Paul Kohler MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Mar 2025 · Railway Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  In 2017, South Western Railway ordered 90 new Arterio trains to increase capacity on its rail network. They were meant to enter service in 2019. However, six years later, only five are in service—presumably not counting the empty one that sailed by a teeming and seething platform at Wimbledon this morning. With SWR set to be in Government hands in two months, what steps will be taken to ensure that those trains are finally brought into service?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, the Chancellor spoke about the importance of getting individuals back to work in order to grow our economy, but the uneven coverage, unreliability and inaccessibility of our transport network are key barriers that prevent many from doing so. Furthermore, the Chancellor maintained the decision she took in October to cut the Department for Transport’s budget. Does the Secretary of State believe that cutting the transport budget is a good way of increasing economic growth?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  I recently wrote to the Minister to request the estimated savings the Government expect from the closure of 10 asylum seeker hotels. In response, I was informed that while the Home Office publishes data on the number of people housed in hotels, it does not report on the number of rooms occupied. A hotel accommodating people in shared rooms incurs significantly different costs from one where individuals occupy separate rooms, yet that critical distinction is overlooked. Given that effective policy decisions must be based on clear evidence, will the Minister commit to publishing room occupancy data to ensure accountability and informed decision making?

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. This issue is close to the hearts of many of my constituents in Wimbledon and a key reason why I have the honour and privilege of representing them in Parliament today. We all know—well, almost all of us know—that the Tories’ botched Brexit deal has been a disaster for our country. They should hang their heads in shame, as should the previous leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who, among various failings, whipped his party to vote in favour of triggering article 50, firing the starting pistol on our leaving the EU, without any thought as to what form that exit might take. Nor should we forget the role of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his band of bickering Reform buddies, who, along with Trump and Putin, long advocated this hugely damaging, deeply unpatriotic act of self-harm. They tore up Churchill’s roadmap that sought to place the UK at the heart of Europe, at the behest of their idols in the Kremlin and now the White House. The signatories of the petition are right to point out that Brexit has failed to deliver any tangible benefits. All it has done is burden businesses with red tape, restrict opportunities for young people and weaken our economy. This debate, however, should not be about the past; it should be about the future. How do we now get out of the mess caused by the mendacity of Reform, the opportunism of the Conservative party, the dogma of the Northern Ireland Unionists, and the weakness of the previous Labour leadership? If the Government are serious about growing the economy and Britain regaining its global economic, cultural and political prominence, they must begin by meaningfully re-engaging with Europe. The EU is still our closest trading partner, accounting for 42% of our exports in 2023, yet the Conservative Brexit deal erected unnecessary trade barriers, creating expensive red tape that is holding back British firms, especially small businesses, costing our economy millions in lost exports. Although the current Government talk big on growth, they are failing to deliver. As I said in the Chamber last November, the Chancellor’s so-called Budget for growth did not do what it said on the tin, but kicked that very can down the road—perhaps, I should have said into the gutter. Closer ties with the EU is the fastest way to kickstart growth. While the Government continue to tie themselves up with various red lines, they leave themselves with precious little room to negotiate. A youth mobility scheme with the EU would be a crucial first step forward. It is ludicrous that the Government refuse to consider it. The current arrangement is not only harming our economy, but denying our young people life-enhancing experiences. Furthermore, we need to join the Erasmus scheme. The UK’s exit from the programme has deprived students of valuable opportunities to study, learn and live in Europe, preventing young people from experiencing the cultural and professional benefits of living and working not just in EU states, but the many non-EU countries in the scheme. We need to start talking to the EU about joining the PEM and then the customs union, as that would cut much of the red tape currently hampering our exporters. Doing so would remove unnecessary barriers, boost exports and lower the cost of imports, providing much-needed relief to businesses and consumers alike. Admittedly, joining the customs union would preclude us signing trade deals of our own, but given the experience thus far—the disadvantageous one struck with Australia and New Zealand—that would be no bad thing, especially with Trump now raising the prospect of us agreeing one with the US, which on all the evidence thus far, would doubtless benefit him far more than us. The cultural impact of Brexit has been equally damaging to the UK. Britain is a global cultural leader, and our actors, artists and musicians are renowned worldwide, but Brexit has made it significantly harder for them to tour Europe due to expensive visas and excessive paperwork. The Lib Dems would push for cost-free, paper-free, short-term travel for UK artists and their support staff. We must also rejoin the EU’s Creative Europe programme to ensure that British culture continues to thrive on the international stage. As I have outlined, if we want to restore Britain’s place in the world, we must meaningfully re-engage with Europe. I do not, however, advocate rejoining the EU overnight. The damage caused by Brexit is not only economic but social. We all remember the friction it caused within families and communities, and between the regions and countries of the UK. We must eventually rejoin the EU, but we can only do so by bringing the country—not just a wafer-thin majority—with us. Any party that won an election on a mandate to rejoin the EU would walk into the subsequent negotiations naked, with no means of avoiding a hard deal. Admittedly, it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to rejoin on the favourable terms we once had and have now forsaken, but it is critical that we negotiate from a position of strength, as Tony Blair has advocated, and do not go into any talks with a begging bowl merely asking to rejoin. That is why the Lib Dems have set out a clear, pragmatic roadmap to rebuilding our ties with the EU: first, by rejoining European agencies and programmes, then by negotiating a customs union, and then by joining the single market. Those steps will help to restore Britain’s prosperity, repair the damage caused by Brexit and bring back some of the opportunities we have lost. The message from the petition is clear: the British people want a better future. They see the failure of Brexit and understand that our country’s prosperity, security and influence depended on closer ties with Europe. The Conservative Government wrecked our relationship with the EU and the new Labour Government refuse to take the necessary steps to repair it. The Government must do what is right for the British public and not just run scared of the hon. Member for Clacton and the rest of his quarrelsome rag-bag of little Englanders and cheerleaders for Trump and Putin. We are part of Europe, and I have no doubt that one day we will rejoin the EU and regain our position at its heart, just as Winston Churchill advocated. Until that day, we must work tirelessly towards fostering ever closer co-operation by breaking free of the red lines in which this Government have bound themselves so unnecessarily.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Disruption at Heathrow · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I echo her words and those of others in expressing my gratitude to the firefighters and other emergency workers who fought the fire and to the airport, airline and other staff for all their hard work in the face of this catastrophic systems failure. What has happened is clearly a rare occurrence, but it raises a number of significant questions about the security and management of our critical national infrastructure. While I am pleased to hear that no foul play is currently suspected, the event has revealed vulnerabilities in our national security that may be exploited in future by terrorists and hostile state actors. It is consequently vital that lessons are learned to ensure that an incident like this does not happen again, and I welcome the announcement of a full investigation. It is deeply concerning that the failure of a single piece of infrastructure has taken down the entire airport. Heathrow is connected to three substations, and while two were impacted, the third was running and had enough capacity—thought to be around 72 MW—to power the whole of Heathrow, which requires a little more than 40 MW. It is evident that Heathrow’s power set-up could not be swiftly reconfigured to allow the third substation to be used. We need to understand why that was, and whether it could be remedied in future. While Heathrow claims that it is normal for airports not to have sufficient back-up capacity to power all of their needs, other industries that require even more power than Heathrow—such as data centres—take more robust steps to ensure they have sufficient back-up systems to counter such failures. Should our key international transport hub not have the same safeguards? We must also not forget those whose journeys were disrupted. It is estimated that over 200,000 passengers have been impacted by the event. However, under current regulations, most of those passengers will not be eligible for compensation. As such, I have three questions for the Secretary of State. First, what impact, if any, will this incident have on the Government’s plans for expansion at Heathrow? Can the national grid infrastructure cope with a third runway, or will the airport become more prone to failure? Secondly, does the Secretary of State believe that UK airports should be taking steps to increase their back-up capacity, in order to ensure that an incident like this does not happen again? Thirdly, does she believe that the current regulations around passenger compensation are sufficient?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, more than 4,000 litres of diesel spilled into the River Wandle from a Transport for London garage in the Secretary of State’s previous constituency. Will the Secretary of State meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) to discuss what can be done to restore the wildlife and to ensure that that cannot happen again?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Disabled People’s Access to Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for the report, which is most welcome. I will read it with interest. She referenced the Access for All programme, which hit the buffers during the previous Parliament with fewer than half the promised projects coming to fruition. She said much about what went wrong. How confident is she that we can avoid such problems happening in future?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. Many of my constituents have approached me about the inadequate treatment of young people with eating disorders. This year, despite a 30% increase in referrals, the majority of integrated care boards have cut real-terms funding. Currently, as I have seen in my own family and in my weekly surgeries, those who reach out for treatment are told, in effect, “Come back when you are thinner,” increasing both the human and financial cost of treatment. Does the Prime Minister agree that timely interventions are critical, and will he meet me to discuss how we fund them?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered step-free access at stations. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. We are here today to discuss an issue of great importance to many across the country. No one could accuse this Government of dragging their feet on reform of our public transport system. With the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill en route to the Commons from the Lords, the rail reform consultation and the call for ideas on an integrated transport strategy, big steps are under way. All that activity presents us with a real opportunity to put accessibility at the heart of our public transport system to deliver a network that will serve everyone—but the devil will be in the detail and it is incumbent on the Government to move on from lofty rhetoric to the hard reality of making our transport system accessible. More than 60 million people in the UK have a disability, or around a quarter of the total population. Those living with a disability take 28% fewer journeys than those who do not—a telling indictment of our current provision. There are issues on all forms of public transport, but arguably the greatest obstacles exist in rail services. According to a study by Transport for All, only 30% of disabled respondents said they used trains with confidence, and 10% said they do not use them at all. There are many reasons for this, including overcrowded trains and inadequate toilet provision. However, the biggest issue remains the absence of step-free access. Currently, only about a quarter of train stations are fully step-free from street to platform, making much of the rail network unusable for wheelchair users, and incredibly difficult for those with other mobility issues.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We absolutely need a commitment from the Government. That is what we are looking for today. Now where was I up to?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  Wimbledon Park tube station in my constituency had the highest number of incidents, with the lifts not working on a shocking 132 occasions. That was not always the case; in 2015 there were only 65 occasions across the whole year. Things deteriorated from that point, and in 2019 the Mayor of London told the London Assembly that he had been “clear with Transport for London…that these instances must be further reduced.” Sadly, that did not happen, and the situation has continued to deteriorate year on year. I appreciate that it is primarily a matter for the Mayor, but will the Government please raise that issue with him? Time is short, so I will finish up, but we must note that lifts are by no means the only issue. Even if individuals can reach the platform, boarding the train is often incredibly difficult, and 67% of station platforms are too narrow for wheelchair users to turn at the base of a ramp. It is estimated that just 2% of stations actually have level boarding between the train and the platform. That is simply not good enough.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman makes the point that this is an issue across the country. It absolutely needs to be addressed if we want to make our transport system fit for all residents. If a development is already taking place, surely that is the ideal time to ensure that the station is step-free, instead of causing disturbance at a future date. Wimbledon Chase, in my constituency, is about to undergo a major redevelopment, but step-free access is not being provided. That makes no sense. I understand that the previous Government conducted a consultation on potential changes to the regulations, so do the Government plan to move forward on this issue?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, indeed. Access for All stalled under the previous Government and we must give it new impetus. The hon. Member is absolutely correct.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely correct— I had got to exactly that point in my speech. Despite the successes, the Access for All scheme has failed to deliver on its potential, but hon. Members need not take my word for it. In May 2024, the current Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, then chair of Network Rail, said Access for All had “significantly underperformed” over the previous five years, having stalled under the previous Government. Of the 149 schemes due to be completed in that period, only 77 were—and, in what seems to be a first for a Government infrastructure project, there was an underspend of £99 million.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  Yes—that might be useful, while I look for my place.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely with the hon. Member. All those components have to come together. I must remember where I get to in my speech when I take an intervention. In an answer to a written question, I have been informed that an internal review into the shortcomings in the scheme has been conducted but has not been released. I therefore ask the Government to commit to doing so today. Many more stations have not even secured funding to begin the journey to step-free access. Stations in my constituency, including Malden Manor, South Merton and Morden South, are still waiting, with no prospect of anything happening any time soon. There are also problems with the requirements that govern station modernisation. Believe it or not, it is not a given that step-free access will be incorporated in any new scheme. The current regulations state that if development is taking place at a station that serves under 1,000 passengers a day and there is another step-free station within 50 km—yes, 50 km—no step-free access needs to be included in the scheme; rather, there needs just to be some form of provision to include it at a later date. We all appreciate the need to spread developments across the network, but do the Government really think that 50 km is a practical distance to travel to use an accessible station?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree. It is not just about the physical provision, but having staff available, which I will come on to later in my speech. As I was saying, accessibility is a problem not only for wheelchair users but for those with other mobility issues, including those with pushchairs or luggage, so we need to address the problem of step-free access. The Government have made some progress on this in recent years—though by no means enough—via the Access for All scheme. Since its inception in 2006, it has provided step-free access to around 300 stations, something that should be acknowledged. I was very proud to recently cut the ribbon at the new Motspur Park station, which is now fully step-free for the first time in its 100-year history. After a decade-long campaign by local Lib Dems and efforts by my predecessor, we finally achieved what local Tories in Wimbledon said was impossible: delivering a station of which all users could take advantage.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a good point; I got to the point in my speech entitled “Lifts out of action”, so I will start that now—how prescient of her. The issue is not only the lack of step-free access. Even where there is provision, it is often unreliable. It is clearly unacceptable that those who rely on step-free access to plan their journeys—based on the limited number of stations available—discover only on arrival that the lift is out of action. The Office of Road and Rail found that there were more than 5,000 lift faults on the network from April to October last year—an increase of 9% on the same period the previous year. Furthermore, there has been a deeply concerning increase in the number of entrapments. The number of entrapments went up by more than a fifth in the last six months, with almost 400 entrapment events from April to October 2024 and an increase of 42% on the number of entrapments of more than 75 minutes. The situation on the London underground last year was even more appalling. Only 92 out of 272 London underground stations are step-free, but those are often out of action, not just from faults, but due to a lack of staffing. A recent Lib Dem freedom of information request showed that there were 1,254 incidents last year, totalling 6,197 hours when the lifts were working perfectly well but train staff members were not there, meaning that those who rely on them cannot use the station.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Stations: Step-free Access · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has also shown how prescient she is, because I am about to reach that point in my conclusion. It is clear that the Government need to take urgent action on all this. There is a desperate need to get our economy growing, and ensuring that our infrastructure is accessible should play a key part in that. We hear today that the Government are reviewing the benefits system to get more people back to work. Surely they see that making public transport accessible is a crucial part of that endeavour. Accessibility is not just a good-to-have; it is vital to creating a more inclusive and productive country. I hope the Government are listening.

• 11 Mar 2025 · North Sea Vessel Collision · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The scenes we have all witnessed in news reports are very concerning, and our thoughts are with all those affected and with the family of the crew member who remains unaccounted for. This event reminds us of the risks and dangers faced by those who work in the maritime sector. These men and women often work long, challenging hours, keeping our country and economy going with little—if any—recognition, and we are hugely grateful to them. We are also indebted to the emergency services, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the coastguard for their tireless work through the night. I know they are doing all they can to limit the damage and the environmental impact, and have done so much to minimise the loss of life. While it will take time to establish what has taken place, it is clear that the Government need to take urgent steps to limit the damage and reassure local communities. I welcome the Government’s formation of the tactical co-ordination group and the work it is doing with other agencies. I appreciate that the situation is still unfolding and that many questions cannot be answered at this stage. However, will the Minister say first what immediate steps the Government are taking to protect the environment along the east coast? Secondly, what is he doing to keep shipping routes open and safe? Thirdly, what is the Government’s plan to support fishing and other businesses that rely on waters that might now be contaminated?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Political Finance Rules · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. As the Prime Minister declared last year, and as we see so graphically on the world stage now, the “fight for trust” will be “the battle that defines our political era.”— —[ Official Report , 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 56.] It is clear that if we MPs are to achieve the changes that people need most in their lives, we need a functioning democracy. If those we represent do not trust politicians to act in their best interest, we will not be an effective institution. Currently, it is simply not the case that they trust us. Both in the UK and across the globe, faith in politics and politicians is at an all-time low. In the UK, 76% of people have little to no trust in Members of this House—up from 54% a decade ago. I note with no great relish that this may not be surprising after years of a Conservative Government who were more concerned with their internal politics than the concerns of people around the country, but it should be a deep concern for us all. Rebuilding trust in politics is the goal, regardless of our political colour or persuasion. I am sure that all Members of the House can support that, but it will not happen overnight. Research from the Electoral Commission shows that only 15% of people agree that there is transparency around the money spent and received by parties and campaigners—down from over a third in 2011. We should be clear that political donations are not inherently wrong and are part of a vibrant democratic system. Individuals should be able to take part in the democratic process through political donations, which can help people to further the goals and ideals that they believe in. Banning any donations would entrench power, leaving new or smaller parties unable to campaign against incumbents. It would work against many of our democratic principles, but it is clear that although political donations are a good thing, we must have adequate transparency as to the source of the money. That is currently not the case. The legal framework for the political finance system is now over 25 years old, and though it was explicitly intended to ban foreign donations to UK political parties, there are clearly many loopholes. There is no doubt that foreign nations have an interest in altering our politics. Dictators such as Putin and Xi Jinping have made it perfectly clear that they do not believe in democracy and are willing to undermine our institutions, but our current system has built-in loopholes that allow foreign interests to channel money to our politics to shape it in their interest. At present, UK-registered companies are permitted to make donations using money raised overseas and, as has been said previously, unincorporated associations can legitimately make donations using funding from otherwise impermissible donors. It is not just foreign donations that should cause concern; the sheer amount of money coming from a small number of extremely wealthy donors is also worrying. Of the £85 million received in private donations in 2023 alone, two thirds came from just 19 donors. Money helps direct the political winds, and having that amount of money come from such a small number of powerful individuals risks bringing our democratic system into disrepute. We must introduce a cap on donations. No matter how noble the intention, no individual should be able to donate excessively, as large donations can at the very least give the impression that undue influence is being exercised over our democracy. This would not only be a positive step in cleaning up politics; it would be popular too. A recent YouGov poll found that more than two thirds of the British public support a limit on political donations. Personally, I also have concerns about the capacity of union barons to exercise what might appear to be undue influence via the vast amount of money accumulated through the political levy, which they can donate or withhold as they see fit. However, I acknowledge that the issue is complex. We are at a crucial juncture, and it is in everyone’s interests that the Government get a proper handle on this issue. We cannot enter the next general election with so many questions left unanswered.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to new clauses 7 and 8. As the MP for Wimbledon, I am proud to represent a constituency with such a rich and diverse educational offering, including fantastic primary and secondary schools in both the independent and state sectors. But recent Government decisions, including the increases in employer NI contributions on all schools, the removal of business rates relief and the imposition of VAT on school fees at independent schools, are pushing many in the state and private sectors to the brink. The changes to independent schools have caused considerable concern in my constituency, as can be clearly seen by the over 1,000 signatures from my constituents on the petition being debated today in Westminster Hall. It is my belief and that of my party, as Liberals, that education should not be taxed and individuals should be able to freely make choices about how their children are educated. The ambition should be to reach a point where the state offering for schools is so high that no parent feels particularly compelled to send their children to independent schools. However, these ideologically driven policies of taxing education are not the solution. They simply put further strain on the state sector while financially hitting those who make what they believe to be the best choice for their child. These policies are a piece of red meat to show that the red flag is still fluttering on the Labour Benches. Admittedly, the long-term impact that the changes will have on schools is still to be seen, but the early signs are not good. This academic year we have already seen a drop of 10,000 pupils at independent schools—three times higher than the Government estimated. Many believe that the change will not be a one-off event, but the start of a longer period, with more pupils expected to leave independent schools in the coming years, making any financial gains to improve the state sector illusory. It is important to note that the cost per pupil is likely larger than the national average due to the sheer number of students in the independent sector who have special educational needs. The Independent Schools Council estimates that over 130,000 pupils in independent schools have special educational needs, with 90,000 of them receiving special educational needs and disabilities support with no education, health and care plan. Independent schools in my constituency, such as the Hall school, Wimbledon high school and Donhead prep school, to name but three, do a huge amount to support children with special educational needs, and many parents choose to send their children there for that reason alone. I have spoken to many parents who have made tough financial sacrifices to send their children to those schools. They speak of the barriers to their children receiving the support they need in the state sector, including long waiting lists to receive an EHCP. The changes are already forcing many to reconsider their decision because they simply no longer can afford to use the private sector to relieve pressure on the state system. As is well documented, there are huge issues around the provision of SEND support in state schools, with many children waiting years for support and many schools not being able to provide the support they would like to due to budgetary restraints. At a time when the Government and local councils are already struggling to support schools with the money they need for SEND support, avoiding further strain on state schools is vital—these decisions do the opposite. Turning to new clause 8, I draw the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will speak about the impact the Bill will have on the wine industry, the night-time economy and hospitality in general. Under the current wine easement, 85% of all wine sold in the UK is subject to the same rate of duty. With the alcohol duty now set to be linked to the volume of alcohol in each bottle of wine, that will be replaced by 30—yes, 30—different rates of duty. While I understand the Government’s broader intentions, the new regime is simply not workable in the context of wine. It fails to account for the fundamental difference between wine and other more manufactured drinks. The alcohol by volume of wine cannot be predicted with precision before or during the wine-making process. The alcohol content is stable only at the point when the wine goes into the bottle. The ABV varies between different years and vats. Until bottling, we do not know the ABV of a particular bottle. It therefore creates huge uncertainty about price and profit margins for the industry if there are different rates of duty depending on the specific ABV, down to a gradation of 0.1%. That is particularly important with low-cost wines. This regime is utterly impractical for wine producers and merchants. Hal Wilson, co-founder of Cambridge Wine Merchants, told me: “In my business this feels like death by a thousand cuts, or even two thousand cuts. We sell over 2,000 different wines each year and from February will need to know the precise ABV of each and every one before being able to calculate their full cost. For each 0.1% ABV difference there is a different amount of tax to be paid.” I wrote to the Minister about the matter and received a long and detailed response, for which I am grateful. He made the point that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will change its practice and accept the ABV on the label of the bottle to the nearest 0.5%, but that is current practice; it is not in the legislation as I understand it. It is still far too complex and much of my criticism still holds. Secondly, the letter fundamentally misunderstands why people drink wine. Wine is consumed primarily for the taste, not the strength. The ABV affects the taste profile. Compare a light Beaujolais with a robust Rioja—it is all about taste, not whether it is stronger so one can get more drunk. That is not how people consume wine. Turning briefly to hospitality and the night-time economy, the industry faces an existential crisis owing to the cost of living crisis, rising energy prices, inflation, labour shortages following Brexit, changes to commuting patterns and the more than doubling of business rates. The increase in alcohol duties will be yet another burden. Every incremental cost makes survival more difficult, as I know myself, and the Bill shows that the Government are still not taking the dangers seriously.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Has the Minister actually spoken to people in the wine industry? They are absolutely at their wits’ end about this.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Town Centre Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his answer. I am proud to have half of Morden town centre in my constituency. Morden is an area ripe for rejuvenation. It has fantastic transport links, but like many town centres across the country, it is struggling. As one Labour councillor recently noted in the council chamber, despite years of promising to regenerate Morden, Labour-run Merton council has failed to deliver. Just last week, it again put off doing anything—this time until at least 2027. Will the Minister meet me to discuss why the council has failed to begin rejuvenation over the last 30 years, and to discuss what support the Government can now give?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Town Centre Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps she is taking to support councils with town centre regeneration projects.