Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)
The hon. Lady says that this is not a way to reform the system. Does she have any ideas about the kinds of reform that she would be ready to accept?
What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The hon. Lady says that this is not a way to reform the system. Does she have any ideas about the kinds of reform that she would be ready to accept?
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way once again. Given the number of amendments she has tabled—the point being that she will not support any element of change whatsoever—I gently and respectfully suggest that she is actually very happy with the system as it is, she is happy to accept all the evidence from a huge industry that exists to support immigrants, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, and she does not want any reform whatsoever other than throwing the system open even further.
Would it be the case that someone who had hitherto been an absent father would not meet the criteria in the Bill?
I declare an interest, as I have a close relative working in the care sector. I welcome the Minister’s statement on this important matter. Could she say more about how she and the Department plan to build consensus across the wider community and with stakeholders, as well as with political parties?
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am so pleased to speak in this debate and to have secured it alongside my APPG co-chair, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). As co-chairs of the APPG on smoking and health, we will always champion cross-party support for ending the epidemic in the UK. This debate is about what progress has been made towards a smoke-free country and what more we could do. I want to start by recognising just how much we have achieved in the last five years alone, thanks to the actions of both the previous Government and the current one. The Tobacco and Vapes Act became law. Smoking rates have fallen to below 10% across the UK for the first time ever, and rates are falling fastest among 18 to 24-year-olds. The rate of smoking in pregnancy is at a record low of just 4.2%, saving babies’ lives and supporting families to have the best start in life. Record levels of funding are going to stop-smoking services. Co-ordinated action among agencies also means that, despite claims to the contrary from the tobacco industry, official data continues to show that robust enforcement is controlling the UK illicit market. I am particularly proud that smoking rates in the north-east of England have fallen by a staggering 67% since 2005—the largest drop in England. That is great to see, not just for my constituents in the City of Durham but for communities right across the north-east, an area with some of the worst health inequalities in the UK. Much of that success can be attributed to the regional leadership and support of Fresh. The experience of the north-east clearly shows the huge benefits of establishing expert-led, regional tobacco control programmes to support local areas, as we have had in the north-east over the last 22 years. I am sure that all regions would benefit from this approach. There was a time when smoking rates below 10% in the region would have been unthinkable—a pipe dream—but in our mission to end smoking we have achieved many unthinkable things, and we have never stopped pushing for progress. However, we have not called this debate to pat ourselves on the back and think it is job done—far from it. As we have heard, there are still 4.9 million smokers across the UK, and smoking is increasingly becoming an issue of health inequality. The inequality is stark: if current trends continue, people with a degree will reach smoking rates of less than 1%, while people with no qualifications are not expected to reach that same milestone until 29 years later. That gap should concern us all, because it shows that progress is not being felt equally across society. I was pleased recently to bring together stakeholders, on behalf of the APPGs on smoking and health and on poverty and inequality, to host a roundtable on the link between smoking and poverty. Smoking is a well-known health issue, but it is also a direct driver of poverty. It is a preventable contributor to the cost of living crisis for millions of people experiencing tobacco addiction. Smoking pushes 417,000 households below the poverty line. Last year, one in four people who smoke went hungry after skipping meals, and people who smoke are nearly three times as likely to use food banks. The roundtable included some insightful discussions about how we can make support for smoking cessation available in food banks and other community settings— reaching people where they already are and making it easier for them to access support. Moving forward, opt-out support must be the way we work. It would be great to hear from the Minister what progress has been made on the manifesto commitment on opt-out support in routine care. At the event, I was pleased to hear from Gillian and Hannah, who came to share their lived experience and spoke to us so openly. As the hon. Member for Harrow East alluded to, hearing someone say that they would buy cigarettes before buying food for their children, and that they only ever managed to take their children on holiday once they quit, shows how cessation can give not only freedom from addiction, but financial freedom too. The good news is that there is something we can do about it. Smoking is not inevitable. Tobacco addiction can be broken with the right support. That is why it is so important for the Government to publish a road map to a smoke-free country that sets out how we can target support to the right people and build on examples of best practice. We also need a new target. Smokefree 2030 is very unlikely to be met, and a less than 5% prevalence still leaves millions smoking. This Labour Government should be bold and set a date by which we will pledge to see smoking rates below 1% in all groups across society. We can introduce a levy on industry profits to fund programmes to support smokers and still have cash to spare. We can also use the powers in the Tobacco and Vapes Act to ensure that all tobacco products are comprehensively regulated and to take a balanced approach to vapes and other nicotine products. We need to ensure that a variety of cessation aids, such as medication and vapes, are available to smokers to help them on their quit journey. The recent Cochrane review confirmed the effectiveness of vapes in supporting quitting, and we must not forget that, on average, it takes 30 attempts to quit. The regulation of vaping products is necessary to reduce their youth appeal, and the Government are right to be pulling multiple levers to achieve that aim, including a crackdown on rogue sellers through new planning powers for councils, the incoming licensing and registration scheme, and the vaping products duty, which came into effect at the start of this month. A road map that situates vaping policy as part of a wider strategy on smoking and public health would help to enhance this long-overdue regulatory agenda. However, it is a complex area; has the Minister considered convening an expert group of some kind? This Government will be remembered as the Government who signalled the beginning of the end for smoking with the smoke-free generation, but we could be the ones to end smoking for good. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to working with her to ensure that we do just that.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my previous role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for responsible vaping. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate, and on their hard work and commitment to ensure that we move towards a smoke-free UK. Throughout the passage of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, I have been a strong advocate for vaping, because giving smokers choice in how to stop smoking is far more successful than telling them they should stop altogether. Giving smokers a safer way to stop is a choice worth protecting. The goal of a smoke-free UK is worth backing. The Act ensures young people will avoid ever falling into the trap of addiction. It is now on the statute book, and the test for its success is its delivery. Rules only work if they are enforced on our high streets, not just written on paper, and the biggest threat to this goal is the illicit market. Illicit tobacco and vapes are untested and untracked, with no age checks and no control on what is in them. The adult who wants the ability to choose an alternative to cigarettes cannot know what they are buying and, even worse, children can get hold of these products. Responsible retailers, including specialist vape shops, are undercut by rogue traders who face no meaningful consequences. The stakes could not be higher. Only last Tuesday, Lord Bichard, chair of National Trading Standards, told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that the illegal tobacco trade is directly funding child abuse. That shocks us, and should shock every Member of this House. We can no longer treat this as a sideline issue. It should be the focus of Government attention and the sequencing of Government priorities matters. We must protect our good retailers before we come for their products. The alternative will only tighten the grip that organised crime has on our high streets. The NHS says that nicotine vaping is less harmful than smoking, and that it is one of the most effective tools for quitting. Smokers using nicotine vapes are roughly twice as likely to quit as those used in traditional non-nicotine replacement products such as patches or gum. Around 5.5 million adults vape in this country, including around 3.3 million former smokers. Some 52% of adult smokers incorrectly believe that vaping is harmful or more harmful than smoking. Vaping is not harmless, but smoking and vaping are not equivalent. The Government must ensure that communication and regulation maintain that distinction and protect the right for vapes to be sold and to be more appealing to adult smokers than cigarettes. Specialist vape shops are fundamentally different from corner shops, petrol stations and rogue retailers that simply sell vapes alongside other goods. Just as a petrol station selling alcohol is not a specialist alcohol retailer, these businesses should not be regulated as if they were the same. Doing that is pointless and harmful to the responsible industry while rogue retailers continue to sell illegal products to our children. No retailer should sell vape products to a child. There should be rigorous age verification in shops and online, supported by Challenge 25 trained staff, refusal registers, reliable digital checks and regular test purchasing, rather than sweeping restrictions for responsible retailers. Parliament has already legislated for a retail licensing scheme. A scheme that separates good retailers from bad is the most effective way to take dangerous illicit products off our streets. It gives councils the ability to identify who is selling these products and act against repeat offenders. But the Government have said that the consultation on licensing scheme will be considered “in due course”. Our high streets cannot afford for the issue to be kicked down the road. My constituents want to know when the consultation will be open, and they want it to be as soon as possible. That is my message to our Minister. A comprehensive retail and distributor licensing scheme is essential, and the UK Vaping Industry Association has produced a framework called the UKVIA licensing framework. A licence would identify who is selling vaping products, set minimum standards and make repeat offenders lose the right to trade. The UKVIA has proposed penalties of up to £10,000 for retailers selling to children or supplying illicit and non-compliant products, with the proceeds used to strengthen trading standards’ enforcement. Nearly 390,000 illicit or non-compliant products were identified through research covering 17 councils, but the reported fines for vape offences totalled only £10,700. Small penalties risk becoming a cost of doing business rather than a genuine deterrent. The message should be simple: comply with age verification, product and licensing rules or face penalties of up to £10,000, licence suspension and, for persistent offenders, removal from the market. Only once we have got to grips with illicit trade should we turn to packaging, appearance and display. If rogue traders ignore the rules we have, tougher new ones will be ignored, too, and it is honest retailers and adults who simply want a legal, safe alternative to cigarettes who will suffer. We all want fewer people smoking, but the fastest way to get there is by backing the legal market—backing adults who are trying to quit and going after the criminals who profit from the illicit trade. We must not make cigarettes comparatively more attractive. The new vaping products duty is charged at £2.20 per 10 ml of vaping liquid. The Government say that vaping remains less harmful than smoking and helps adult smokers to quit, but the new duty risks undermining that objective. A new report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates that the duty could increase average vape prices by 44% compared with an estimated 4% increase in cigarette prices. Its central model suggests that 946,000 vapers and dual users could move exclusively to smoking, resulting in 1.5 billion additional cigarettes being consumed each year. The same modelling estimates an additional £300 million a year in healthcare and productivity costs, comprising £94 million in healthcare costs and £211 million in lost productivity. Those are modelled outcomes rather than certain forecasts, but they present a serious warning about unintended consequences. The Government should monitor smoking relapse and quitting rates and illicit market activity closely, and be prepared to revisit the duty if it is pushing adults back towards cigarettes. We can protect children and non-smokers without punishing adults who have quit smoking. Make age verification non-negotiable. Introduce effective licensing and impose penalties of up to £10,000 on rogue retailers while preserving vaping as a vital quitting tool for adult smokers, and help us move towards a smoke-free UK.
The Albert bridge in Battersea has been closed for more than eight months, amid safety concerns. That is causing severe delays and disruption to my constituents and businesses alike. Bridges in Battersea and across London play a vital role in keeping London moving, so can we have a debate in Government time on how we can make our bridges a strategic asset under national Government oversight?
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Malcolm Wilson OBE and the team at M-Sport in Dovenby on re-securing the Ford world rally car championship programme, creating new skilled jobs for Cumbria? Can he also tell us what support the Department can provide to help high-performance automotive firms such as M-Sport create skilled apprenticeships for our young people?
Is it not time we simply admitted that the SFI experiment has failed? The last Government could not get the money out the door, and we now have an IT system that is so bad that we may as well not have a door. Farmers do not believe that the SFI is fair. They do not believe that it is getting to those who need support, or that it is delivering the public goods intended. Perhaps we should start again and reconsider a universal baseline, with best practice conditions.
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as has every Member who has spoken today. I represent about 8,000 unpaid carers in Leeds South West and Morley—that is about 9% of my constituents—and it is clear that I need to speak for them. Something that has been missing from the debate is those who criticise the offer of extra help to unpaid carers as a cost to the Treasury and to businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the greater cost is the fact that 1.1 million unpaid carers have left work in the last two years because many of them had no choice but to do so?
I represent a 15-year-old constituent with a serious heart condition that he is awaiting surgery for. He has been told not to overexert himself, because even walking puts his health at risk. Sadly, his family’s appeal for a blue badge has been turned down because they cannot demonstrate that he will have the problem in three years, post-surgery. Certain individuals on qualifying benefits can get a short-term blue badge, but my constituent does not qualify, despite his health condition. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the need to change the scheme, so that we can help people, especially children, avoid this needless trap?
I draw the House’s attention to my membership of Unison. I would also like to pay tribute to former Conservative county councillor David Westley, who I found out has recently passed away. He was the chair of Lancashire’s health and adult services scrutiny committee. I served as his deputy, and we worked together in Lancashire to try to address the problems that the Minister is trying to sort out now. My constituency has large rural areas. Can the Minister assure me that the problems in rural care will be addressed as part of her plans?
I declare my interest as co-chair of the Unison group of Labour MPs and as a unison member. I thank the Minister for the work that she is doing on workforce issues, but many unpaid carers struggle to balance their caring responsibilities with paid employment, with consequences for their household finances and future pensions; indeed, many have to give up work because they cannot balance them. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that carers get the support they need to stay in work if they wish to do so?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this very important debate. Today, we are recognising the nearly 6 million parents, partners, siblings, friends and neighbours in the UK who, day in, day out, provide support, love, care and safety to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The quiet and diligent contributions of unpaid carers is immeasurable and too often goes overlooked. The reality is that such care comes at a significant personal cost. The point of diagnosis is often as life-changing for the carer as it is for the patient, albeit in significantly different ways. I worry that our health and social care systems have become dependent on large sections of society providing care that the state would otherwise be expected to deliver, alongside full-time jobs and other commitments. I want to focus on the role of unpaid cares in dementia care—an area of the system of which I have personal experience. Figures suggest that unpaid carers provide about half the total economic contribution to dementia care in the UK, amounting to an estimated £21.1 billion every year, yet there is too little support for those who provide those services. My mum, brother and mother-in-law are all part of that statistic. Ten years ago, my father and father-in-law were diagnosed with dementia within a few months of each other. I know all too well the harsh reality that can follow such a diagnosis. Too often, families are handed a leaflet and are left to navigate the system. They are expected to become experts in dementia overnight. My family have become experts in spotting the signs of urinary tract infections and in understanding the risk of delirium. Every time delirium hits, my father’s dementia may accelerate, his condition may worsen and a new baseline becomes our new normal. We have learned the absolute imperative of keeping him out of hospital. As the Geller Commission has shown, dementia patients stay seven times longer in hospital than those with the same illness who do not have dementia. Every person’s dementia journey is different. My father-in-law is awake much of the night, whereas my dad is fast asleep throughout the night, and some of the day as well. Every person’s care journey needs to be individually tailored, and I know that important steps are being taken to support local carers on a regional level. In Amber Valley, a small but dedicated team of nurses and healthcare professionals is working with the ICB to deliver the Derbyshire dementia strategy, which focuses on training, awareness and support for unpaid carers. Dementia UK installs Admiral nurses across the country, who are there to support the whole family, but there are too few of them. Local commitments and initiatives such as the Admiral nurse scheme must be matched by national resources. As my own experience attests, accessing support remains one of the greatest challenges facing unpaid carers. One in seven are unaware of any sources of support, while 46% do not know who to contact to access social care. Given that bleak picture, is it any wonder that research suggests that 49% of carers report exhaustion or breakdown as the needs of the person they care for increase? It is often at that point that the consequences are felt across the NHS, with dementia patients needing to be admitted to hospital or A&E, or to have emergency GP appointments. This debate is timely, as the forthcoming modern service framework for frailty and dementia presents a unique opportunity to embed measures that can right the wrongs and establish a care pathway for both those with dementia and their carers. I urge the Minister to listen to calls within the sector for the framework to include national standards for identifying and supporting unpaid dementia carers, and to ensure that it is implemented consistently across every postcode. Part of that work will involve intervening to facilitate better awareness of the support that is already available, including carers’ assessments, and ensuring that the results are followed up on. Finally, will the Minister set out how his Department will ensure that the modern service framework enables health and social care to be joined up and share responsibility for proactive support for both patients and carers after a diagnosis of dementia?
On Tuesday, the head of MI5 warned that AI could help terrorists to develop bioweapons. In the Select Committee, OpenAI and Anthropic told us that statutory AI safety controls are now essential. We are blessed to have the AI Security Institute in this country, but it is no longer enough. Will Ministers confirm that we will have Government amendments on Report of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to ensure that we have statutory AI protections to keep this country safe?
It will surprise no one in this House to hear that I believe growth in every postcode should start in our towns. Will the Minister tell me what we are doing to support brilliant businesses such as Hill Helicopters in my constituency to grow, thrive and export?
Earlier this week, the Prime Minister spoke in this Chamber about the threat that misinformation and disinformation pose to our democracy. Trusted local media is vital to countering the false information that is out there, yet our local media outlets are struggling to stay afloat. That includes Bucks Radio in my constituency, which recently missed out on funding from the Government’s local news outlet fund. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the importance of trusted local media and the Government’s role in supporting it?
Palestinian families have been denied family reunification, and that has been found to be unlawful in the courts. Those families include those of Obaida and Mahmoud, two boys who, last year, met the former Prime Minister, who promised to do everything that he could to ensure that their families were united with them. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on a Palestinian visa scheme, so that we can scrutinise these important issues?
My hon. Friend’s question addresses a key aspect of our recent consultations, which proposed a duty for online marketplaces to take due care to identify, prevent and remove unsafe goods from their sites. The consultation package also proposed a modernised enforcement toolkit, and my intention is that future regulations will set out strong new duties on online marketplaces, backed by appropriate sanctions.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important issue to the House today, reflecting the changes in preferences of both his constituents and those across the country in how they buy products online and interact with online marketplaces. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Which? for the brilliant work it does in this space. Our recent consultations on modernising the product safety framework included proposals for clear duties on online marketplaces, including a clear duty to take due care to identify, prevent and remove unsafe goods from their sites. We also proposed a modernised enforcement toolkit, including civil monetary penalties to complement the existing criminal sanctions; fines would be set proportionally to risk and respond to an offence appropriately. We are also considering bespoke enforcement measures to ensure that online and international supply chain actors can be effectively addressed. We will respond to these consultations in due course, and I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement in this space.
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I know that she and colleagues across the House have campaigned on this, and I share their concerns. In our recent consultation on reforming the product safety framework, we sought views on additional measures and responsibilities that are needed to improve the safety of products sold online, which included lithium-ion batteries and their use in consumer goods such as e-bikes. I would be happy to keep the hon. Lady updated on the progress on this work when we respond in due course.
I know all too well the devastating impact that rogue traders can have on constituents, having had similar discussions in my own constituency and with many colleagues across the House too. That is why my Department supported the independent furniture and home improvement ombudsman’s new approved code and payment protection scheme, backed by independent dispute resolution, to help hard-working families identify trusted traders and ensure that people can spend their money with greater confidence and security. We remain committed to supporting the Competition and Markets Authority and local trading standards in their ability to impose penalties via the courts. This Labour Government are delivering everyday fixes to protect families and give them room to breathe.
I am sorry about that incident with my hon. Friend’s constituent. The damaging impact that that can have, making people who have saved their entire lives for home improvements feel robbed and unsafe in their homes, is dreadful. That is why we are taking action, starting with the backing of the furniture and home improvement ombudsman scheme. I am not complacent in this space: we are determined to ensure that customers know what protections are available and that they can use them with confidence. I look forward to working further in this area.
Regrettably, trading standards has faced a real-terms funding cut of more than 50% since 2010, under the previous Government. The system is therefore under severe strain. I back the incredible work that it does across the country and know how much support it needs. That is why we are committed to backing it and those longer-terms plans to overhaul the wider consumer protection landscape and particularly trading standards to help it continue cracking on with its brilliant job.
The Government are clear that Royal Mail’s quality of service has been unacceptable for too long. Royal Mail published a plan to improve reliability, and I have been frank in my conversations with the CEO that it now needs to increase the pace of improvement and deliver on that plan. I understand that there have been operational challenges in the Lark Lane and Liverpool North delivery offices, and I urge Royal Mail to improve its services for local people. It must do better.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in the House on behalf of her constituents and constituents across the country. Royal Mail’s service must improve quickly. Customers, particularly the most vulnerable, are being let down, and delayed letters, such as legal correspondence and hospital appointment letters, can have serious consequences. When people are paying more for postal services, they rightly expect reliable and timely delivery. The Government have been clear that Ofcom should carefully consider the role of bulk mail and whether additional regulatory measures are needed to secure high standards of reliability for all postal customers. Much of the correspondence that people rely on falls outside the current quality-of-service targets. We will continue to press for a reliable postal service that meets the needs of all users.
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue on behalf of his constituents, and I share his concerns; I know from my own inbox, as a constituency MP, the challenges that arise when people do not receive their post on time and there are significant delays. I have been frank in my conversations with the CEO of Royal Mail that its service has been unacceptable for too long and that the pace of improvement must improve. The public and his constituents deserve a reliable postal service, and they are right to expect better. If he wants to share those data with me and with Royal Mail, and add to that pressure, I would welcome that.
The Government recognise the vital role that post offices play in communities across the UK. We have committed to maintaining the 11,500 national minimum branch requirement, and the Government’s set access criteria, including the requirement that for 90% of the population, their nearest post office should be within one mile of where they live. We are backing this with up to £180 million in network subsidy funding over the next three years to support the cost of meeting those policy requirements, protecting access to crucial services.
I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns about the availability of post office services in York city centre in the coming months. The Post Office has confirmed that it remains committed to providing a replacement branch, and it has received interest from several potential applicants. While these are operational matters for the Post Office, I will ask it to consider capacity concerns. I will keep my hon. Friend updated, and will ask officials to work with her and the Post Office on finding the temporary solution that she rightly mentions.
Hospitality businesses are at the heart of our high streets, communities and local economies, supporting jobs and growth across the UK, and we recognise the pressures that many continue to face. That is why we are providing targeted support for pubs, clubs and live music venues, including 15% business rates relief in 2026-27, and an additional 20% discount from April next year, while reviewing pub and hotel valuations to help ensure a fairer and more predictable business rates system. We are also investing £10 million through a new hospitality grant scheme to support growth, create jobs and strengthen local economies.
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this. Hospitality, as he mentioned, is an absolute key employer of young people in the economy, providing rewarding routes into work. It is a critical sector to help us resolve the NEETs—not in education, employment or training—crisis. That is a key priority for this Government, and we want to work closely with the sector on providing those solutions. I am sure that he will welcome the announcement today of our significant intervention and partnership with the hospitality sector; we are working closely with UKHospitality. We are working on providing job opportunities and new work experience programmes to turn this around, and hospitality is key to that.
My heart sank when I heard the news, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, not only for raising this today, but for all his work in the sector on behalf of his constituents since first coming to this House. I spoke with the chief executive of Carlsberg Britvic yesterday, and I know that the proposal to close the brewery has not been made lightly. He reassured me that the team at Burton have shown exceptional commitment, skill and professionalism, and have made an enormous contribution to Burton upon Trent’s proud brewing tradition. This proposal is not a reflection on them or the quality of their work. Consumer tastes are constantly evolving, and this proposal reflects the particular long-term challenges relating to cask ale, which I have spoken to my hon. Friend about, and on which I will continue to work with him closely. I know that this will be a concerning time for workers at Marston’s. We recognise the impact that these proposals may have on those workers, their families and the local community as the company begins consulting, and I look forward to discussing this further with him.
My first job was in hospitality; I remember it fondly. It has given me skills that I have used throughout my career and life, and it supported my family when we really needed it. I absolutely know the significance and importance of this sector to our economy, and the difference that it can make to people’s lives. It is a key employer of young people across the country—in the hon. Member’s constituency, in mine and in the constituencies of colleagues across the House. It provides a rewarding route into work and is a critical sector to resolving the NEETs crisis and many challenges that we face across the country. As we grow our economy, we want to grow the hospitality sector. I work really closely with the sector and the Hospitality Sector Council to ensure that we look at all the challenges, and at how we can work together to provide more opportunities and jobs and grow the sector in every constituency across this country. I am determined to deliver that.
I thank my hon. Friend and Labour colleagues for their work on this. I agree that the Royal Mail service has been unacceptable for too long, and that the pace of improvement must increase, and my constituents share exactly the same frustrations. The Government expect Ofcom to use its full range of existing tools to secure better outcomes for postal users, and I will continue to work closely with it and with colleagues in the House to deliver that.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter on behalf of his constituents. I know that he shares their frustrations. I have been clear with Royal Mail that the quality of its service has been unacceptable for too long. I understand that the concerns in his constituency relate to the Bexleyheath delivery office and I know that he met Royal Mail representatives this summer. I encourage all Members to raise their concerns directly with Royal Mail management and similarly hold the company to account, as I will continue to do. His constituents deserve a reliable postal service, and they are right that they deserve better.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention, and I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss it further.
I share my hon. Friend’s frustrations and concerns. Whether it is the biggest issue in my inbox and my constituency or from what I have heard from colleagues across the House, it is clear that Royal Mail has to do better, and I have been frank in my discussions with Royal Mail’s chief executive officer that it must deliver improvements at a much quicker pace. I will continue working with my hon. Friend to ensure that we can deliver for his constituents and those across the country who need a reliable postal service.
We work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Departments across Government to ensure that critical infrastructure developments are sustainable for local resource capacity. The planning system takes into account a number of those questions and ought to account for the long-term implications for water and wider resource supply. We have specifically designed our AI growth zones to be investments in areas where there is sufficient energy capacity and where infrastructure can be enhanced.
Let me say three things. First, it is important to be clear on the data. The estimates that we have at the moment suggest data centres account for approximately 0.2% of non-household water usage in England. Secondly, when people build data centres here, we want them to build in the light of our values and what local communities need. That, in turn, means investing, alongside technology infrastructure, in clean energy infrastructure and in wider resourcing locally. Thirdly, I am always keen on ideas for how further improvements and demand flexibility for both energy and water resources can be supported by data centres. I will continue to look at the ideas the hon. Lady has proposed.
I thank my hon. Friend, whose question is one we have discussed at length. The central point is that in the last wave of technology, we built neither public trust nor British technology. In this wave of AI, we are focused on building both trust and technology so we can have sovereign control over what we are building here.