Max Wilkinson MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2024 · Old Oak Common Station · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely do. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made the point that, compared with HS2, the amount of money that needs to be invested for improvement in the west country is relatively small. By way of compensation to Cheltenham for the disruption, can the Minister please ask Network Rail to stop blocking the long-awaited extension to the cycle path that links Cheltenham town centre to the station? Network Rail has been getting in the way of that development for years. It just needs to get out of the way to improve connectivity in my constituency. I have asked a number of questions, which are intended as helpful contributions. I am sure that other hon. Members will have pertinent points about the impact on their constituencies. Before I finish, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the new Minister for the Armed Forces. Having researched this issue in the previous Parliament, he played a leadership role by passing on information to new hon. Members, helping to bring about today’s debate, for which we thank him.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Old Oak Common Station · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of Old Oak Common station on rail services to the West and Wales. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. We all know that opinions on High Speed 2 are many and varied—whether or not that line is a good thing is not up for debate today—but nobody would have expected that the development of a high-speed rail line heading from the north to London and back again would have a negative impact on trains heading west. Something about that statement seems entirely illogical. Unfortunately for people in the west and Wales, it is indeed the case that there will be widespread disruption to trains between London Paddington and the west and south Wales for the next six years, and after that six-year period is over, every train between the west and south Wales and London will be slower. The reason for the delays and slower services is the new Old Oak Common station, which is being built to serve HS2. At this point, it is important to state that today’s debate, and indeed the wider public discussion, cannot be about whether HS2 happens at all or whether Old Oak Common station is built. HS2 is happening, and anyone who has travelled on the Great Western line recently will know that Old Oak Common is being built. But there are three points that we must all take up on behalf of our constituents. The first is how the impact of construction work at Old Oak Common can be mitigated. The second is how Old Oak Common can become a useful station for our regions. The third is how the Government can use their power to mitigate the long-term impact of slower trains heading to and from the west and south Wales, by improving services in other ways. I will ask a number of questions, and although I am sure that some of them do not yet have answers, I hope the Minister will at least be able to address each one to confirm the Government’s position and their intentions. First, I will deal with the construction phase. Most people who are aware of the new station will know it as the place where the previous Government had intended to terminate HS2. That was before the new Government decided to bring back the suggestion that HS2 will end at Euston. But it is much more complicated than that. Old Oak Common is being built on the Great Western line, as I mentioned, and consequently a decision has been taken that all trains using the line will eventually stop at Old Oak Common. That decision makes sense to those in charge of big transport infrastructure, but it will not necessarily make sense to the people we serve in the west and south Wales. Rail industry experts tell us that it will add between four and seven minutes to each journey in the long run. During the period of disruption while construction takes place, we will endure 29 days of disruption in this current operational year—that disruption has already begun—30 days of disruption in 2025-26, 41 days of disruption in 2026-27, including 14 days when no trains run at all, 34 days of disruption in 2027-28, including 11 days when no trains run at all, and 47 days of disruption in 2028-29, including 18 days when no trains run at all. The disruption for the following year is not yet known. The majority of the impact will fall on Sundays and at Christmas. We might assume that Sunday is a quiet day on the railways, but since my election and my need to travel to London, sometimes on a Sunday evening, I can tell Members that that is not the case, particularly when Great Western Railway is unable to run most of its timetable. The number of constituencies that will be impacted by the work is absolutely huge. Starting from furthest away, it will be every constituency in Cornwall and Devon, most of Somerset, Bristol, parts of Herefordshire and Worcestershire, south Wales, Gloucestershire—my own area of the country—Wiltshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire. That is a lot of people whose journeys will be slower for a long time, and a lot of people who will have to make alternative arrangements when trains are cancelled.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Old Oak Common Station · Hansard source

  More

  I am aware that I get another chance to speak shortly, but the reason I raised Network Rail’s blocking of that scheme is because of the way it has been done: by extending contract negotiations over years, to the point when a bit of cycle path is costing tens of thousands of pounds per metre because Network Rail demands ever greater levels of infrastructure to be inserted. I have raised this with Ministers and all sorts of people, but it is clear that Network Rail just wanted to kick it into the long grass by making it uneconomic. I know that the Minister is an advocate for active travel, so if she could intervene with Network Rail and just say, “Get it done,” I would be grateful.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Old Oak Common Station · Hansard source

  More

  I can see why the hon. Member’s constituents in Devon would not be interested in going to London before going to the midlands. She makes a very good point. If those studies have not begun, what work has been done to cost the future works? If not, when will those studies take place? For those whose journeys are inevitably taking them to the area around Paddington, what reassurances are there that congestion west of Paddington can be dealt with in order to maintain capacity? My third point is about restoring trust in our railways by making more general improvements to passenger experience—I want to mention some hyper-local issues, which I hope the Minister will listen to. Although there will undoubtedly be a period of disruption and uncertainty, there are also some clear opportunities to improve rail services. Five-carriage inter-city trains routinely run in excess of passenger capacity for large parts of journeys to the west. Will the Minister confirm that, as part of the mitigation of the Old Oak Common disruption, more rolling stock will be found to ensure that passengers do not routinely have to endure journeys in which they are forced to stand for unacceptably long periods of time? I have stood with pensioners and vulnerable people next to the loo for longer than an hour on journeys west from Paddington. Will the Minister confirm that those of us who use trains for business can expect wi-fi improvements? Although the current GWR service offers wi-fi on board, it routinely proves useless for large parts of the journey, which is definitely a drag on the economy.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Old Oak Common Station · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The impact on tourism is felt by all our constituencies in the west, many of which are tourism hotspots. The point about connectivity is important. If we can have 5G on the Elizabeth line in London, which is already well served by public transport, why can I not have 5G in the countryside between Swindon and Stroud when I travel back to my constituency? It makes no sense. The benefits to business users would surely justify the investment. I have already asked the rail industry whether progress might be made on the frustrating turnaround times at Gloucester, which delay Cheltenham passengers every day. I accept that it is unlikely that any progress will made soon, but what chance is there of improving rail infrastructure around Gloucester, to remove the need for the driver to switch from one end of the train to the other—a very 20th-century solution? Finally, I come to the trains themselves. The current rolling stock is functional, but what plans do Ministers have to make the carriages more pleasant? Older constituents recall the days of comfortable seats and a buffet carriage with snacks. In other European nations, inter-city trains even have carriages with special family-friendly areas where children can play. A civilised and family-friendly nation should surely consider that. It is no exaggeration to say that weekends are a nightmare. What are Ministers doing in the short term and during the period of disruption to ensure that a Sunday timetable actually runs between London and the west country?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Old Oak Common Station · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Although joining up London with the north and the midlands is a laudable aim, there is a real risk that the west and south Wales could be left out. The amount of money being spent on HS2 is not matched by rail investment towards the west, as those of us who represent constituencies there are well aware. My first question to the Minister is: what assessment has been made of the fixed-term construction disruption to the economies of the constituencies affected, including my own in Cheltenham? What assessment has been made of the clear risk that the disruption caused by construction is wider than that which is currently being reported, with perhaps extra days of construction work leading to more cancellations? What discussions have Ministers had with Network Rail about whether the speed limit associated with the construction work could be 80 mph rather than 60 mph? The second area to explore is how Old Oak Common might become a station that serves our constituencies, rather than simply making things less convenient. That is a much more complex discussion, and those of us who have seen the maps will know that that is still up for debate. Rail industry professionals suggest that there is an opportunity to either improve services or significantly mitigate the impact of the potential disruption, but the core problem is clear. At a time when the national rail network is struggling so badly and the Government are promising a brighter future under Great British Railways, our constituents must be able to see benefits. I am certain that most Members present will agree that those additional four to seven minutes must be offset, and Old Oak Common has the potential to become a significant interchange, enabling travellers from the west and south Wales to switch to the London transport network earlier, perhaps via the Elizabeth line or London Overground services. Achieving that aim would ensure smooth onward journeys, not just into central London but, if it is done right, elsewhere. What assurances can the Minister give us that the station interchange will be just as convenient as Paddington, if not more so? Is the convenience of the interchange with the Elizabeth line as secure as Members have been led to believe in some of the briefings, or is that not yet guaranteed? If an interchange to the Elizabeth line is secured, can the Minister tell me the anticipated journey time to central London to and from my Cheltenham constituency after those works are complete? Can the Minister also confirm whether technical studies on interchanging with overground services have begun, so that we can work out what is possible? Nothing that Members are hearing so far suggests that the technical work has been properly considered, or even whether it has been started at any level. If studies have begun, what work has been done to cost future works? If they have not, when will those studies take place?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Old Oak Common Station · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr. Efford; I will speak for no longer than an hour. There is much to reflect on. I am grateful to all colleagues for turning up to this important debate, and to the Minister for addressing a number of the points raised. I appreciate there were probably about 35 questions raised during various speeches, including some from myself. Will the hon. Lady take time later to work with the Rail Minister on responses to my questions about everything from the hyper-local, such as the Honeybourne line, up to the bigger picture stuff around wi-fi connectivity and the delays that Cheltenham passengers suffer at Gloucester? The main thing to come out of the Minister’s response is that there is still an awful lot to play for. A key point that I took from what she said was that although the station is designed to take all the trains stopping there, including every service from the west, that need not be the case. That is different from what we are generally being briefed on as Members. When we talk about the technical studies that need to go into the future infrastructure that might link into the overground services elsewhere, there is an impact on timings, on the public debate and on the Government’s willingness to fund the studies and the infrastructure. We are now in a period of uncertainty about whether all of the Great Western main line trains will indeed be stopping at Old Oak Common. The opportunity that is being sold by the rail industry, and has been sold by the Government in the very recent past, is thrown into doubt if there is uncertainty about whether all the trains will stop at Old Oak Common, so it seems there is quite a bit of thinking to be done. I appreciate that the Government are in an imperfect position here. We all are. I suggest that work on the technical studies into the opportunities and economic benefits that we might get in our constituencies and that the nation as a whole might accrue needs to be picked up as soon as possible. I thank the Minister for her response today. I look forward to hearing more in due course. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the impact of Old Oak Common station on rail services to the West and Wales.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Seventy-five per cent of voters think that all new homes should come with solar panels on the roof as standard. Do the Government agree?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Building Homes · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency of Cheltenham is already built up to its boundaries and is working with its neighbours on the joint local plans referenced by the Minister, in part to deal with a housing waiting list of more than 2,500 bequeathed to us by the last Government. We also have a big, sprawling town centre and plenty of empty space. What is the Minister’s message to councils that have that combination of challenges?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Businesses report that cyber-attacks are increasing, as is the amount of time they have to wait to employ someone to deal with those cyber-attacks. What is the Department doing to fill that skills gap?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Planning Committees: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I was never brave enough to serve on a planning committee during my 10 years as a local councillor—there are just not enough hours in the day. There are a range of views on this. I have some sympathy with the notion that we need to speed up the delivery of new homes—we have a housing crisis, and it is important that we do that—but does the Minister accept that, with the streamlining he is talking about, one new planning authority simply will not cut it?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Golden Valley development adjacent to GCHQ in Cheltenham will pay a vital role in our nation’s cyber-security. The recent confirmation of £20 million from the Government for that development is welcome, but will the Secretary of State confirm that the project will continue to feature in future iterations of the national cyber strategy?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Higher Education: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) on securing this important debate. University funding is undoubtedly in crisis. We have heard mentions of universities around the country, and there is a very similar story at mine, which I will tell later. The previous Government broke the sector’s finances. That left the country with a system that is unfair to students, while pushing many institutions to the brink. We should not forget, in among that, the lecturers who work so hard in our universities too, as well as all the support staff. On the other side, we have students who increasingly feel burdened by the cost of living crisis and the long-term repayment of loans. When I speak to students today in my constituency of Cheltenham, it is a very different picture from the one that existed when I went to university in the early noughties in terms of how much they pay for rent, food and energy bills. The previous Government made the tuition fee system unfair. The Liberal Democrats, however, cannot support simply raising fees at this stage without substantial reforms. At this stage, the right thing to do would be to undertake a full review of finance in the sector to consider ways to improve access to, and participation in, degrees, as well as the quality of courses, because value for money for students remains extremely important. While the sector is struggling, we must absolutely not lose sight of the key challenge—removing barriers to entry for new students. That is why the Liberal Democrats believe that the reintroduction of maintenance grants is a vital first step, and I was heartened to hear the hon. Member for Erewash raise that in his opening remarks. Maintenance grants were scrapped by the Conservatives in 2016, which makes it so much harder for young people from less well-off backgrounds even to get to university in the first place. It is regrettable that the new Government are not yet committing to the full restoration of maintenance grants, and we urge Ministers to consider them as a way of bringing fairness back into the system. Scrapping maintenance grants was not the only way in which the Conservatives made the system less fair for students, lecturers, universities and everyone else. They stretched the repayment period so far into the future that some of today’s students will be paying back their loans until 2066. They also lowered the repayment threshold, leaving students paying back an extra £206 a year. The earlier mentions of foreign students by the hon. Members for Erewash and for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) were pertinent, and I will now move on to that issue. The combination of the visa crackdowns and the rhetoric about foreign-born students placed further stress on the sector. The upshot is that the Office for Students suggests that about 40% of universities are likely to run a deficit this year. Locally, the University of Gloucestershire—based in my constituency and those of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas)—tells me that, of a turnover of £85 million, £65 million is from tuition fees, and around £20 million of that is from foreign students, but this year it has reductions in foreign students for both the January and autumn intakes. As I said, this is not just about the visa issue; it is also about rhetoric. The university tells me that its agents who recruit students from abroad say that the feedback from those students is that they are perhaps not quite so wanted in the UK as they once were, so they are selecting degree courses in Australia, America, Canada—elsewhere, where they feel more welcome. The result is a £4 million hit to the University of Gloucestershire’s tuition fee revenue. That is significant. As a result, the university is closing some courses and consolidating others, reducing student choice. Some courses combining multiple humanities are the first to close; fashion is likely to go as well. That said, the university is doing what the Liberal Democrats have suggested too—cutting non-teaching costs and innovating. The university is also taking advantage of Cheltenham’s cyber-security future. It recently opened a new £5.8 million cyber and digital centre, which will help cement Cheltenham’s position as the cyber capital of the UK. That places the university in the same sphere as CyNam, the local industry group, and alongside high-performing small and medium-sized enterprises that drive the local economy. That kind of innovation has to be at the centre of what universities do in the future. However, the university warns that the benefit of the £300 tuition fee increase the Government offered this year is likely to be wiped out by the changes to national insurance for employers. I would like the Minister to respond to that point later. The challenge for the new Government is to put things right, change the rhetoric and reinstate as much fairness in the system as they possibly can. We know that that is not going to be easy—we have all had challenges in the past, haven’t we?—but the Liberal Democrats cannot support an increase in fees at this stage. Reports now suggest that fees are to break the £10,000 barrier fairly soon and rise to £10,500 over the next five years. Before we could support that, more work is needed to undo the failures of the previous Government and restore fairness to the system.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Public Procurement Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The focus on public procurement will be welcomed by SMEs in the cyber-security sector in my constituency. CyNam has thousands of members, and when I talk to its SMEs they tell me that there is a real risk of our losing talent in the start-ups community to cities abroad such as Lisbon and Toronto. Can the Minister confirm that the steps being taken by the Government are good news for SMEs and Cynam?

• 5 Dec 2024 · Improving Public Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. In my constituency, GWR has been working with the borough and county councils on a new cycle link. Network Rail, unfortunately, is singularly blocking the development. That strategic cycle link will probably not be completed unless Network Rail, which owns the land, gets out the way. Does she agree that different arms of government need to be working together much more strongly and that cultural change in Network Rail is required if we are to solve these problems in public transport and active travel?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Migration and Border Security · Hansard source

  More

  We need a firm but fair and compassionate approach on immigration, as I think everyone in the House would agree. Human rights non-governmental organisations have warned that people being returned to Iraq could be at risk of human rights abuses, so can the Home Secretary tell us what reassurances she has had on that point? Will human rights always be a red line when she is striking migration deals in future?

• 28 Nov 2024 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  Small music venues such as the Frog & Fiddle in Cheltenham are part of the lifeblood of the creative industries, but the Music Venue Trust has warned that after years of economic pressures and the recent Budget, more than 350 venues are on the brink of closure. How are the Government supporting small music venues, and what steps will they take if the voluntary levy on arena and stadium tickets is not agreed by the large venues whose participation is vital?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Respect Orders and Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the commitment to neighbourhood policing that will help Cheltenham fight its problems with graffiti and illegal e-bikes, but when I talk to my local police commissioner he warns me that he is expecting to have to work very hard to maintain the force’s current headcount because of budgetary pressures in the coming year. Can the Minister explain the apparent disconnect between the concerns of the commissioner locally and the Government’s statement today?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady share my concern that there is a real problem with vapes being used in the coercion of children for grooming purposes as well?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing time for it. All of us in this Chamber are interested in the upkeep of our democracy. As part of that, we must be vigilant at all times. We must always work to construct a democracy that enables those in positions of power to be held to account, and then we must do everything in our power here to protect that system. Without it, we are on a slippery slope to tyranny. With that in mind, we must all be clear about the fact that SLAPPs have absolutely no place in our democracy, and I think all Members are clear about that. SLAPPs are intended to censor, intimidate and silence those who challenge powerful vested interests. SLAPPs burden critics of the rich and powerful with eye-watering legal defence costs. SLAPPs prevent the misdeeds of the rich and powerful from being reported publicly, and in doing so they limit the ability of society to scrutinise people in positions of power. Regardless of their protestations, the people who use SLAPPs know exactly what they are doing. I came to this place to fight for liberal values, but as Members on both sides of the House have said today, this is an issue that commands consensus across the political spectrum. We have heard representatives from at least six party make basically the same points. My liberal values mean that I have a healthy scepticism of concentrations of power, whether it is state power, private power or, as is so often the case with SLAPPs, the financial power of an individual or a company—which in some cases, as others have said, is unlimited financial power. As a liberal, I feel a strong sense of duty to stand up for the right of all of us to hold those in powerful positions to account. That right is at the very heart of our democracy, and SLAPPs are an affront to our democracy. We must absolutely secure the rights of critics, journalists and commentators to hold the powerful to account. Failure to do so places the rights of those who already have huge power and money to defend their position, and their corrupt practices and any other wrongdoing, above the importance of free challenge as part of the public debate. Members who have spoken about this subject previously have already said that while SLAPPs are not always applied with the intention to win a case, they are used as a means of deterrence against organisations or individuals who engage in public advocacy or speak out on matters of public concern. Dissent is silenced—including, in so many cases, dissent on the part of investigative journalists—and the impact on our public debate is chilling. One case that demonstrates the issues raised by these legal processes involves of a story published by Inside Housing . This trade publication conducted an investigation of the conditions being endured by homeless people and asylum seekers who had been placed in an office-to-residential conversion in north London. Journalists witnessed a stain on the ceiling apparently caused by leaking sewage. They also found a broken fire safety door, and damp problems risking the health of the vulnerable people living in the building. People placed in the accommodation were funded by taxpayers’ money. That clear case of public interest should have involved the naming of the landlords and the building, which would have enabled power to be held to account. However, when the journalists from Inside Housing gave those responsible—the landlords—the right of reply, they received a letter from solicitors threatening legal action. The article stated: “While Inside Housing would be confident of defending its journalism, the cost and time involved in the legal action would be difficult for an organisation of our size.” Consequently, a landlord who was offering substandard and potentially dangerous accommodation to vulnerable people, and who was taking taxpayers’ money, was not named. The threat of legal action meant that even the building could not be named. We do not know whether that landlord is still in receipt of public sector contracts, or whether they are still running buildings that are not fit for habitation, and there is no way for us to find out, as their identity was never published because of a SLAPP. That is just one example of power not being held to account for its misdeeds. Other examples of the impact of SLAPPs that have been raised in the Chamber today have been instructive. A number of publications have been mentioned today, and I want to do something unusual for a politician: offer thanks to Private Eye . It regularly makes brave editorial decisions to give this issue the oxygen of publicity that it deserves, and it names without fear or favour. As a subscriber and a former journalist, I value its contribution. I also pay tribute to other organisations, including those that are part of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. Other Members have mentioned the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, too. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are calling for a comprehensive anti-SLAPPs law to be passed, and we call on the Government to lay a schedule for when it might happen. We hope that when the legislation is brought forward, it will not be stymied by the inclusion of subjective tests that require the court to infer the state of mind of the complainant. That will merely make the situation more complex, and it will further the ends of those who use SLAPPs. Any legislation must be effective in protecting free speech, whistleblowers and media scrutiny. We cannot allow the chilling effect to continue. We must all be vigilant and, in this Parliament, end SLAPPs to protect our democracy.

• 21 Nov 2024 · G20 and COP29 Summits · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister’s focus on fighting climate change on the international stage is a welcome change from the conspiracy theories and equivocation we had under the last Government. One of the simplest ways to generate clean power in the UK is through solar panels, so will his Government take an interest in my private Member’s Bill, the sunshine Bill—the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill, which would mandate solar photovoltaic generation on all new build homes—when it comes to the Commons on 17 January?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Tourism: Northumberland · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) on securing this important debate. I am fortunate enough to have enjoyed tourism in Northumberland very recently; I stayed in Longframlington and Hexham with my wife and daughter, where we visited Hadrian’s wall. During the few days we spent there, we also visited Lindisfarne, from where we took home a bottle of spiced mead. I can recommend it to Members seeking ideas for an alternative Christmas tipple that would be popular with Vikings and monks alike. We enjoyed time at Bamburgh castle, Alnwick castle and Warkworth. At Bamburgh, we saw the exhibition about “The Last Kingdom”, which prompted us to start watching that series on Netflix. If there were a competition for UK castles, Northumberland would surely be the premier league. Liberal Democrats believe that tourism is the lifeblood of the UK economy. The UK contains a rich tapestry of destinations beyond our capital cities, ranging from traditional bucket-and-spade resorts such as Blackpool to creative hotspots such as Brighton, rural retreats such as the Lake district and modern city attractions such as Hull. If our tourism industry is to flourish, more focus is needed. We must all work, as the Minister alluded to in the previous debate, to rebalance tourism away from London; that is why this debate is so important. Doing so would benefit not only Northumberland, but also my constituency, Cheltenham, which welcomed 2 million visitors in 2022—an influx that supports around 4% of local jobs. Many of those are found in Cheltenham’s excellent hospitality sector, as will be the case in any tourism destination, and most of those businesses will be small and medium-sized enterprises. The previous Government let small businesses down badly and took them for granted. When businesses needed certainty and stability during the recovery from the pandemic and the energy bills crisis, the chaotic approach of the previous Government made things so much worse. Liberal Democrats have called for a complete overhaul of the unfair business rates system, replacing it with a commercial landowner levy based on the land value of commercial sites rather than their entire capital value, thereby stimulating investment and shifting the burden of taxation from tenants to landowners. That this new Government are exploring changing the broken business rates system is positive and we welcome it, but small and medium-sized businesses need action sooner rather than later—they need it now, and much more urgently as a result of the decision to reduce the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75% to 40%. At the weekend, I visited Emma, the landlady of the Hewlett Arms. She told me that it currently feels as if the Government still do not quite understand properly how the hospitality sector works. She thought that the contribution of independents in the hospitality sector needed to be better acknowledged, and that the combined impact of the Budget, alongside cost differentials between pubs and supermarkets in particular, meant that her job was getting significantly harder. I am sure that applies to many places in tourism destinations, including in Northumberland. I am certain that the new Government have a vision for tourism, having heard about it in the previous debate. I cannot promise the Minister that I will agree on every single point, but I will always aim for the compassionate, creative and constructive approach of the monks at Lindisfarne rather than that of a Viking invader.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Food Banks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on securing this important debate. Most people assume that Cheltenham, the town I represent, is a well-heeled sort of place. The impression many people have is of grand Regency terraces, beautiful architecture and the prosperity that comes with excellent schools and a thriving cyber-security sector, but I regret to tell hon. Members that that is not the whole story. Large sections of our population struggle. In swathes of Cheltenham, people live in poverty, providing demand for six food banks. I am told that every week in Cheltenham about 550 households access a food bank or food pantry. That is thousands of people. In 2023-24 there were 1,068 households accessing a food bank or food pantry for the first time ever. During that year, more than 8,000 people were, at one point or another, in receipt of a food parcel. That is in Cheltenham, a prosperous town. In the current financial year, the local council has allocated £45,240 to support those food banks, supported by charitable donations made by generous Cheltenham people. When I visited the food pantries and spoke to staff and customers, the picture I found was one of people who simply want to get on in life. None of them wants to be at a food bank, but circumstances—nearly always beyond their control—have led them to that point. They are united in wanting nothing more than fairness. There are some very practical steps that could be taken to achieve that fairness. First, lifting the two-child benefit cap would remove hundreds of thousands of children from poverty at a single stroke. If that were done alongside the expansion of free school meals to all children in poverty, the impact could be extremely powerful. We also need reform of universal credit. All those measures would mean fewer children turning up at school hungry. They would mean fewer children arriving home from school hungry. They would mean fewer families desperately trying to make ends meet by using food banks, and fewer pensioners being forced to do the same. This is all very achievable. All we need to do is work within the systems that already exist and show the kindness and compassion that lies within all of us. On the subject of kindness and compassion, I will finish by paying tribute to the brilliant local people in Cheltenham working at facilities that help people who cannot pay their bills. There are too many to name them all, but I will mention two: Faith Rooke-Matthews in Springbank and Alison Hutson at the Cornerstone centre. We thank them and their colleagues for all they do.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a number of interesting points, but it is not yet clear to me whether he is in favour of the banning of single-use vapes, or the banning of all vapes, or not. It would be instructive if we all understood a little more of what he is trying to get at in the points he is making, as interesting as they all are.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a particular issue with the discarding of single-use vapes in our town centres? Most of our councils do not have enough money to keep town centres clean; in Cheltenham, I believe the bill is in excess of £1 million per year. There is a real issue there, not just about the environment, but about public sector finances at the local level.