Gregory Stafford MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 24 Feb 2025 · Bank Closures: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I would not like to claim that I am the Member of Parliament for the whole of Surrey. My Hampshire residents would not be pleased about that. Just last Friday, the Barclays bank in Farnham closed, leaving the whole of my constituency of 101,000 people with just one bank, Santander, and one building society, Nationwide. We are lucky enough to have a banking hub in Haslemere, and we are going to get another one in Whitehill and Bordon—Liphook does not have one—but given that there are only 100 banking hubs across the country and that the Government say they are going to put forward 350, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are going to have to turbocharge those banking hubs, not just for access to cash, but more especially, as he mentioned, for proper banking services for residents in rural constituencies?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Bank Closures: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that I would have agreed with whatever point the hon. Lady was about to make. Other hon. Members have mentioned the hypocrisy of this Government telling pensioners prior to the election that they were going to be fine—indeed, they were told that things would get better for them. Instead, things have become markedly worse. As other hon. Members have also mentioned, we have also seen that with WASPI women. To be frank, Diana and Sheila are just the canaries in the coalmine for the larger issue of the Government’s worrying treatment of our pensioners. At my Monday morning surgery, a pensioner asked me, “Why does Labour hate pensioners?” I could not give her an answer. I have no idea why the Government have decided to punish pensioners—perhaps we can understand that from the text messages of the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne). That is why the Government must listen to the experts in the industry, in the charitable sector and in the health and social care sector who are raising the issues and presenting them with the figures. The Government must reverse this treatment of our elderly and vulnerable and ensure that this winter, next winter and every winter that this terrible Government are still in power, every pensioner is warm, safe and looked after.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  No.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this debate, and indeed for his strong speech. It is also always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), or “strapping of Strangford”, as I think we are going to have to call him now. As other hon. Members have alluded to—not only alluded to; it has been stated quite openly—it is appalling that not a single Labour Back Bencher is here to defend the Government’s policy. That is because, thus far, I have not heard any credible defence from the Labour Benches for the removal of the winter fuel payment. I remember the Minister from Oxford, and I know he is a doughty champion of all things socialist, so I look forward to an equally strong defence of this policy. I say to him gently that it is clearly the wrong policy, and I am afraid that he has been given a hospital pass, to be frank, to have to come here today to try to defend it. Under the last Government, more than 20,000 pensioners across my constituency of Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages received Government support to assist them financially with energy bills and daily costs through the most challenging of times, such as covid-19 and the war in Ukraine. Now, since only 1,200 pensioners in my constituency are eligible for pension credit, nearly 19,000 pensioners have been left in the cold by the Government. At a pension credit surgery that I held in October to assist with pension credit applications for those who might not have access to the right technology, I met Diana. She told me that the extra money from the winter fuel payment was essential to heating her home—for her and for her husband, who suffers from multiple sclerosis. Now that it has been withdrawn, Diana told me that she has to choose between heating her home and eating food. The scale of this issue is hugely concerning. Age UK has reported that 82% of all pensioners living on or just above the poverty line will lose that payment—a total of 2.5 million people. Independent Age has confirmed that raising the pension credit take-up from 60% to 100% would raise 440,000 pensioners out of poverty. Energy costs continue to rise under this Labour Government—by 10% in October, when I was running that pension credit surgery, and again in January—meaning that pensioners are paying, on average, an extra £170 since the beginning of this Labour Government. It is remarkable that the Government are not taking advice from industry experts and from charities on how to reduce the healthcare strains and increase the welfare of our pensioners. Currently, our pensioners are having to make difficult choices, as other hon. Members have said, including opting to stay at home to ensure that they are not taken ill by the cold weather, or indeed choosing not to eat at all for days. I have heard that at first hand, through a survey that I ran to assess the impact that the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment is having on pensioners in my constituency. I am not going to go through every single response, but Sheila, a talented craftswoman, told me that the cold is forcing her to have to sit in multiple layers of jumpers and is heavily affecting her ability to sew and knit, with the cold worsening her arthritis. Now that my constituents are unable to rely on Government support, I am routinely attending local pensioner support groups across my constituency, including those run by the brilliant Farnham Assist and the Hindhead lunch club, which brings people together fortnightly to provide them with a hot meal, conversation and the opportunity to socialise in a warm community hall. As someone who spent their career prior to becoming a Member of Parliament working in the healthcare system—including, latterly, in NHS England—I am hugely concerned about the pressure that withdrawing the winter fuel payment is putting on our NHS. The Labour party’s own assessment of the issue when it was in opposition said that it would cause 4,000 deaths. When I pushed the Health Secretary on that figure at the Health and Social Care Committee some weeks ago, he could not give me an answer as to why those 4,000 deaths were suddenly not going to happen. On top of that, we know that the £10.6 billion that the Government allocated to NHS England in the Budget will be eaten up by national insurance rises, inflation and pay increases for staff. Not a single penny of it will go to improving patient care, including patient care for pensioners. Last October, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) asked the Department of Health and Social Care what the potential impact of introducing means testing for the winter fuel payment was on hospital admissions. The Minister’s response pointed him to the extra funding given to the household support fund in the October Budget. However, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire, the Minister has since admitted in a letter that the fund was not designed to support pensioners. If the Government are unsure on the impacts of the household support fund in my constituency, perhaps I can help them. The south-east receives the second-lowest funding amount from the household support fund at £30.57 per pensioner per year, whereas the winter fuel payment gave pensioners up to £600 depending on their circumstances. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how pensioners such as Diana and Sheila can be supported through the loss of the winter fuel payment when they are not eligible for pension credit.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the Minister is about to get to this, so I apologise for intervening, but as I raised in my speech, we want to be very clear about how she will measure success based on the Bill. By what metric, and by when, will we be able to judge whether the Government’s policy has worked?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think that everybody across the House wants to see small boat crossings diminish and hopefully conclude entirely. Likewise, I think that most people across the House feel that we need to have a fair, robust and effective way to deal with illegal immigration. This, as I have said previously in the House, is a moral issue. We do not want to see any more women, children or men dying in the channel. When I raised that with the Home Secretary on 22 July, she seemed to agree with me, but thus far agreement does not seem to have matured into action. Indeed, when the Minister of State responded to me on a similar point on 6 November, she was much more equivocal about how the Government were going to deal with this really serious issue. That is no surprise when we come to the Bill, which has ripped the heart out of the previous Government’s Illegal Migration Act. All the deterrence put into that Act has been pulled out. That is important for two reasons. First, this Bill will clearly not stop the small boat crossings. Secondly, it sends a message to those traffickers who want to exploit people and bring them across the channel that the Government are not serious about stopping the problem. We can see that from the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) mentioned, the X-raying and medical checks of migrants have been ripped out. That is something that EU countries do on a routine basis.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Far be it from me to criticise a Member of the other place, especially one with such a distinguished medical career. All I would say gently to the hon. Member is that this is not novel or unique to this country; it is being used in countries across the EU. Likewise, on the Rwanda scheme, which the Government scrapped, we can have a debate about whether it was right or wrong, but EU countries are looking at similar schemes. If the Government do not like Rwanda, why are they not looking at other sites? It is not just me who is saying this. The National Crime Agency has said clearly that no country has ever stopped people trafficking upstream in foreign countries. While the Australians have done it, that was with a deportation scheme, but that is not being introduced by the Government. Likewise, the former chief immigration officer Kevin Saunders said that the United Kingdom needs a “big deterrent” and that everyone has told the Prime Minister that. We need a big deterrent to stop migrants. Forget about the gangs: if we stop the migrants from wanting to come to the UK, the gangs will not exist. I come at this from a moral point of caring about ensuring that people do not die in the channel. We need a deterrent, which is sorely missing from the Bill. It should not surprise us that the Government are not robust on this, because Labour voted against every tough measure that the previous Government introduced in the Illegal Migration Act. Labour Members voted against measures to tackle illegal immigration 134 times. They voted to block, delay or weaken our plans to stop the boats 126 times in the last Parliament. It is therefore absolutely no surprise that their Bill does nothing to stop that and will lead to more dying in the channel. We need a fair migration system. We need to support those who genuinely need our help or whom we genuinely need to fill gaps in our labour market, but we must not be taken for fools by the trafficking gangs, nor must we be taken for fools by this Labour Government. I accept some of the analysis of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who said that we have a problem with our birth rates. However, the way to solve that is not through unlimited mass migration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, we cannot build an economy reliant on mass migration. We must build home-grown resilience. Again, this is a moral issue. If we denude developing countries of their most highly talented people, those countries will never be able to rebuild themselves and become successful, and the problem that we are dealing with will just carry on. I have no confidence in the Government to sort this problem out. That is because, as we have already seen this evening, the Government have no answer on how many of the people who came over on small boats they have deported. Perhaps more tellingly, they have no ambitious target about when any of the measures they are proposing will start to solve the problem. As I said, we need a fair, robust and effective immigration system, and not this insipid Bill, which will not secure our borders or deter the people traffickers, and, I am afraid, will lead to further deaths in the channel.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Rail Services: Open Access Operators · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck, especially because it is my first speech from the Front Bench. I am told that you never forget your first time, but I do hope the Minister is gentle on me. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this debate. He has been a strong advocate for open access rail services, and I welcome his contributions today. He rightly highlights the importance of these services to regions across the country. I am told that in 2013 he was among a group of MPs who wrote to the Office of Rail and Road in support of expanding long-distance open access services. While I think we would all agree that more progress would have been welcome, it remains vital that Members like my hon. Friend across the House ensure that regulators are doing everything they can to encourage competition. This year marks the 25th anniversary of open access intercity train competition on the east coast main line, connecting London, the north-east and Scotland. The benefits are clear: lower fares, more choices, more routes, increased innovation and higher passenger satisfaction. This proven model should be used as a blueprint in shaping Great British Railways and the upcoming railways Bill. It remains frustrating that, despite its success, the model has not been replicated on other intercity main lines. As a Conservative, I value competition. When opportunities arise to introduce it into our transportation systems, we should take them. The evidence is clear: open access services create new travel opportunities, especially for underserved or more rural communities, such as my Farnham and Bordon constituency. These services support economic growth and encourage a shift to greener transport. That is why it is encouraging that new services were approved in 2024, including two entirely new routes on the west coast main line and the great western main line, along with eight approvals for smaller-scale improvements. Recently, the Prime Minister and the Transport Secretary visited the Hitachi factory in Newton Aycliffe to celebrate FirstGroup’s £500 million order for 14 new Class 80X units, which will be a key part of their open access plans. Those units will operate on Lumo’s east coast main line services, as passionately described by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), and on the newly secured London Paddington to Carmarthen service, launching in December 2027. Crucially, the expansion of services means more British train orders, boosting domestic industry. I urge the Minister and his Department to continue supporting further applications to sustain that investment. A regulatory framework that supports the sector’s investing in UK-built rolling stock and improving passenger services ultimately benefits both fare-paying passengers and the wider economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) mentioned. The Government must ensure that they facilitate services that serve the public interest. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I will also focus on a couple of local issues—he has said that he bores on, but if anyone has the right to bore on, it is the Father of the House, and long may he continue to do so. Southwestern Railway has been chosen as the first service to be nationalised this year, but the Government remain unclear about the impact that will have on open access services. My constituents in Farnham and Bordon rely on regular and reliable trains from Farnham, Liphook, and Haslemere stations to commute into London. As it stands, those services are frequently disrupted by strike action from the Labour party’s largest donors. While the fate of Southwestern Railway may be sealed, the potential Guildford to Heathrow terminal five connection, which would greatly benefit my constituents travelling to the airport, is under threat if open access services are restricted. I hope the Minister can reassure my constituents that nationalisation will not stifle open access operators, which play an important part in filling gaps in the delivery of rail services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham said, the Minister’s own Wakefield constituency benefits from popular open access intercity services, which have led to lower fares, greater choice, and better connectivity with London and the wider region. Furthermore, the open access operator at Wakefield has invested in station facilities. Despite that, the Government’s overall approach to rail has marched towards centralisation and nationalisation. While the merits of that direction are a debate for another time, it is worth noting that the Government, both before and after the election, have recognised the value of open access services. The key question is whether that recognition will translate into tangible support for expansion. In September 2024, the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) clearly stated in a written statement to the House: “Open access operators have a proven track record in driving competition and better passenger outcomes, and where there is a case that open access operators can add value and capacity to the network, they will be able to.” Does that position still hold with the new Secretary of State and her Ministers? A clear reaffirmation would provide much-needed confidence to the businesses ready to invest. Open access operators not only add financial value but improve accessibility and convenience. In my own constituency, there is a strong case for reopening the Bordon line and the station, or at least for a rail-bus link from Bordon to Liphook to enhance connectivity and increase train usage. We should remain open to innovative transport solutions that improve infrastructure just as we do with open access. However, despite positive statements in the past, the Secretary of State’s letter to the ORR in January raised concerns, signalling a shift in tone from the earlier commitments. Furthermore, some troubling rhetoric has emerged. Last year, a rail union leader described open access firms as parasitical during testimony to the Transport Committee. The RMT has also explicitly campaigned for Great British Railways to absorb open access operations and rail freight. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), in her usual BAFTA-nominated style, referred to the spirit of the 17th century, but the danger with these unions is that they will take us back to the 1970s, and I am sure none of us wants to go there. Given the Government’s previous concessions to the rail unions, it is fair to question whether open access services could be curtailed in future negotiations. Can the Minister assure us that these services will not be sacrificed in such discussions? Another concern is that while the UK seems to be moving towards greater state control, as has been mentioned, Europe is heading in the opposite direction, embracing private sector involvement in rail. A European Commission report published in September last year highlighted that open access competition led to a 31% reduction in ticket prices in Italy and a 41% increase in service frequency in Austria. The report’s conclusion was clear that open access competition, “across a variety of different cases, both decreased ticket prices and improved the quality of the service as compared to the situation prior to the start of competition.” The Government have now raised concerns about the impact of open access on overall rail revenue, as we heard mention of today. However, the ORR has conducted thorough cost-benefit analyses, including cost consultations, on the monetised impacts. If the new Secretary of State is questioning these findings, is it because the Government believe that the ORR has made errors in awarding the contracts, or is this part of a broader policy shift? The future and independence of the regulator is critical. Under plans for Great British Railways, will the ORR retain its authority over open access applications? Any move to transfer these decisions to Great British Railways or to the Department would undermine transparency, accountability, and independence, and the Opposition would strongly oppose such a change. The Government’s position, I am afraid, remains unclear. Are they a genuine supporter of open access operators, or do they merely tolerate them as a costly inconvenience? We need clarity. With the ORR currently considering 13 applications, can the Minister confirm whether new guidance is forthcoming? More importantly, can he reassure the sector that any new guidance will not obstruct the growth of successful rail businesses that offer more choice and lower fares for passengers? The Government face a choice: embrace the benefits of competition and build on a proven success story, or retreat into centralisation at the expense of passengers. I urge Ministers to choose the former.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Like the shadow Minister, I agree with the essential thrust of clause 136, notwithstanding the amendments that I voted for earlier, but there is a clear problem with second-hand smoke. We have seen in studies from Public Health England and the World Health Organisation that even brief exposure to second-hand smoke can increase the risk of respiratory diseases, heart disease, and lung cancer—particularly among vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly, as the Minister outlined. However, we have to understand that there are clearly differences in how much smoke could be inhaled, depending on the setting. Where air circulation dissipates smoke, such as outside, the risks are probably not as pronounced as they are indoors. Although I do not dispute—I do not think anyone does—the dangers of second-hand smoke in enclosed spaces, the question remains whether outdoor areas such as parks and public squares should be subject to the same restrictions.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend always tempts me with his libertarian arguments. I am not quite with him on this Bill, but almost. Proposed new section 8B(2) of the Health Act 2006 says: “Only smoke-free places may be designated as vape-free.” I understand that to mean that there will potentially be places that are smoke-free but not necessarily vape-free, and I wonder whether that gives him any solace. I am specifically interested in our discussion about introducing vapes in vending machines in mental health trusts. Does he think there is a case—perhaps the Minister will comment on this in his remarks—for vapes to be used as a smoking cessation tool in certain places where we cannot smoke a cigarette or use other tobacco-based products?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Forgive me if I am incorrect, but the Minister is saying that businesses may make the decision that they do not want people to smoke on their premises. They already have that power now, so I am not sure what point he is making.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Like my hon. Friend, I am no expert in heated tobacco products, but is he suggesting that they can also be used as a smoking cessation tool? If that is the case, his argument bears some weight. Does he have any understanding of where in the spectrum of harms—from cigarettes and cigars at one end to not smoking at all at the other, with vapes placed at some point on that continuum—where heated tobacco would sit? Is it closer to traditional tobacco-based products or to vape products? Is it an intermediary step, whereby someone who is trying to quit might move from smoking a cigarette or a cigar to heated tobacco, to vaping, and then eventually to quitting? Is that how he would see it?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to confine my remarks to proposed new section 8D—“Offence of failing to prevent vaping”. I assume that the provisions under section 8D are similar, if not exactly the same, as the ones that would apply to cigarettes and other tobacco-based products. However, there is an issue: it is much easier to spot somebody smoking a tobacco-based product than a vape-based product. Tobacco has a distinctive smell. To be frank, the available products look like cigarettes, cigars and pipes, and we know what they look like, whereas the industry has got better at disguising vapes. Vapes do not have the distinctive smell of tobacco, although they have many flavours as we have discussed, and they do not necessarily look like a cigarette or a similar product. I am interested in the Minister’s views on whether there will be a different defence threshold for failing to prevent vaping under proposed new section 8D. Subsection (4) says that a defence for a person charged with such an offence is “that they took reasonable steps to cause the person in question to stop using the vape”. The question is: will there be a different threshold for those who are sanctioned under the Bill for a tobacco-related offence versus a vape-related offence? That brings us back to burdens on the hospitality industry, retailers and so on. If there is not a differential, again, we will be putting undue pressure on retailers or nightclub owners that we would not expect for tobacco offences. It would be helpful to get some clarity on that.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Just for those listening, I should say that I am the Member of Parliament for Farnham and Bordon. The people of Bordon will be very upset if they are not mentioned.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I know the Minister is a man of his word. I ask him to be really clear on this, because he has talked about “some point in the future”. Some people’s “some point in the future” may be a very long way off, while others’ may not be such a long way off. Will he give a commitment that, while he is a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, he and his colleagues will not bring a consultation to include the hospitality industry?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is a helpful clarification. Finally, in the explanatory statement, it says that enclosed vehicles account for everything “except ships and hovercraft” apparently because that is “regulated under other legislation”. Perhaps it is in a later amendment, but why did the hon. Member decide not to amend the regulations for ships and hovercraft? Is that because he is hoping to get a private Member’s Bill at some point to change whatever legislation governs hovercraft and ships—[ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the shadow Minister whispers to me, “It’s further down,” so that clarifies the point for me. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—( Taiwo Owatemi. )

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I accept that point, but I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor’s point was that the police do not currently have powers to stop people who are driving dangerously. I completely accept that they should stop people using their mobile phones or doing things that constitute dangerous driving. The shadow Minister gave the view that smoking a cigarette could be counted as driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, so that may be a way of enforcing it. However, I think that having the police stop someone simply smoking in their own vehicle—something that is legal in every other private location—when they are over the legal age required in the Bill and they are not harming anybody else, is an overreach.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point of view. I must confess, I am not clear—I am sure the hon. Member for Dartford will be able to tell us—who will enforce this regulation. If it is the police, then I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an unnecessary burden.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree that we could very easily ban tobacco and vaping for everybody at every age. That would be the biggest incentive for people to quit. The Government—I think rightly—are not doing that, because they are not looking to criminalise people who are currently addicted to tobacco and vapes. If we are allowing people to do something legally, there should be places where they can do so safely and not harm others, such as their own children. I am sympathetic to the public health argument that the hon. Gentleman makes but, in practical terms, there may be areas where this is a problem. My final point is really a question for the hon. Gentleman: under what regulations would the local authority be enforcing such byelaws? Would it be through the penalties and enforcement activities in this Act itself —if it becomes law—or would there be some sort of fine or penalty system that the local authority could use? While there are potential fines and enforcement activities on the face of this Bill, if there were local regulations, would these be in line with what is in the Bill, or would there be some other fining system that a local authority could dream up itself?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. It seems strange that the Government want to have such wide-ranging powers in this area. Unlike other parts of the Bill, where technologies and such may move on and where I appreciate the need to future-proof, here it is very clear. I do not think that at some point in the future we will believe that smoking in playgrounds, or smoking in a field with nobody else around, are better or worse than they are now. I have a lot of sympathy for the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 4 and our amendment 95. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the amendments are relatively similar, if not word for word the same. It almost takes us back to coalition days in 2010—let us hope that does not happen too often—and shows that His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have significant concerns. While the Minister and his colleagues have said that they will not extend a smoking and vapes ban to hospitality venues, there is a lack of trust on our part, because even if it is not in the current Minister or Secretary of State’s mind, a future Secretary of State may be minded to put such a ban in place. That is why the amendments tightly define exactly where the smoke-free areas could be. It is obvious that we do not want people smoking in children’s playgrounds, nurseries, schools or higher education premises. We have had some debate about this on other clauses, but I personally believe that we should not be smoking in NHS properties either. None the less, to return to a point I made previously, if we are going to permit people to do something within the law—people born before 1 January 2009 if we are talking about smoking and everybody over the age of 18 if we are talking about vaping—they must have somewhere safe to be able to do it. The point of the clause is to address the impact of smoking and vaping on others. I take the shadow Minister’s point that clearly, if someone is smoking in a playground, it will have a greater impact on other people than if they are standing in the middle of a park or field with nobody else around. There needs to be an element of proportionality. As the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Winchester said, we do not want to do anything that could harm our already stretched hospitality industry, which is under extreme pressure. If the Minister or Secretary of State were minded to start imposing bans in hospitality, that would have a significant impact on the hospitality business. I support the two amendments.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not pretend to have deep wisdom and insight into the whole population’s view on this, and I have not seen the studies the hon. Gentleman talks about, but I accept them. My concern is the need to be careful about the balance between the stated ambitions of all of us—or certainly most of us—on the Committee to reduce smoking as much as possible, and the rights confined within the Bill. If someone is legally allowed to smoke—that is, they were born prior to 1 January 2009—or is over 18 in the case of vaping, and they are in the privacy of their own vehicle without harming anybody else in said vehicle, they can do so. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a step too far.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his clarity about what he and the Secretary of State are going to consult on; I take him at his word, of course. But is he not now demonstrating the concerns that we have? Other parts of the United Kingdom will potentially consult on retail. Therefore, the amendment is absolutely necessary. Although I am an England Member of Parliament and care mostly about the good people of Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, I have a wider duty as a Member of Parliament to ensure that the hospitality businesses of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are protected. I am afraid that the Minister has really worried me with what he has just said.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is a point I will raise with the Minister as well—just to forewarn him—but, whereas I entirely agree with the future-proofing of this Bill in areas such as products and advertising where the market may move on, I do not fully understand why the regulations need to be so open on public places. Public places are not going to change over the next 100 years, so why not define them on the face of the Bill?