkeepers, the Sergeant at Arms, the Clerks, who keep me in order, and the catering and security people. Godfrey and Margaret got a mention, but I would also like to say—although I may not have been there today—a thank you to Kelly and Jackie in the hairdressers downstairs.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Smokefree 2030

Debate between Bob Blackman and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Vaping has its purpose, which is to encourage people to quit smoking and take up vaping. I am concerned that people may take up vaping and then escalate to smoking. We do not yet have medical evidence on the long-term effects of vaping on health, so I am cautious. Clearly, it is better to vape than smoke, but let us not encourage people to take up vaping as an alternative to stopping smoking completely.

The all-party group has encouraged the “polluter pays” approach. The situation is very frustrating. The Government recognised in the Green Paper three years ago that budgets are tight and new sources of funding are needed. As recommended by the all-party parliamentary group, which I chair, the Government agreed to consider the “polluter pays” approach to funding. They also acknowledged that there were precedents, and that the approach had been taken by other countries, such as France and the USA.

Only months after the consultation closed in October 2019, the pandemic struck and put the prevention strategy on the back burner. It soon became clear that an effective prevention strategy was essential to build back better from the pandemic. It is also essential to deliver on the Conservative manifesto commitments to level up, reduce inequality and increase healthy life expectancy by five years. Those commitments are baked into the levelling-up White Paper and, the Government have said, will be enshrined in statute.

On the anniversary of the Green Paper’s publication, on 22 July 2020, the all-party group held a roundtable to examine the actions needed to deliver the smokefree ambition. The then Public Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), and her opposite number, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), were the keynote speakers. The Minister gave her commitment that the Department would continue to explore further funding mechanisms with the Treasury, as had been promised in the Green Paper.

On 30 March, the former Public Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), challenged why the commitment to consider a “polluter pays” approach had not been fulfilled. The response at the Dispatch Box from the Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), was:

“My understanding—although my recollection may fail me, so I caveat my comment with that—is that this was initially looked at that stage, but was not proceeded with.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 867.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood might like to check his recollection. The all-party group on smoking and health, following its initial recommendations, put forward detailed proposals to Government in its June 2021 report about how a “polluter pays” levy could operate. I shared a copy of the report with Health Ministers at that time and wrote to the Secretary of State in July 2021, and again in December, asking for a meeting to discuss the levy. In September, I wrote to the Chancellor about the proposals. However, to date I have not had the courtesy of a reply to any of those letters.

If the “polluter pays” levy has been seriously looked at and a decision has been taken not to proceed, that was certainly not communicated to MPs or the all-party parliamentary group. That is precisely why officers of the APPG tabled amendments to the Health and Care Bill calling for a consultation on the levy. The amendments would not have committed the Government to going ahead, but would have ensured that they fulfilled their commitment to consider a “polluter pays” approach and that our proposals get the consideration they deserve. Our amendments were carefully considered by the other place and passed by a majority of 59—the greatest defeat the Government suffered on the Health and Care Bill. However, to the great disappointment of the APPG, the Government opted to oppose our amendments when they returned to the Commons for consideration. That leaves us without a mechanism for funding the smokefree 2030 ambition, with only eight years to go.

It appears that when the noble Lords met Ministers and Treasury officials to discuss the amendments, it was the Treasury, not the Department of Health and Social Care, that objected to the proposal to consult on a levy—not to introduce one, but to consult on the principle. The Treasury has a philosophical aversion to anything that smacks of hypothecation—raising funds to be put to specific purposes. Its preference is for funds raised to go into one big pot—the Consolidated Fund, from which all Government spending flows—that it controls and allocates, thereby giving it ultimate control. However, there are already numerous exceptions where hypothecation has been justified. One is the health and social care levy, which has just come into force. Another is the pharmaceutical pricing scheme, which the Department of Health and Social Care uses to raise funds for the NHS and provides a model for how our proposals could be implemented.

The noble Lord Stevens, formerly chief executive of the NHS, pointed out that the pharmaceutical pricing scheme was put in place by a Conservative Government in 1957 and has been sustained ever since with the support of Conservative, Labour and coalition Governments. He also said—and who could disagree?—that if it is deemed appropriate to have a form of price and profit regulation for the medicines industry, which delivers products that are essential for life saving, it is not much of a stretch to think that an equivalent mechanism might be used for an industry whose products are discretionary and life-destroying. I completely agree with him on that approach.

The Government already accept the principle that the polluter should pay to fix the damage they do. The extended producer responsibility scheme, which comes into force in 2024, is another good example. It requires producers of packaging waste to pay for its collection and recycling. Lord Greenhalgh, the Housing Minister, said:

“The reality is that we cannot keep looking to the Treasury to keep bailing everybody out—we have to get the polluter to pay.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 January 2022; Vol. 817, c. 566.]

I could not agree more, and that principle applies even more strongly to smoking, which, as the chief medical officer pointed out, is a deadly addiction created and marketed by companies for profit.

There were objections because we were part of the European Union, but when speaking for the Government on Report in the House of Lords, the noble Lord Howe stated:

“the tobacco industry is already required to make a significant contribution to public finances through tobacco duty, VAT and corporation tax.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 2022; Vol. 820, c. 297.]

However—this is the key point—tobacco companies pass on the cost of tax increases to smokers, which means that it is not the tobacco industry that contributes to the public finances but ordinary smokers, who have little choice but to buy cigarettes to maintain their deadly addiction. Indeed, when HM Treasury consulted on and rejected a levy in 2015, it was on the grounds that it would add an extra tax burden to smokers. That may have been true in 2015, but it is not the case today.

In 2015, we could not prevent tobacco manufacturers from passing the costs on to consumers because we were in the European Union. We are no longer part of the European Union, and therefore by capping tobacco prices and controlling profits, the Government can ensure that tobacco manufacturers bear the full cost of the levy, helping incentivise the industry to move out of combustible products and make smoking obsolete by 2030. I can think of few better Brexit dividends than making tobacco companies pay for the damage they do.

To quote my noble Friend and fellow APPG officer Lord Young of Cookham, speaking in the other place, our proposed levy will allow the Government to

“put the financial burden firmly where it belongs, on the polluter—the tobacco manufacturer—and not the polluted—the smoker.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 2022; Vol. 820, c. 290.]

The reality is that this levy could raise £700 million a year from the profits of the tobacco companies—money that could be applied to smoking cessation services.

There is public support for this measure. It has been endorsed by more than 70 health organisations, including Cancer Research UK, Asthma + Lung UK, the British Heart Foundation, the Royal College of Physicians and the Health Foundation. It is also supported by three quarters of the public, including those who voted Conservative in the 2019 election, with fewer than one in 10 being opposed to the levy. What could be better than introducing a tax that the public support?

If we want to achieve a smokefree 2030, it is vital that we tackle high rates of smoking among our most deprived communities, pregnant women and people with mental health conditions. As the Government have said, this will be “extremely challenging” and cannot be achieved on the cheap. Health Ministers in both Houses have said that they do not want to prejudge the review, and therefore could not accept amendments calling for a consultation on a levy. However, as I have said, that review will report very shortly—in the middle of next month—and the discussions I have had with the chairman of the review make it very clear that the measures he will be recommending will need investment, and will be radical.

Once Javed Khan has reported back to the Government, there will need to be serious consideration of how the funding to deliver the smokefree 2030 ambition can be found. That will need to be done in parallel with decisions about what interventions are needed, as interventions cost money and can be delivered only if the funding is found. Pressure on budgets has only worsened since 2019, with the covid-19 pandemic wreaking havoc on our nation’s health and on Government finances. The Government made it very clear in the spending review that there is no new money for public health, so an alternative source of funding is urgently needed. With only eight years to go before we reach 2030, the Government need to decide where that money is coming from.

The existing funds are not sufficient, and our proposals provide a new source of funding in addition to tobacco taxes. If the Government are unwilling to accept our proposals, they must come up with an alternative solution that will match the scale of their ambition. As such, my question to my hon. Friend the Minister is this: if the Javed Khan review recommends a levy, will she commit to meet with us as APPG officers and with independent experts to discuss our proposals for a “polluter pays” levy to provide the investment that is needed to deliver the Government’s smokefree ambition?

My final point is that this review also needs to look at shisha tobacco, chewing tobacco and snus. Unfortunately, those areas are completely unregulated at the moment, but are extremely damaging to people’s health. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other Members and of the Front Benchers.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

I will call the Front Benchers at 10.40, so perhaps Back Benchers could try to limit their contributions to about six minutes.

Overseas Students: English Language Tests

Debate between Bob Blackman and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

It would be wrong to prejudge the NAO report, but I would like to reassure the right hon. Lady that Home Office officials have worked closely with the NAO, providing it with information and evidence where requested. As she will know, we are conducting a number of reviews in the Home Office, including, following Windrush, the Wendy Williams lessons learned review, and the forward-looking borders, immigration and citizenship services review. Every day in the job as Immigration Minister, one sees individual cases of people who are impacted by our policies and our rules. It is important that we reflect very closely on that and make sure that we have a review of our BICS system that provides the human face of the Home Office that both the Home Secretary and I are very keen to ensure is seen.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

International students coming to this country are a vital source of our soft power because they are friendlily disposed to the United Kingdom after they have studied here and returned home. However, it is clearly important that those people can speak English before they arrive. What message is my right hon. Friend taking to the British Council and other institutions that work abroad to encourage young people to learn English before they come to this country so that they can satisfy the tests and fulfil their destiny?

[Caroline Nokes]

It is really important that this is a matter not simply for the Home Office but for the Foreign Office and for Government Departments across the whole piece. We want to encourage foreign students to come here to study at our world-class institutions because we know that when they return home after a period of study they take fond memories with them and have a relationship with the UK that lasts throughout the rest of their lives. It is therefore important that we continue to work to promote our great universities. As part of that, there are a number of campaigns, including the GREAT campaign, which does fantastic work promoting the benefits of study in the UK. It is important that that should be a joint piece of work with the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make sure that we continue to promote the UK as a brilliant place to study.

Immigration: Pausing the Hostile Environment

Debate between Bob Blackman and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

The compliant environment is part of the Government’s drive to address illegal migration, to tackle those who seek to profit from it and to encourage migrants to comply with the rules and laws of the United Kingdom. The public expect us to enforce immigration laws, which have been approved by Parliament, as a matter of fairness to those who abide by the rules.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Members of the Windrush generation are in their 70s and 80s, and many of them feel extremely vulnerable. One concern that has been expressed to me by my constituents is that they may suddenly face deportation. What words of reassurance can my right hon. Friend give them that they should report their position, make sure their position is regularised and fulfil their destiny as British citizens, as they chose way back in the 1950s?

[Caroline Nokes]

It is an important point that we must provide reassurance and ensure that as many people as possible make contact with the taskforce. That is why we have been working closely with communities to make sure it is very clear that the taskforce has an attitude of helping individuals. I have been to the centre in Sheffield, and I heard people talking through individual phone calls. I listened both to the questions asked and to the very supportive responses given.

It is imperative that we focus on the numbers that have made contact. The taskforce has successfully responded to well over 8,000 calls, and more than 2,000 people have now secured their documentary status. In many cases, and we have seen some incredible stories on the news, those who have been through the process have found it helpful and have been able to provide reassurance to their family and friends. In many cases, those who have been through the process are the best advocates.

Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds)

Debate between Bob Blackman and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I have received a great deal of information from and had roundtables with a number of providers and charities, including some of the smaller ones. We have been very clear: those for whom it is inappropriate to live at home will be exempt from this policy.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The principal reason why young people become homeless is a relationship breakdown with their family. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State, not by local decision makers who may discriminate against young people when they cannot live with their family?

[Caroline Nokes]

I commend my hon. Friend for his excellent work on the Homelessness Reduction Bill. Absolutely: it is a question of young people informing a work coach, somebody in the local authority or a trusted medical professional of their inability to live at home because their relationship with their parent has broken down, and in those cases they will receive the exemption.

Jobcentre Plus Offices: Closure

Debate between Bob Blackman and Caroline Nokes

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point. We want people to be able to access the jobcentres they feel most comfortable with. In some circumstances, for example where people feel sufficiently vulnerable that they do not wish to go to a jobcentre, we send the DWP visiting. I have seen that at first hand, with claimants accessing services by telephone—perhaps in instances of domestic violence—where they feel vulnerable about having to go to a public building. I absolutely take on board her points about our public sector equality duty, which we take very seriously. That is why we are carrying out an equality analysis and talking to our claimants to understand how this will impact on them.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

In my constituency over the past seven years, unemployment has more than halved. That is good news, but it means that the people who are still unemployed are the more difficult people to place and they need more intensive work. The good people of Edgware will be wondering what they have done to upset their public services, with the closure of two libraries and the jobcentre. Will my hon. Friend consider the potential for not only home visits but satellite visits using commercial premises so that job organisations can run them and workplace coaches can coach a number of people together?

[Caroline Nokes]

I reassure my hon. Friend that the DWP is doing exactly that. Outreach is an important part of our suite of products to enable claimants to be get back into work. We will continue to look at the best ways to deliver that in the best locations across the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bob Blackman and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

The Government are committed to providing support for disabled people who need it, as reflected in the fact that spending to support disabled people and people with health conditions will be higher in real terms in every year to 2020 than it was in 2010. The core intention of the recommendations set out by the UN is already incorporated in UK policies, and our response sets that out in more detail.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has committed to issuing by the end of the year a consultation document on the future of caste discrimination legislation. Will she update us on when that document will be released?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bob Blackman and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 27th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

A range of potential options have been proposed by a number of different campaigns, but nothing that is specifically aimed at those most disadvantaged by the state pension age increases, and none of them has proposed something significantly better or, indeed, affordable and at an acceptable cost to the taxpayer.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

4. What progress the Government have made on the publication of its caste discrimination consultation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bob Blackman and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

The Department for Work and Pensions takes its responsibilities for these issues extremely seriously, and it has, in fact, been strengthened by having an additional “half a Minister”. I think it trivial to focus on a job title when what we are seeking to do is give qualified, competent and determined people the right roles.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on her appointment. One of the key decisions that she will have to make very quickly relates to the close of the two-year period of discussion of caste discrimination. I have already written to her, but will she undertake to meet me and a delegation from the Hindu community who are determined to see that illogical discrimination removed from the statute book?