Gregory Stafford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that the hon. Member has gone through the Bill line by line, but the businesses that are reporting to me, and apparently also speak to him, are seriously concerned. In our villages, including Churt, Tilford, Passfield and Headley Down, the village shop and the pub are the heart and soul of our tight-knit communities, but Labour is simply making it harder for them to survive. Why are the Government, who are supposedly focused on growth, causing businesses in my constituency to downsize, sell up and move out? These policies are not just misguided; they are ideological. Labour’s hatred of business and contempt for the countryside are now enshrined in policy. Since their election, the Government have accepted £5.6 million in donations from trade unions. It is no wonder that their policies prioritise union interests over business interests. The Business Secretary apparently met trade unions every three days in his first three months in charge. Where is the same access for small businesses? Conservatives believe that businesses are the engines of growth. To grow our economy, we must create jobs, drive innovation and foster prosperity. That is why we are calling for the reversal of Labour’s family farm tax, crippling jobs tax and the reduction in business rates relief. When will the Government acknowledge that their policies are driving up the cost of living, not reducing it? While this Labour Government continue their war on businesses and the countryside, I shall finish by extending my deepest thanks to the incredible businesses across Farnham, Haslemere, Liphook and Bordon that truly are at the heart of our community’s social and economic fabric. The Conservative party will always stand up for family businesses, farmers and our rural communities, to ensure that they can thrive, create jobs and, importantly, pass on their legacies to future generations.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Kilnside farm in my constituency, run by Bob Milton, is only 36 acres in total. It is a tiny farm, yet it will be subject to the new taxes. How can the Minister say that only 4% will be affected? Even the smallest farmers in my constituency will be hit.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s debate on the disastrous impact of the Labour Government’s policies, including on my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, of which Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages are part, is timely. My inbox is filled with complaints and concerns from small family businesses about that impact. Small and family businesses are not just places to shop or to buy things, but the backbone of our economy and the lifeblood of our communities. Across the United Kingdom, they provide almost 14 million jobs and contribute an amazing £575 billion to our economy. Yet under this Labour Government, those businesses are under siege. Labour simply does not understand business and sees businesses as nothing more than a cash cow to fund its endless state expansion. For nearly a century, my grandparents and my great-grandparents before them dedicated their lives to Stafford’s shop in Haslemere, and they would be horrified to see this Government’s full-scale assault on family businesses. The family business tax—Labour’s reckless cap on business property relief—will decimate family-run enterprises, breaking them apart when they should be passed down to the next generation. In the Surrey side of my constituency, we are fortunate to have two thriving market towns, Farnham and Haslemere, which are hubs of entrepreneurialism and independent enterprise. Businesses such as Hamilton’s Tea Room, Borelli’s Wine Bar, Farnham Homes, Kilnside Farm shop and Elphicks, one of the last remaining British family-owned department stores, have been the cornerstones of our high streets for generations. Similarly, Haslemere is home to R. Miles & Son, Good Horse saddlery and Davids menswear. Together, these eight businesses have had a presence on our high streets for a total of 439 years. Given that Family Business UK has warned that these policies would cost 125,000 jobs, will the Government reconsider their stance before it is too late? Meanwhile, on the East Hampshire side of my constituency, Liphook Travel Worldchoice has been a family-run travel agency since 1971 and Hogmoor Distillery, though newer, is an outstanding artisan gin and liqueur company based in the heart of the former military town of Bordon. Those businesses, like so many across the country, are already being squeezed by Labour’s misguided economic policies, with increased business rates and tax burdens making it harder to survive. Although Labour misunderstands business, it actively despises the countryside. This Government are rurally illiterate. They do not care about rural jobs, rural businesses or our rural communities. The family farm tax—Labour’s assault on agricultural property relief—is a direct attack on farming families who have worked the land for generations. Bob and Ros Milton of Kilnside farm expanded their business with a farm shop under the support of the previous Government, but it now faces closure due to rising costs. Similarly, Mathias nursery had hoped to pass the business to the next generation, but now fears that that will be impossible. My campaign for local pubs and heritage clubs has seen me do a pub crawl across the constituency. I have visited 17 of the 56 pubs—everything must be done in moderation. I have had invaluable conversations with landlords. Carl from the Nelson Arms pub in Farnham highlighted the importance of zero-hours contracts for his employees, including a staff member who also works as a paramedic and relies on the flexibility that these contracts offer. Yet Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, which bans them, will impose a £150 cost on his business.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcements wholeheartedly, and encourage him to get to 3% as soon as possible. However, we do not just need a monetary value; we need to know how and where the money will be spent, and that will be done through the strategic defence review, which gives assurance to our allies, deterrence to our enemies and, most important, confidence in our troops. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the SDR will be published in the spring—in a couple of weeks’ time—or will it be delayed until June, as the statement seemed to suggest?

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to give way, sorry. That created a national system with new, clear standards under the Green Paper, and a consultation that set out the Conservatives’ commitment to delivering the support that children with SEND truly need. To oversee those vital changes, the SEND system leadership board brought together sector leaders across education, health and social care to drive improvements. The Local Government Association has warned, however, that without proper reform, SEND provision will deteriorate and become financially unviable. A 2024 National Audit Office report echoed those concerns, highlighting the 140% rise in EHCPs since 2015 and warning that the system will become financially unsustainable if unchanged. Information from the Children and Young People Select Committee last year indicated that there were 2,784 children and young people waiting for autism and ADHD assessments in East Hampshire in my constituency, with waiting times averaging around two years. During that time, children and their families are unable to access the necessary provisions, and that negatively affects their quality of life and puts pressure on local schools. That situation increases the risk of adverse outcomes in educational attainment, mental health and future employment. I am working closely with local organisations such as SEN Talk CIC, which is a charity founded by a constituent of mine. I have seen its profound impact: 92% of children participating in its programmes report a positive change in their lives, and 80% gain valuable lifelong skills. That is just one of the great initiatives that support many children in my constituency, particularly SEND pupils who are home educated. Although home education is not right for every child, it is a fundamental right that is employed by parents across the UK to give them a hands-on approach to their children’s education. I have spoken to Kate from Nurtured Neuro Kids and others who have expressed their considerable concerns about the impact that the Government’s rushed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will have on SEND children who are educated from home. They are very upset by the lack of positive acknowledgment from the Education Secretary of the important work that they do to take the strain from the mainstream system, and the lack of consultation or consideration for Conservative amendments that would have protected their work. It is therefore important for constituents such as Kate to be assured that the Government will take steps to ensure that all children with speech and language needs get the help they deserve. It is clearly a wise and welcome decision for the Government to continue the Nuffield early language intervention programme, which provides crucial support to children with speech and language needs. We must acknowledge, however, that there remains significant disparity in access to funding and support, regardless of the region or the individual specialist needs of the child. Every child who struggles with speech and language must have access to support, regardless of where they live. Despite a relatively collegiate debate, a number of Members—I pick out the hon. Members for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for Gloucester—have seen fit to blame the Conservative record and point out Conservative councils’ record in this area. Of the three councils with the highest appeal rates for EHCPs, however, two are Liberal Democrat and one is Labour, so I gently say to Government Members that this is a nationwide problem. Rather than point scoring, it would be better for hon. Members to work together, so that those unfair decisions, and the impact they have on families, are quickly resolved. The comments from the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) were particularly uncharitable. I point out to him that in the spring Budget statement, the last Government committed to 15 special schools, with which this Government are not continuing. I urge the Minister to address the root causes of the problems in the SEND system, including funding and the decision to tax independent schools. Proper reform of the system, including reform of the EHCP process, would give children a proper educational choice. Without it, we risk what the Public Accounts Committee called a “lost generation of children”.

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am under a lot of time pressure, and I want the proposer of the motion to be able to get in, so I will not. I have to leave time for the Minister too, and I really want to hear her answers to my questions. As I was saying, I would therefore be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that she has engaged with parents and teachers in this situation. And what steps is she taking to ensure that vulnerable children do not suffer the greatest because of this Government’s policy? Despite the—I have to say—utter nonsense we heard from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), the Conservative Government launched a review of the SEND system in 2019 to end the postcode lottery, and committed an extra £700 million in the year 2020-21, an 11% increase on the year prior. Moreover, to ensure that children and young people received the most appropriate support for their needs, the national SEND and alternative provision implementation board was established.

• 25 Feb 2025 · SEND Education Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this important debate. As Members have said, we seem to discuss SEND in this House pretty much on a weekly basis, and rightly so. I am the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and I do cross-party work with colleagues in this Chamber and beyond to ensure the experiences of constituents are heard in this place. I, too, have a number of special schools in my constituency—both state and independent. Hon. Members will have to forgive me for not talking about every single contribution that was made today. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his comments about sensory and calming rooms, and I hope the Minister will take them into account. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), whose commitment to education in his constituency is obvious. I hope the Minister will consider the statutory changes that he asked for. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), whose moving and heartbreaking story touched us all and will have resonance with all our constituents. Clearly, special educational needs and disabilities are extraordinarily important. That casework fills my postbag, and a lot of it comes from my predecessors, which demonstrates how long some of these cases can go on for. The Conservative Government’s reforms, through the Children and Families Act 2014, marked a significant shift in raising awareness, changing the narrative and addressing educational shortfalls in the system that, under a previous Administration, had failed to adequately make legislative changes for SEND children. The Act created EHCPs, a vital tool for allowing parents to receive the support that they need for their children in the education system. Only a minority of SEND pupils actually have an EHCP. According to data from the Department for Education for 2023-24, 1.6 million pupils in England had SEND conditions. Of those, 1.2 million received SEND support without an EHCP, meaning that 400,000 had an EHCP. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: in her plans, what happens to the other 75% of SEND pupils? Nearly 17% of independent school pupils are receiving SEND support, but only 6% of those have a formal EHCP. I want to quote the Prime Minister, who shared the Government’s supposed plan for SEND pupils who do not have an EHCP, or are in the process of acquiring one. In June, the Prime Minister told LBC listeners that: “Where there isn’t a plan, then that exemption doesn’t apply.” Will the Minister confirm that the 93,000 children in the independent system who receive SEND support with no formal EHCP are not included in her plans, as the Prime Minister outlined in June? The 2014 Act was a step change. Now, we need a further step change from this Government. In the Public Accounts Committee’s recently published inquiry into the SEND emergency, it was revealed that the Department for Education does not fully understand the root causes behind the surge in demand for EHCPs. In my area, between 2019 and 2024, EHCPs increased by 63% in Surrey and 93% in Hampshire—well above the national average. In the Committee’s inquiry, the Department admitted that it had not adequately examined the barriers to promoting inclusivity in mainstream schools. That is particularly concerning for the three SEND schools in my constituency—the Ridgeway school, Hollywater school, which is currently expanding due to Hampshire county council’s funding, and the Abbey school —which are now under extreme pressure from the exodus of children, once educated in the independent sector, who are now entering the mainstream system. I am also worried by the lack of provision and support given to independent special educational schools, which is affecting three schools in my constituency: More House, Undershaw and Pathways. Those three schools educate nearly 1,000 children with complex SEND needs, and, without these independent schools, my local state schools will crumble under the pressure. While the Government’s £1 billion for SEND is entirely welcome—this funding injection will be a positive boost for local authorities—we have seen that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education are not listening to those parents of children who do not have an EHCP and are educated in the independent sector. Therefore, I ask the Minister—

• 24 Feb 2025 · Phone Theft · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps she is taking to tackle phone theft.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Phone Theft · Hansard source

  More

  In earlier times mobile phone theft was seen as an urban issue, but as has been evidenced by my postbag over the last couple of weeks, it is increasing in our rural towns and villages. What discussions is the Minister having with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that repeat perpetrators of this crime face custodial sentences?

• 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.