Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
A plethora of interventions, but I have to go to the sister at the back first.
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
I hope to amplify the hon. Lady’s points later in my speech. Glass is not just another packaging material; it is infinitely recyclable.
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
I completely agree. Trying to level the playing field on this EPR measure is the one thing that I hope the Minister will give us comfort on today. Our hospitality industry is really suffering. More generally, I worry where the remaining places of community are in our towns, cities and villages. If we are not protecting the ones we have—the few we have—it is going to be a very dark future. Let me now get back to glass.
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
As I said, I think the principles of the scheme are laudable. What frustrates me is that it is disincentivising using renewable materials, which in the long term are much cheaper. Instead, it is driving businesses to plastics, which have a very real cost on our environment as well as on our pockets. The Minister needs to do anything she can to mitigate that risk, but I hope this debate will grant her the opportunity to do so in a fair and equitable way. Glass supports a circular economy. It underpins supply chains across food, drink and pharmaceuticals. We all support the principle underpinning the EPR—that those placing packaging on the market should pay towards its collection—but, as Members have said, the weight-based fee structure that the Government have chosen to utilise disproportionately penalises glass, making glass significantly more expensive per unit than lighter, less sustainable alternatives like plastic.
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s points. The methodology throughout—I will come on to it later—has been flawed, if not straight wrong in some cases. I would much rather that the research he is talking about—on the methodology—was done years in advance, rather than on the hoof as seems to be happening now. The Government seem to be suggesting that they will retrospectively look at what is happening and make adjustments, but unfortunately for a business and its bottom line, it is not possible to retrospectively charge people for something the Government choose to modify. Let me state one inescapable fact. Glass is heavier than plastic—it simply is. By choosing to base fees on weight rather than on units, which they could have done, the Government are pushing businesses towards switching to a cheaper, less recyclable and much more environmentally harmful packaging. The industry has been told by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the modulation of fees will save glass, but let us be honest: this is too little, too late. Why not get the scheme right at the beginning, rather than trying to modify it later?
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
My hon. Friend makes a point that I was not aware of. I have been in contact with loads of different industries, but not that particular one. It seems as though it is the same sort of double payment that hospitality is facing. That absolutely needs to be addressed. Businesses have also been told that they need to move towards reuse systems. I am sure that both the points we are raising will be mentioned by the Minister in her response. It is true that glass is the perfect material to reuse, but it is not within the power of the glass manufacturing sector to force producers to move to use reusable bottles. Let us be honest: widescale reuse systems in the UK will take significant buy-in from the whole supply chain and will take at least a decade to become a reality, by which point—let me also be honest again—we will not have a glass manufacturing sector in the UK to supply the reusable glass packaging. The signal that the Government are giving to businesses is clear: switch away from glass right now. The result? We are seeing an evident and accelerated shift away from UK-made glass towards both cheaper imports, which now account for—I am really surprised by this—14% of the market, and increasingly towards plastic.
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
I absolutely support what my hon. Friend says. GMB and Beatson Clark have been fantastic on this issue, as have other unions. We should never forget the human impact of the debates that we have in this Chamber. When we talk about numbers, percentages and import tariffs, we forget that it is the people making the products who are suffering the most and facing the uncertainty. A survey conducted by British Glass found that nearly half of businesses say that they have already switched away from glass, or plan to do so, due to EPR fees. Once those decisions are made, and once investment is committed to new packaging formats, they are unlikely to be reversed. Glass manufacturing is not easily replaced. Furnaces represent long-term capital investment—often hundreds of millions of pounds. Decisions about whether to rebuild or reinvest are already being delayed or cancelled, meaning hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in the UK is already being lost. When production shifts overseas and capacity is lost, it is almost impossible to rebuild. I am not talking about short-term disruption. I am talking about permanent industrial decline. If left unchecked, the policy will not just reshape the packaging market; it will hollow out an entire industry. With that decline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) said, comes something even more serious: job losses.
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
That is absolutely my concern. People do not talk about the impact on the supply chain. We already know that at least 350 jobs—more than 5% of the direct workforce—have been lost so far, but we do not know about the impact on the supply chains and associated businesses. These are not abstract numbers; these are well-paid, highly skilled manufacturing jobs, concentrated in industrial communities like mine, where, to be honest, such opportunities are at a real premium. Since I first raised these issues nearly two years ago, I have been contacted by a range of businesses and industry groups, including: UK Hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the UK Spirits Alliance, the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates, O-I Glass, the Scotch Whisky Association, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, GMB, Unite, AB InBev, the all-party parliamentary beer group, the APPG on packaging in the circular economy, the Packaging Federation, Teva Pharmaceuticals, British Glass, and the Campaign for Real Ale. Their concerns are strikingly similar. The EPR is not just affecting glass. Across the packaging sector, businesses are struggling in the face of this poorly designed, poorly implemented policy. Graphic Packaging International employs 57 people in my constituency, and upwards of 1,700 across the UK. It produces a range of fibre-based packaging for household goods, supplying major UK retailers with sustainable and innovative products, which are largely made from renewable or recyclable raw materials. However, like glass, they face unfairly high fees on the basis of being a heavier than their plastic equivalents. That distortion is even greater for fibre-based composite packaging. Industry groups have identified what appear to be substantial errors in the methodology used for DEFRA’s EPR fee calculations for fibre-based packaging. By way of example, in the EPR fee cost breakdown, the cost of FBC collection is more than twice that of paper and board, yet it is collected for recycling with paper and board. How can the costs to local authorities be so radically different? Similar anomalies are observed with other EPR cost categories, including sorting, residual collection and handling and disposal overheads. Costs for managing FBC should be similar to those for paper and board, yet are wildly disproportionate. Industry groups believe that that results from DEFRA seeming to have used data for another, wholly distinct type of FBC—beverage cartons—in its FBC fee calculation. Such elementary errors risk undermining the EPR’s core objectives. The Alliance for Fibre-Based Packaging has already reported evidence that long-standing shifts away from plastic towards more sustainable alternatives are slowing and, in some cases, reversing altogether.
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
I think it is infinitely more than disappointing, but I will follow the hon. Member’s parliamentary language: it is hugely frustrating. Colleagues here are raising the real, human costs of that. Something needs to change, and I do not want that change to be us losing our hospitality and renewable packaging industries. Hospitality businesses have faced similarly unfathomable logic from DEFRA. EPR fees are meant to offset the cost to local authorities of handling and recycling waste. Hospitality businesses’ waste is not collected through public collections, but through commercial waste removal contracts. Yet perversely, the annual burden to British pubs for EPR fees has been estimated by the British Beer and Pub Association to be £50 million. Hospitality businesses are, in effect, being told to pay for the same thing twice. DEFRA has long been aware of this anomaly—I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for his debate on it—but nothing has been done to address it. Packaging EPR fees will disproportionately affect generic medicines, where high-volume, low-margin products risk becoming commercially unviable, increasing the likelihood of supply disruption, medicine withdrawal from the UK and higher costs to the NHS. Medicines manufacturers have minimal flexibility to redesign packaging, because primary packaging is tightly regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The Government’s one-size-fits-all approach is revealed again when we consider social enterprises. The Minister will no doubt be familiar with Belu, which supplies water for parliamentary catering—indeed, Belu water bottles are in front of us on the Table right now. Belu donates 100% of its net profits to WaterAid, which supports clean water, sanitation and hygiene programmes around the world. However, while charities are rightly exempt from EPR fees, no such exemption exists for social enterprises, which are treated exactly the same as for-profit companies. The result for Belu is £1.1 million of EPR costs over the next two years—money that would otherwise be donated to WaterAid. The EPR system adds complexity and uncertainty for businesses. Baseline fees were not finalised until very shortly before liability for EPR was due to begin. Fee modulation remains unclear, and the system allows for retrospective fee calculation, potentially creating exposure to unplanned costs late in the financial cycle.
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
I completely agree with the hon. Member’s points, because I agree with the polluter pays principle—I believe that is at the heart of this issue—but the people who are paying are our workers, our hospitality businesses and the poorest people in the world who would have been getting £1 million. They are the people paying, not the polluters, because this policy is perversely driving businesses to using plastic, which surely is the exact opposite of what it should be trying to do. With all of that in mind, it is hard to escape the conclusion that this is a poorly designed and implemented policy which is having a severe negative impact on British businesses. Despite these concerns, DEFRA has argued that the EPR will in fact create jobs, but that claim simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The figures are not based on official calculations and, critically, the jobs referenced are not comparable to those being lost. They are more likely to be lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in waste management, often at entirely different locations. These mythical jobs will not deliver the same economic value, will not support exports, and will not provide the same level of regional resilience. I must be very clear: we cannot replace high-skilled manufacturing jobs with lower-value roles and then claim an economic net gain. That is not growth; that is managed decline. The EPR is also adding significant inflationary pressures that will be reflected in consumer prices. Producers expect to pass on the vast majority of EPR costs, often over 95%, to the end user. The upshot is that the EPR will not represent a boon to the public purse. On the contrary, this failed policy will cost the UK economy and that cost will be substantial. I have raised these issues time and again, as have other Members. I have had meetings with Secretaries of State, Ministers and civil servants, and I have written, led debates and asked questions, all to no avail. This situation demands urgent action now, not a review in a year’s time. It requires not minor adjustments but immediate intervention to sort out this deeply flawed policy. The glass industry has been clear in its ask: a targeted, time-limited reduction in the glass EPR fees of at least 75%. This is not about abandoning the policy or doing a U-turn; it is about fixing it. The Minister has the opportunity today to stabilise demand, prevent further switching away from glass, protect jobs and investment, and buy time to assess properly the real-world impacts of her policy. Crucially, it would allow the Government to realign the policy with their own original environmental and economic objectives. More broadly, the Government must make sure that the EPR protects UK jobs and investment, that incentives towards less sustainable products are removed, that fees reflect real-world costs, and that businesses have the clarity they need to plan and invest for the future. Across the many sectors that have raised concerns about the EPR, support for its core principle has been universal. Businesses want to play their part in a circular economy, but the current system is not working; it is driving the wrong behaviours, undermining UK businesses, and putting jobs, investment and regional growth at risk. If we continue to get this wrong, the consequences will not be measured in tonnes or targets; they will be measured in job losses, lost industries and lost opportunities for the communities, like mine, that need them most. I urge the Minister today at the Dispatch Box to put this scheme back on track.
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
Can the Minister tell us whether that will be the 75% discount that the glass industry is asking for? Does she know what the falling rates will be, please?
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
It is reassuring that we are going to have the consultation. Would it not have been much better to have had it before the scheme was implemented? The Minister mentioned a meeting with my constituency business, Beatson Clark. That meeting only happened because I urged the previous Secretary of State and the Minister to make it happen, and I assume that the other examples of meetings that have taken place, or not, have been at the insistence of MPs. Why was that work not done before the scheme was rolled out?
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
Perhaps the hon. Member was distracted when I mentioned the issue of me holding a roundtable with all these industries on this very issue, but I am happy to meet colleagues from across the House on these issues. I explained in the point that he perhaps missed that it is tricky because it has to be regulatable—we have to ensure that the regulator can verify what would happen. Of course, it is a complex micro-econometric model. As soon as fees are reduced in one area, they go up in another area. That is the bottom line on all this.
- Hansard source
Israel: E1 Zone Expansion
The E1 settlement expansion programme is clearly designed to undermine a Palestinian state, despite this Government, for the first time in our history, recognising Palestinian statehood. Will my hon. Friend highlight the timeframe that he is working to, for discussions on the FTA, as well as for other actions, including sanctions? I recognise that he cannot talk about the specifics, but will he set out the timeline in order to assure us that it works, in the light of the expansion plan, so that we are not acting after the event, as has often been the case in relation to the Israeli Government’s actions?
- Hansard source
Social Media: Dangerous Content
4. What steps she is taking to help remove dangerous content from social media platforms.
- Hansard source
Social Media: Dangerous Content
I warmly welcome the Government’s plans to ban social media for under-16s. However, when it comes to content promoting eating disorders, the risks do not simply disappear at 16. The eating disorder charity, Beat, recently pushed ChatGPT to stop generating restrictive meal plans altogether, which it did, so it is possible. Other platforms, however, have failed to act, with X still allowing users to search for harmful hashtags, such as #proana and #bonespo—I apologise if that is triggering. Will the Minister work with me and the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group to ensure that platforms such as X can no longer exploit mental ill health for engagement and profit?
- Hansard source
MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition
I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a prohibition of second jobs for hon. Members. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I am delighted to have secured this debate, but let us be totally honest from the start: confidence in our politics has collapsed. People look at Westminster and see a political system increasingly disconnected from their lives. They see stories about freebies, dodgy donations and so-called gifts, and they see politicians collecting six-figure sums from second jobs. They know that the system is not working for them, and it chips away at the public’s trust in Parliament; it damages their confidence in democracy. If we want politics to serve the people, not elite interests, we are going to have to take bold action. That is why I have called this debate today. Banning MPs’ second jobs is one of the key steps to restore trust in politics. I hope that the incoming Prime Minister, when giving their speech on the steps of Downing Street in the coming weeks, commits to real action to clean up our politics, because there are very dangerous forces out there that want to take advantage of public distrust to roll back basic democratic norms, as we have seen in the United States. Before I turn to why we must ban MPs’ second jobs, I want to look at the scale of the problem. All the figures I will reference today are from Sky News’s Westminster Accounts, a database compiled from the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I commend those journalists on the work they have done, but I also want to put on record how unacceptable it is that the public cannot easily access clear information about MPs’ second jobs on Parliament’s own website. The Westminster Accounts has had to navigate the fiendishly complex way Parliament reports this, so there may well be discrepancies in the data, but if so, that is not the fault of the journalists; it is a failure of parliamentary transparency. Parliament needs to address that and start providing this information in a much more accessible way. In total, MPs have taken an eye-watering £11 million in outside earnings since the general election. The top 10 MPs account for over £7 million in total, so just 10 MPs have pocketed nearly two thirds of all second job money declared.
- Hansard source
MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition
I must confess, when I have been out and about in my constituency and in others, I have never met anyone who says, “What we really need to do is pay MPs more.” We are already in the top 5% of earners, so I do not think that paying MPs more is the issue. Being an MP is an incredible privilege—an incredibly well-paid privilege. It is second jobs that we want to stop; we do not want to argue for further pay rises for already very well-paid MPs. We talk about second jobs, but for some MPs there are third jobs, fourth jobs, fifth jobs, sixth jobs and many more. For some, it seems, being an MP is the second job. I am opposed to MPs having second jobs, whether those MPs are Conservative, Reform, Labour or from any other party. I do not say this to make a party political point, but it is a fact that the top 10 includes eight Conservative and two Reform MPs, including Reform’s party leader. Beyond the top 10, looking at all MPs’ outside earnings, Conservative MPs account for around 66% of the total, Reform MPs around 20%, and Labour MPs around 7%. Can I just say—because it needs to be said—that I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), the leader of Reform, is not here? On Monday, I wrote to him publicly, inviting him to come and explain why MPs should be allowed to rake in vast sums from second jobs. Yesterday it came to light that he has been getting paid £22,500 per hour promoting a gold dealer, which takes his second job earnings to approaching £2 million in just two years since the general election. That is more than £22,000 per hour for a man who last year argued that a minimum wage of £10.85 per hour for young people in his constituency, my constituency and constituencies across the country may be too much. Some man of the people! It is all very Donald Trump. We hear a lot about why second jobs are acceptable, but the public know that when an MP can earn more for a couple of hours’ so-called work than a nurse earns in a year, there is something deeply broken in our politics and change is needed. There is no doubting the scale of the problem. In 2022, I presented the Members of Parliament (Prohibition of Second Jobs) (Motion) Bill, a private Member’s Bill for a total ban on MPs’ second jobs. I hope that can become law under the new Prime Minister. I welcome the steps taken by this Government to restrict second jobs, but so far they go nowhere near far enough. We need a proper ban. The key principle of my Bill is straightforward. Being an MP is a well-paid privilege. The nearly £100,000 a year salary places us in the highest 5% of earners in the country, so being an MP should be a full-time job. The public elect us to represent them, to fight their corner and to devote our time to their concerns. They do not elect MPs to spend their time lining their pockets. When MPs do that, they short-change the public who pay them and they undermine our democracy. We even have 18 MPs who have been paid more from their second jobs than from their MP’s salary. For them, it seems, that being a Member of Parliament is a second job. If someone wishes to pursue a highly paid private sector career, they are entitled to do so. But if that is the MP’s priority, they should resign. Our democracy would be better for it. We do not need MPs here chasing ever more cash. Another obvious reason to ban MPs’ second jobs is that they create real conflicts of interest. An MP should have one loyalty—loyalty to the people who sent them here. The moment other employers pay an MP tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or in some cases even well over a million, divided loyalties arise. People rightly ask, “Who comes first: the constituents who elected them or the company paying them?” No one can serve two masters. Even if people claim there is no conflict of interest, it is clear that second jobs fuel a growing sense that politics is becoming detached from everyday life. Politics should be about public service, not personal enrichment. So many families across the country are under massive financial pressure, struggling through no fault of their own. They work long hours, struggle with rising bills and worry themselves sick about making ends meet. Is it any surprise that people are angry when MPs get more from their second jobs than ordinary workers earn in a year? I have campaigned against second jobs for many years. When I do, one argument always gets raised. We are told that second jobs provide valuable real-world experience. Frankly, that argument is laughable. Highly paid second jobs do not bring MPs closer to the real world, because real people do not live like that. Huge second salaries are the experience of a tiny elite, not of the vast majority of constituents we are here to serve. It is funny that the MPs who claim to want real-world experience never seem to find it doing the jobs of ordinary workers, such as stacking shelves, driving buses or caring for the elderly in a care home. I did not find too many of those jobs in the list of MPs’ extra earnings. The reason is obvious: it is really about getting money, not real-world experience. If MPs genuinely wanted real-world experience, they would seek it where real people actually work, not in corporate board rooms. When people say that Parliament should benefit from a diverse range of life experience and professional expertise, I totally agree; but that should be from the experiences they gained before being elected, not from corporate contracts secured because they are MPs. The other argument we always hear is that a ban would be too difficult, but it would not. My Bill shows exactly how it can be done. It would prohibit MPs from holding paid second jobs, while allowing sensible exceptions. The Bill is not about stopping a genuine public service. A doctor or nurse treating patients is serving the public; sitting on a corporate board for large pay cheques is not. My Bill would not stop someone doing the limited hours of work needed to maintain professional qualifications, nor would it stop someone working out a short notice period when unexpectedly elected to Parliament.
- Hansard source
MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition
I thank my hon. Friend for her important point. The details of the Bill could be debated and amended in the House and at Committee stage, if it were taken forward, as I invite the next Prime Minister to do. I was trying to make the point that, if someone needs to do a handful of hours per year to remain on a professional register, I would have no objection. Perhaps the Bill can be enhanced and improved, including by my hon. Friend, if it progresses further. Beyond the limited exceptions that I have outlined, the practice of second jobs should end.
- Hansard source
MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition
The hon. Member has come forward with a very good idea. Of course, a party could change its own rules and expectations in that regard, but to fully clean up politics, I think that this should be passed by Parliament. This issue is going through the Modernisation Committee at the moment, and the discussions taking place there are very important. Some will say that my restrictions are too tough. They are tough, but trust in politics has been damaged over many years, and rebuilding that trust requires bold action. That is what the public want. Parliament must show that it understands that the rot runs deep and cannot be tackled with half measures. There should be no more reviews or excuses; action is needed. I hope that the next Prime Minister will help to clean up politics and defend our democracy, starting by ending the ludicrous gravy train of MPs’ second jobs, which quite rightly turns the public’s stomachs.
- Hansard source
MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition
I thank every single Member of Parliament who has contributed to the debate and the Minister for her constructive and encouraging response. The message from the debate to the public is clear. Many of us understand and believe that when Members of Parliament chase corporate cash, they are not only short-changing their constituents, but undermining our democracy. That is a very serious matter indeed. Trust and public confidence in politicians, Parliament and our democratic process has never been lower. We have a historic duty to turn that around. That means change. It means, among other things, banning the gravy train of MPs’ second jobs. I look forward to passing the Minister a copy of the Bill I drafted back in 2022. It is a full, comprehensive plan. I also hope to speak to the next Prime Minister about that plan, because it could be part of a new era. It could be part of a fresh start to show that we are not all the same, that we defend our democracy and that we believe in public service and a better kind of politics. I thank every single Member who has contributed to the debate and you for chairing it, Mr Western. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of a prohibition of second jobs for hon. Members.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q2. A good, safe and secure home is the foundation of everything, and access to a council home at social rent continues to be the biggest issue that my constituents get in touch with me about. However, under this Labour Government in 2024-25, councils delivered the highest annual number of social and affordable homes since 1991-92. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must build on this achievement and accelerate progress on council house building to ensure we deliver the biggest council housing programme since the post-war era?
- Hansard source
Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The conflict in the middle east has left British families and businesses exposed to volatile gas prices, which has made things more expensive for those who drive for work, including care workers. Even though much of the country’s electricity comes from cheaper renewables and nuclear, electricity prices are still largely set by gas, which means that running a wash, turning on the lights or boiling the kettle has also become more costly for families across the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in May, the Government are keenly aware of the costs that the conflict in the middle east will impose on British people. The Government have taken steps to put our economic security and national security first. The Chancellor has committed to doing what she can to support families and businesses; to being responsive to a changing world; and to being responsible, in the national interest. Some legacy renewable energy generators stand to benefit from the disparity when higher gas prices determine the price of electricity. Without any new costs or risks, those generators receive extraordinary revenues. The electricity generator levy already recoups some of the excess returns made by renewable generators when electricity prices are over £82.61 per MWh, but the Government have decided to increase the rate of the levy from 45% to 55% from today, 1 July. The rate rise will have two main benefits. It will ensure that a larger proportion of any exceptional revenues from high gas prices are passed back to the Government. That will provide a vital revenue stream, so that money is available to the Government to support businesses and families with the impact of the conflict in the middle east. In the longer term, the increase in the EGL rate will also encourage participation in the new voluntary contract for difference scheme, announced in April—part of a broader package of measures that break the link between electricity and gas prices. Importantly, new investment is excluded from the levy. This ensures that the measure is targeted solely at legacy windfall returns, and does not deter future clean energy development. In March, the Government announced a review of mileage rates for employees who use their own vehicle for work, and for the self-employed who use the simplified expenses rates. In recognition of the pressures facing drivers as a result of the conflict in the middle east, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in May the first uprating of mileage rates in 15 years. It was backdated to April, to provide immediate support to both groups. Mileage rates will increase for 2026-27 from 45p to 55p for the first 10,000 miles and 25p thereafter, with effect from 6 April 2026.
- Hansard source
Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill
I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful intervention. I absolutely agree that this will make a real difference to those workers who drive for their work. This is a long overdue measure, and I am very happy to put the Bill forward today. The proposals represent the largest ever increase to the mileage rates, benefiting around 2 million employees and 1 million self-employed individuals, and saving over £120 a year for a worker doing 6,000 business miles. Looking beyond 2026-27, the Government have already committed to a review of the rates, and will set that out at the Budget. Recognising the key role that the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods across the UK, and its disproportionate exposure to fuel costs, the Government are introducing a 12-month holiday from vehicle excise duty for the majority of heavy goods vehicles for licences taken out between 1 July 2026—today—and 30 June 2027. That will save a typical HGV £600, on top of savings from fuel duty. Fuel costs make up a substantial proportion of HGV operating costs, and this action will help prevent cost pressures arising from the conflict in the middle east spreading across the economy. The announcements on mileage rates and HGV VED were part of a wider package of measures announced in May, including on fuel duty. In total, the decisions taken since the 2024 general election to freeze fuel duty will save motorists 11p per litre, or £120 for the average car, £250 for the average van and over £2,000 for the average HGV, compared to previous plans. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
- Hansard source
MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing today’s debate. When he talks about second jobs, I think about my constituents who have to work second jobs to pay the bills. That is where our attention should be focused. On professional qualifications, I recognise that being an MP is a full-time job. As a result, my professional qualifications had to fall, because I needed to give myself to my constituents 24/7. Will he look again at that provision in his Bill? The work we do here must be for our constituents, and we must not be distracted from that, even by professional roles such as the one I once held.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T5. The broadcasting, entertainment and arts unions all-party parliamentary group heard deeply concerning evidence from writers, journalists, musicians and performers that their work is being scraped, ripped off and stolen by sophisticated AI models for training purposes. When will the Secretary of State introduce laws to protect the creative industries? Will she meet with the APPG and unions to discuss this matter further?
- Hansard source
Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re
The Government have invested £45 million in flood defences in York. That will provide resilience until 2039, which coincides with the ending of the Flood Re scheme. It is important for us to think about how, in the longer term, we will support people with that risk-sharing approach. Will the Minister also consider and consult on the position of leaseholders, who are excluded from the scheme although they have responsibility and pay the costs for their own personal buildings?
- Hansard source
MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing the debate and on his extremely powerful speech. Despite being members of the same party, we come from very different traditions within the labour movement, but I am pleased that on this issue—one that is critical to commanding public confidence in the mother of all Parliaments—we are in violent agreement. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which builds on my experience at two FTSE 100 firms advising on, among other things, how to manage conflicts of interest. Let us remind ourselves that only 4% of the public believe politicians do what is best for the country, according to YouGov, while polling from More in Common found that 87% of Britons have either not very much or no trust in politicians. Despite reforms made shortly after the last general election, despite our own registration and code of conduct requirements, which are independently policed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and despite an ongoing inquiry into outside employment being undertaken by the Committee on Standards, this institution is not moving swiftly enough or with enough ambition to satisfy me that I can look my constituents in the eye and tell them that the risks—perceived or actual—around outside employment are properly managed to my satisfaction. I mentioned those measures taken or in train because I give credit where credit is due. It would be remiss of me to say that nothing has been done—clearly that is not the case. The Government’s decision to remove the exemption that allowed MPs to provide advice on current affairs and how Parliament works was very welcome, but the issue has not gone away. Before, it was Owen Paterson, Matt Hancock, Nadine Dorries and Scott Benton who caused significant damage to the reputation of individual Members of Parliament and our democratic institutions, but now we have other Members of this House racking up huge salaries elsewhere. They have been warned in advance that I intend to mention them today. Take the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is conspicuous, as ever, by his absence. He has declared a total of 16 other jobs and around 800 hours worked alongside his role as a Member of this place. Just yesterday, the Financial Times reported that he is receiving £22,500 an hour for promoting a gold bullion dealer—not bad for someone who has also received what he has variously described as a “gift” or a “reward” from his billionaire crypto backer, Christopher Harborne. Mr Western, you know my views about money in politics from past conversations. Meanwhile, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) chalked up around 500 hours of outside employment in the last year. Indeed, the £60,000 paid out by a Luxembourg bank in May alone is one and a half times the average national salary. Do the people of Clacton or of Torridge and Tavistock not deserve a full-time MP? On 6 November 2024, the Modernisation Committee invited the Committee on Standards to inquire into whether outside interests or employment should be reformed in the Members’ code of conduct. I think the Standards Committee is still hearing evidence; the last evidence was heard on 15 July 2025, and no report has yet been published. Regrettably, it feels like we are moving at a glacial speed, when outside these walls, business is going on at an increasingly fast-moving pace. In my old line of work as an anti-bribery and corruption compliance specialist, it would be unheard of for an employee to be holding down two jobs, unless they held part-time elected office or were, for instance, an armed forces reservist. Why are second jobs permitted? In my view, they are a hangover from Victorian days. They do not reflect modern ways of working and do not account for modern demands on any hon. Member’s time, including 24/7 rolling news and constituents making contact by email or phone. I say yes to continuous professional development, but we are living in a wild-west scenario with no controls on how much time is spent, or how much income can be gained, on work outside Parliament. Members can earn 10 times their parliamentary salary on what are supposedly second, third or even fourth jobs. That gives rise to a question that any member of the public would be within their right to ask: if a Member of this House is earning more outside the House than they are as a Member, is being an elected representative not in fact their second job and their lower priority? That matters because it gives the impression that Members’ obligations in this place are not at the forefront of our minds. Mooted reforms to lobbying and civil service governance must sit alongside modernisation of how this place operates if we are to build a functional 21st century system that prevents inherent conflicts of interest from arising and encourages the right behaviours from all Members. If we expect the ministerial code to be updated, electoral law to be reformed and the revolving door to be policed more stridently, we should also expect demands on this place to be tightened. I agree with the likes of Transparency International and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East that there should be a total proscription on all secondary employment, except in order to maintain a professional qualification, undertake political activity or provide an essential public service. I know that the people of Bolton West deserve every hour I can find in the day to do what I can to improve my constituency. Do the people of each and every constituency in this country not deserve the same?
- Hansard source
MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition
The shadow Minister is making an important point about the distinction between outside employment and paid advocacy. Could he expand on what seems to be his view that Members of this House should be treated differently from serving members of the armed forces, members of the judiciary, civil servants and other public servants for whom there are restrictions on taking outside commercial jobs in addition to their core role? What does he think is different about Members of Parliament?
- Hansard source
Drink driving, drug driving and dangerous driving laws
The petition states: The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that current laws and procedures relating to drink driving, drug driving, and dangerous driving are failing to protect the public, as delays between arrest and prosecution allow suspected high-risk drivers, including repeat offenders, to remain on the roads, contributing to preventable deaths such as that of Tim Burgess. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce urgent reforms, known as “Tim’s Law”, to strengthen the response to drink, drug and dangerous driving, including the immediate suspension of driving licences for those suspected of serious driving offences, the introduction of rapid evidential roadside saliva testing for drug driving, stronger measures to tackle repeat offending by dangerous drivers, and improved monitoring and enforcement of high-risk drivers. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003211]
- Hansard source
Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility
In my constituency we have three breweries—Verdant, Keltek, and St Ives Brewery based in Hayle. Does my hon. Friend agree that those breweries are about not just producing excellent product—which they all do—but the communities that grow up around them? Does she agree that there is a risk of social damage if we are unable to support those small breweries, and that this proposal risks that happening?
- Hansard source
Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re
I thank the Minister for her statement. The vital importance of protecting and insuring people against flooding is highlighted by the case of my constituents who live next to Thingwall allotments, where extensive surface water flooding has blighted their lives for four years. Residents of Abbeystead Road have been forced to continually use flood sacks, sandbags and pumps to protect their homes, and gardens have become unusable. I am particularly concerned about the welfare of elderly constituents in poor health and families with children. Despite my representations over the past four years, Liverpool city council and United Utilities have not resolved the issue; instead, the council is sending tankers to pump out the water, at what must be considerable cost. I have written to the Minister, and although I know she is extremely busy, will she meet me, residents, Liverpool city council and United Utilities to find a resolution once and for all?
- Hansard source
Israel: E1 Zone Expansion
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for securing this question. I, too, attended the visit to Israel and Palestine last month. The scale of the E1 settlement, as has been described, is massive, but just as insidious is the trend, which has been going on for a long time, of Israeli settlements surrounding Palestinian villages across Palestine and cutting those villages off from vital services such as water and other utilities. Also in the ranks of the insidious actions of the Israeli Government is the fact that they demand that taxation from Palestine must go through Israel and then be repaid to the Palestinian Authority. That money accounts for some 70% to 75% of the Palestinian Authority’s revenue. No money has been paid since May 2025, which perhaps explains why they cannot do all the things that the Opposition would like them to do. Is that an area we can put pressure on to ensure that the Palestinian Authority has its own revenue, which it is entitled to, to do its work?
- Hansard source
Early Years Funding: Hampshire
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) for securing this important debate, and all hon. Members who are present. I will start by also thanking all the wonderful staff who work in early years settings in her constituency and across Hampshire. They do a brilliant job and give all our children the best possible start in life. They deserve all our thanks and recognition. The hon. Lady made a number of fair points that I will address in my speech, but I will say at the outset that for the first time in a long time this Government have prioritised the early years. We have put record investment into the early years, with £9.5 billion next year. We have stretching targets to ensure that record proportions of children are ready for school. We are opening Best Start family hubs across the country and network sites, encouraging integration between our local services and early education providers. Through our best start in life strategy, we are determined to have the back of providers, ensuring that the workforce is brilliantly supported to continue doing such a fantastic job for our children and young people. It was important to start my remarks by situating us in that important context. I will move on to my substantive speech and address the points that the hon. Lady raised. The Labour Government have delivered a record expansion of free childcare, halving childcare costs for families, boosting family finances and improving children’s life chances, driving towards record proportions of children being ready for school. Not only are we saving working parents thousands of pounds, but we are giving every child excellent early education, which they will need to thrive later.
- Hansard source
Early Years Funding: Hampshire
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving me the opportunity to thank the fantastic early years staff in my constituency of Reading West and Mid Berkshire and across Reading, who do a brilliant job for our children. As a constituency MP, as well as a Minister, I know that giving every child the best possible start in life is so important for their future life chances. If we get it right in the early years, it makes a transformational difference as they grow older. The work we are doing is thanks to our brilliant early education sector, which has worked tirelessly to deliver the large expansion of childcare, making it such a success. We have a responsibility to ensure that the sector is financially sustainable to deliver the entitlements and high-quality early years provision. That is why we are investing record amounts in early education and why, through our proposals, we have the back of the sector. In 2026-27, we expect to provide over £9.5 billion for the early years entitlements, more than doubling annual public investment in the early years compared with 2023-24. We are investing over £1 billion more than last year to deliver a full year of expanded entitlements and an above-inflation increase to entitlements funding rates. The national average funding rate increases continue to reflect the forecast cost pressures on the sector, including the national living wage, and they take into account the wider workforce pressures felt by the sector that the hon. Member for North East Hampshire mentioned. On average nationally, we have increased the three and four-year-old hourly funding rate by 4.95%, the two-year-old hourly funding rate by 4.36% and the funding rate for the nine months to two-year-old entitlement by 4.28%. That investment, alongside the hard work and dedication of countless colleagues in the sector, means that working families are saving an average of £8,000 a year. There has also been a benefit in Hampshire from those rate increases. The rates set for Hampshire have seen increases of 3.6% for three to four-year-olds, 2.9% for two-year-olds and 2.8% for under-twos. That means that Government-paid rates for Hampshire are £6.38 for three to four-year-olds, £8.73 for two-year-olds and £11.81 for under-twos. That compares relatively favourably with average rates, which are marginally above those figures. This demonstrates, I think, our commitment to properly funding our early years settings to continue to deliver on this vital mission. Hourly rates vary between local authorities, reflecting the relative needs of the children and the different costs of delivering provision across the country. Those rates are calculated using the early years national funding formula, which is used to target funding to local authorities where it is needed most. We believe that that approach is fair, efficient and transparent. Of course, we keep funding rates under review, and I assure the hon. Member that the team will have listened carefully to her points today. She may also be interested to know that, as we committed in the best start in life strategy, we plan to review early years funding and consult on changes to how we distribute that funding. I would welcome her contribution to that review. The consultation will begin imminently, and I ask her and everybody here today to encourage their constituents to feed into it. We are also investing to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds and with additional needs to ensure that every child, no matter their circumstances, has the best start in life. On top of the largest ever uplift to the early years pupil premium in 2025-26, this year we increased early years pupil premium rates by 15%, equivalent to up to £655 per eligible child per year. We also expect to spend over £90 million on maintained nursery school supplementary funding in 2026-27. The best start in life strategy sets out our plan to boost uptake of the 15-hour entitlements to two, three and four-year-olds by working with local authorities and family hubs and tracking data through the local outcomes framework. The hon. Member for North East Hampshire mentioned the vital issue of SEND. To support children with SEND, a further £47 million is being provided in 2026-27 to support greater inclusion of children with special educational needs and disabilities as part of our three-year £1.6 billion inclusive mainstream fund. That is on top of mandatory SEN inclusion funds, through which providers can access support for children with early and emerging needs in their settings. Through the disability access fund, eligible children can also receive £975 per child per year to support reasonable adjustments. Early years settings will also benefit from a dedicated early years offer within a £200 million national training package and access to specialist advice from health and education professionals through Experts at Hand. I assure the hon. Member that we are working tirelessly on this vital issue to ensure that every child with additional needs gets the help and support they need. The hon. Lady also talked about the vital importance of the workforce. We know that we must invest in the workforce to ensure the best possible future for the early education system in this country. That is one reason why, earlier this month, we launched a £4,500 payment to attract and retain qualified nursery teachers in the communities that need them most, starting in 10 areas and expanding to 30 later this year. The scheme will boost outcomes for children and allow more families to access their funded childcare entitlement. Alongside that, we committed in the BSIL strategy to continue supporting the sector to grow and professionalise, and I assure Members that work on that is continuing at pace. Our record expansion of childcare means that the Government now fund around 80% of childcare hours in the country, which is a remarkable figure. In effect, it means that we have created a new public service, and we must ensure that that public service is working for providers, parents and children. We announced at the autumn Budget 2025 that the Department is leading a review of early education and childcare support, provided by different parts of the Government. Our review will set out a new vision for the early education and care system—one that builds children’s life chances and supports parents’ work choices, and one that is simpler and easier to use for both providers and parents, improving access and the impact of the Government’s investment in children and families. I look forward to engaging with colleagues from across the House as we make progress on that review. I also look forward to engaging widely with the sector, which is wonderfully diverse. It is important for me to say at the Dispatch Box how much we value the many private and voluntary nurseries that are operating at a brilliant level to provide such a great service for our children and young people. They will be at the heart of the review and of any future system. I conclude by thanking all Members for their thoughtful contributions. It is clear that we share a common goal to ensure that every child has the best possible start in life and that every family can access high-quality, affordable and flexible childcare. Despite our record funding, I recognise the challenges faced by some in the sector, particularly the costs that providers face and funding distribution. That is why we are continuing to work closely with them to refine our funding approach through consultation and to always make sure that we are listening, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Hampshire. Through our consultation and review, we can ensure that our early education system fulfils the ambition that we all have for it. This is about more than childcare; it is about opportunity and life chances. I remain confident that, working together, we can deliver a system that truly meets the needs of every child and every family. Question put and agreed to.
- Hansard source
Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill
The shadow Minister speaks of the need for ambition, but does he not agree that there is little that is more ambitious than breaking the link between the cost of gas and electricity, which so many of our constituents have called on us to do in recent months?
- Hansard source
Regeneration in Reddish
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing this debate, and for using this opportunity to highlight so powerfully not only the brilliant things about his constituency and Reddish, but the challenges that need to be addressed. The regeneration of our towns and cities is at the heart of this Government’s core mission to deliver growth and prosperity in all corners of the country. Protecting and enhancing local areas, including vital community assets such as libraries, leisure facilities and health facilities, is central to that work. I know that that is felt particularly keenly in neighbourhoods across Stockport, including Reddish, which my hon. Friend has spoken about today. Too many neighbourhoods have been let down and left behind after decades of under-investment and many years of austerity—areas such as Reddish have paid a heavy price. I know that political choices have to be made, but the consequences of the choices made in the austerity years are still being felt by people in Reddish. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that the impact of years of decline has not been felt equally. That is why it is crucial that this Government are relentless in focusing on growth and regeneration to raise living standards across the country. By working in partnership to invest in and empower all regions of this country, we will kick-start growth and work to address the imbalances that exist between and within regions. Funds such as the local regeneration fund and the UK shared prosperity fund have helped local areas to regenerate, but there have been limits. I am pleased that residents in Stockport will have benefited from a number of schemes financed by both funds, including for new employment spaces, improved rail access and walking and cycling routes, all of which are aimed at bolstering the local economy, connectivity and public health. However, as my hon. Friend has said, too many legacy funds were pitting places against each other through competitive bidding, which led to places such as Reddish being left behind. Those funds are coming to a close, and the Government have been looking at how local projects are funded, introducing a longer-term approach that provides sustainable and predictable support for local authorities. The truth is that elected local leaders have the expertise on how to invest in their communities. Having served as a local council leader myself, I feel that very strongly, and I know that, regardless of political party affiliation, the interests of local communities are best understood by local leaders. That is why the Government have committed to a series of new devolved levers and flexible funds to regenerate places, including by introducing new funds for mayoral strategic authorities. In its integrated settlement, Greater Manchester has been allocated £141 million of local growth funding over the next four years. That enables strategic, place-based investment, meaning that money will be targeted where it is needed most, addressing challenges for areas that need additional support to get projects off the ground. We have also announced city investment funds, which will place money directly into the hands of mayors to deliver new housing and to get existing projects moving forward. Local authorities are, of course, essential partners in that work. We know that mayoral strategic authorities work closely with their constituent councils to shape priorities, as they should, including by co-designing interventions and ensuring that funding reflects local need. One example of new and locally led delivery is the Pride in Place programme, which I am glad my hon. Friend referred to. Over the next decade, it will deliver £2 million per year directly to the local community in Brinnington, which is just on the other side of Reddish Vale country park. As I say, local people know what changes are needed for their community to thrive. That is why decision making on how those funds are spent sits with local neighbourhood boards. They will decide how to spend that money, whether it is on local arts, culture, heritage, sports, parks or something else that they think is important for their community.
- Hansard source
Regeneration in Reddish
I entirely agree that local government has for too long been underfunded, and we are, as a Labour Government, having to respond to 14 years of deep austerity. Having spent 10 years in local government, I would want to see more if the pot were endless, but politics is full of choices, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said. Before us is the choice being made by this Government to ensure that we target resources at the areas that need them most. Projects such as Pride in Place, and the record amount of money given to local authorities across the country, demonstrate that. There is much more to do, which is why I welcome this debate. My hon. Friend has highlighted the need for more investment in Reddish. I was pleased to hear that, since the launch of the Pride in Place fund, really good progress has been made, but there is more to do, and I hear his strong representations. I know that local services, including decent library services, are a lifeline to many people up and down the country, including in Reddish and other parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency. I pay tribute to the individuals he mentioned in his speech, some of whom contribute on a voluntary basis. If it were not for the voluntary sector, and for individuals who help communities through their activities, we would be much worse off as a country. I pay tribute to those individuals, as well as to local council officers who work in frontline services and care so deeply and passionately about things such as library services. We all agree that regeneration and protecting community assets are important. Investing in services, particularly libraries, is crucial. So many communities up and down the country want to see more of that. The most effective way to enshrine the needs of our communities in regeneration, to ensure that it works for them, is to equip local leaders with the necessary skills and tools to make that happen, and to ensure that we give them the voice and the levers that they need. I am pleased to see progress in the borough of Stockport, not only through new flexible spending powers granted to the Greater Manchester combined authority, and new funds and announcements to generate growth in the city region, but from empowering the local community to deliver and enhancing areas through projects such as Pride in Place. My hon. Friend is right to say that the co-operation and co-production of services and regeneration, with the leadership of Members of Parliament, residents, and local authorities—which, in my experience always have good intentions, even if we do not always agree with their political choices—is an opportunity to shape a local place. The Government’s approach recognises that different areas require different interventions tailored to local circumstances. We must not only focus on the immediate challenges, but continue to ensure that funding goes in the right direction for the long term. I very much welcome and accept the kind invitation from my hon. Friend to visit Reddish and his wider constituency—I would be delighted to visit. I note that I was not invited to drink cider, but I shall invite myself to do that, too, alongside the visit to the hat museum. I thank him once again for securing this important debate and for being such a strong champion for his constituents. Question put and agreed to.
- Hansard source
Regeneration in Reddish
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for regeneration in Reddish. It is a pleasure to serve in this debate with you and other colleagues, Mr Western. I thank everyone who has contacted me regarding the status and future of Reddish library and Reddish baths, and more widely about investment across Reddish. The strength of local feeling on the issue is clear. Reddish grew rapidly during the industrial revolution as canals and railways brought cotton mills, engineering works and brick-making industries to the area. In 1901, it was officially incorporated into the borough of Stockport. Following industrial decline, many factories closed, and today Reddish is mainly a residential area with a thriving community. Reddish is new to the Stockport constituency following parliamentary boundary changes in 2024. I am proud to represent the area. I welcome the fact that this Labour Government have increased central Government funding for Stockport council: by 2028-29, Stockport’s core spending power will rise by 7.5%. However, that is below the average increase for English councils. I have consistently called on the Labour Government to deliver the fair funding that Stockport deserves after years of under-investment. The uplift marks a clear change in direction compared with the coalition years, when Stockport was hit by deep austerity cuts. I call on the Liberal Democrat-run Stockport council to take investment in Reddish seriously.
- Hansard source
Regeneration in Reddish
In meetings with the hon. Lady I have pushed the Government for more funding for Stockport, and I just mentioned that the Government should go beyond what the 7.5% increase will deliver. I agree that more deprived and lower-income areas across Stockport and Greater Manchester deserve more attention; we cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach. As a politician, I will make political points, but I hope she sees that my voting record and my record in Hansard show that I do what is best for Stockport.