Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I inform the House that Lords amendments 21, 22, 29, 32 to 34, 37, 38, 43 to 48, 51 to 59, 62, 77 and 78 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If any of these Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. I call the Minister to move the motion. I believe it is her debut, so congratulations and welcome—enjoy. Clause 1 Sale of tobacco etc
With this it will be convenient to discuss: Lords amendments 2 to 27. Lords amendment 28, and Government amendments (a) to (c) consequential on Lords amendment 28. Lords amendment 29, and Government amendments (a) to (c) consequential on Lords amendment 29. Lords amendments 30 to 123.
I call the shadow Minister.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Knife crime and drugs are destroying too many lives in our country, and stop and search is the best tool we have to take them off our streets. Does the Minister agree that the only people who should have anything to fear from stop and search are criminals? If so, why will she not adopt our proposal to allow the police to act on a single suspicion indicator, so that we can treble stop and search, and take weapons and drugs off our streets?
On 30 June 2024, 96,642 people were in asylum accommodation. Latest figures show that there are now more than 103,000, so despite the creative interpretation, that number has gone up, not down. There is a distinct lack of gang-smashing, crossings are up by 45%, and the Government’s new border security commander has already given up and quit. When will the Government accept that their approach is making things significantly worse?
Order. The hon. Gentleman can give way, but the hon. Member for Strangford knows, because he has been here a very long time, that it is courtesy and a convention of the House to be in the Chamber at the start of somebody’s speech before trying to intervene—I think he came in some minutes after the beginning of the speech. It is entirely up to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, but that is the usual courtesy.
The mover of the motion has a couple of minutes to wind up.
Six days ago, the UK Government’s security group rightly launched a leak inquiry into the leaking of very sensitive information from the National Security Council. I do not expect the Defence Secretary to comment on an ongoing inquiry, but does he agree on these principles? First, the very least that our armed forces should expect when they are being sent into harm’s way is for the political leadership of this country to not leak secret and top-secret information. Secondly, whoever it is—a Cabinet Minister, a senior official or a junior official—when caught, they should be sacked.
The United Kingdom remains one of the most tolerant nations in the world, but social cohesion can never be taken for granted, as the Minister knows. As well as the welcome work to increase security around faith schools and places of worship, what more can the Government do through the Secretary of State for Education to teach all communities that tolerance and respect for all is a fundamental tenet of being British? The Minister mentions the Bell review. I welcome the £7 million of funding, but the review is looking at schools and colleges, not at universities. A recent report showed that 49% of Jewish students have witnessed glorification of Hamas and Hezbollah on campus. What more can the Minister do to work with universities, not just schools and colleges, to root out antisemitism?
I would also like to start by thanking the Lords for their very hard work. I do not think the Government won a single vote during the Bill’s passage in the other place. Over the past few months, we have seen how enthusiastic the Government are to raid savings. In particular, they are very keen to raid pension pots. Whether by taking powers to mandate private pension funds to invest in Government white elephants or through the Bill we are debating tonight, the Government have established beyond any doubt that they have no interest whatsoever in savers and strivers. Pensions are important. They provide for security in retirement. The pact that has been established between the state and the pension saver, which goes back to the 1920s, is all about not just helping savers but taking the strain off the state: encourage saving now and there will not be a burden on the state of an impoverished pension in the future. Under the previous Government, we saw the roll-out of auto-enrolment, bringing 10 million people into the savings culture, and we introduced the triple lock to reverse the decline in the value of the state pension under the previous Labour Government. Despite those positive steps, we recognise that people are still not saving enough for their retirement. As the Government’s own analysis shows, 50% of savers are projected to miss their retirement income targets set by the 2005 Pensions Commission, so we need to do better. I know there is cross-party consensus on that point, if nothing else, so let us be honest: the changes to salary sacrifice arrangements will do the complete opposite. As the Association of British Insurers and Pensions UK have outlined, we should be improving our current offering and providing new opportunities. Instead, the Government are making the situation worse in a desperate attempt to balance the Government’s books, conveniently in three years’ time. Frankly, it makes little sense and that is why we oppose this legislation. The point of salary sacrifice arrangements is that they incentivise certain behaviours. That is why people are allowed to use these schemes to put money towards not just pensions but workplace nurseries, childcare vouchers and cycle-to-work schemes. Those are all good things. However, in this case the Government have singled out pensions and are attacking one of the most important things that people should be saving towards—their pensions. This is hard-earned taxpayers’ money that could be going towards a good thing. Instead, the Bill will remove an avenue that 7.7 million employees are currently using. The Bill will add even more cost to the 290,000 businesses and charities that use it. It will pile more cost on to students already saddled with student loans. It will harm pensions adequacy and force more people to rely on the state, pushing more costs on to the next generation. I am proud that my colleagues in the Lords, as well as Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench peers, understand those concerns. The Opposition remain opposed to the Bill, but the amendments do go some way to address those issues and support the stated objectives of this policy, even though we disagree with the fundamental policy. Lords amendments 1 and 7 would make basic rate taxpayers exempt from this policy. That would protect a group who typically under-save and allow them to continue to put savings into their pensions. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) may be interested in listening to this, because he raised a very important point about lower rate taxpayers. The amendments are identical to the amendment we tabled in the Commons and that Labour MPs decided to vote down. As the Government’s own impact assessment clearly states, they are trying to target higher earners or those making larger contributions. While that might be the stated purpose and the political justification, in reality that is not the case for two reasons. First, the cap will still affect 858,000 basic rate taxpayers, according to the Society of Pension Professionals. In fact, reporting from the Financial Times has highlighted how the Bill will disproportionately affect those people, compared to those on a higher rate of tax. Those on the basic rate of tax pay 8% national insurance contributions, while those on the higher rate of tax pay 2% NICs. That means that on national insurance contributions alone, lower earners are being hit four times as hard by this policy—four times. On Second Reading, I asked the Minister how that could be fair. He did not answer my question then, but I hope he will be able to answer it when he winds up. Maybe he can tell us how the policy is fair for those hard-working people, or whether they are just casualties of rushed policymaking. Secondly, a behavioural outcome may be that employers will remove salary sacrifice as an option for all their employees. We already recognise that salary sacrifice is mutually beneficial for employees and employers. It is also more attractive to both sides, as it is simple to understand. By enforcing the cap, it will change not only the viability of salary sacrifice arrangements, but employers’ perception of them.This may result in many employers removing them as an option altogether, meaning that 4.4 million people who are supposedly protected may be affected. If this Government were really serious about their policy objective, they would exempt basic rate taxpayers altogether. These amendments give them the chance to do just that and to back hard-working people.
The Secretary of State is right that we all breathed a sigh of relief this morning at the American President stepping back from the abyss of an attack on Iran’s power network. However, it remains the case that just a few days ago a projectile fell within 350 metres of Iran’s only nuclear power station. The Secretary of State spoke compellingly about the courage of British personnel in defending our assets in the region and those of our allies. If it were to come to our attention that, in an era of irrational decision making, an attack against that nuclear power station was contemplated, with the catastrophic effect that would have on the region, what steps would we take to prevent that attack?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The truth is that this clinical trial is flawed, and we should not be experimenting on children. We should be protecting children from many harms, such as alcohol and nicotine. We have things such as the age of consent for sexual intercourse and for marriage, to protect children. It is important to remember that a child’s prefrontal cortex does not fully develop until their mid-20s, so even their ability to grasp the long-term effects of any decision is limited. Although a diagnosis is necessary for participation in the trial, it is not sufficient in determining whether medical intervention should take place. Cass directly makes this point: “Although a diagnosis of gender dysphoria has been seen as necessary for initiating medical treatment, it is not reliably predictive of whether that young person will have longstanding gender incongruence in the future, or whether medical intervention will be the best option for them.” The PATHWAYS trial uses the ICD-11—the 11th edition of the “International Classification of Diseases”—diagnosis of gender incongruence, which simply requires a desire to transition. The diagnosis is subjective, based on how the child feels. Can the long-term risk of medical intervention be justified by such a vague diagnosis? If the core diagnostic tool cannot predict outcomes with confidence, the trial would expose children to harm without a sound basis for believing that medical intervention is in their best interest. The trial has been framed as a pathway to clarity, yet it is flawed before it has even begun. Proceeding is not neutrality but a decision with consequences. The trial would see harmful, long-term and irreversible damage to children, and should be cancelled.
T9. It has been reported that under the SNP, Police Scotland has written off 25,000 crimes without investigation, including shoplifting, theft and vandalism. Does the Minister agree that that is a surrender to criminals which leaves people wondering why they report crimes in the first place and shows that life in Scotland is a soft touch to criminals under the SNP?
This was a horrific attack on the Jewish community. While Jewish communities experience disproportionately high levels of antisemitic incidents, offences targeting Jewish victims are statistically far less likely to result in a prosecution. Does the Minister accept that the Jewish community does not trust that the law will work to protect them? What further assurances can he provide them at this difficult time?
Small boat returns run at around 6% of the total numbers arriving in this country, but the Home Secretary denies that this is anything to do with the European Convention on Human Rights. If not the ECHR, which part of the Government’s flawed policy is responsible for that feeble rate?
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Excuse me; I have swallowed a fly.
I think I just about am, yes. The situation we are talking about today is a shooting war, but of key interest to us is the tug of war going on between the MOD and the Treasury over the defence investment plan. We have some indication of what is going on—I think we have gathered that it will not come out this week. Can the Secretary of State give us some indication of whether the purdah period for the upcoming elections in Scotland in May will further impact the announcement of this critical plan?
May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing I received from his officials this afternoon? I join him in putting on record my utter condemnation of the arson attack committed in Golders Green last night. On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our sympathy to all who were affected and to the wider Jewish community. I also join the Secretary of State in expressing our condolences to the families of all allied personnel who have lost their lives in the current conflict, and in thanking the police for preventing potentially serious nefarious activity at Faslane. The potential economic ramifications for our constituents from Iran’s aggressive closure of the strait of Hormuz should concern us all. In that context, can the Defence Secretary tell the House what he understands to be the implications of the US President’s latest remarks, specifically on deferring strikes on power plants? Can he also tell us what further naval capability he intends to deploy to assist in securing the strait of Hormuz? It is extremely concerning that Iran fired long-range ballistic missiles at UK sovereign territory on Diego Garcia. I am grateful for the Defence Secretary’s update, but why did it take so long for the Government to confirm something that the whole world had been reporting on, and what action will he take to respond to those wholly unjustified attacks? Can he confirm whether the potential firing range of this Iranian missile implies that it could reach well into Europe? When it comes to our own air defence, it is very welcome that the RAF Regiment has excelled in using Rapid Sentry, procured under the previous Government, to intercept multiple drones, and we pay tribute to all our personnel in the region at the present moment. We also welcome the fact that this capability is now being deployed to support our allies in the region, and we hope that the air defence system the Secretary of State is sending to Bahrain will be in position as soon as possible. However, we note reports that at least one of the Iranian missiles fired at Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer. Is it correct that the US intercepted this missile before the Government decided on Saturday to grant the US further permission for the use of our bases? Does this not once again underline Labour’s extraordinary double standards in that, until their latest U-turn, the Government had been relying on the US to defend us while denying it the use of our bases? The reports that an Iranian missile headed for Diego Garcia was intercepted by a US destroyer underline the critical importance of our Type 45s to our own air defence, so while we welcome HMS Dragon finally arriving, does the Secretary of State regret not sending her much sooner? As the Secretary of State knows, the Type 45 Sea Viper air defence system relies on Aster missiles. Last week, I wrote to urge him to use HM Treasury reserve funding for the middle east operations to urgently procure the missiles needed, including the lightweight multi-role missile for the Wildcat and Rapid Sentry, ASRAAM—advanced short-range air-to-air missile—for our fighter jets, and Aster for the Type 45s. Since then, he has confirmed the order of the LMM, which I welcome. Will he now use the reserve to order more air defence missiles for our ships and fighter planes? If our Type 45s are to intercept the most sophisticated ballistic missiles, they need the Sea Viper system upgraded to Sea Viper Evolution, which I have repeatedly asked Ministers to accelerate, as it is currently scheduled to enter service in 2032. When I was a Defence Minister, HMS Diamond, which was under attack by the Houthis in the Red sea, was using expensive missiles to intercept cheap drones, so I scrapped a load of red tape to accelerate the in-service date of our DragonFire anti-drone laser from 2032 to next year. Will the Secretary of State take similar steps to accelerate Sea Viper? There is, of course, a problem. In a written answer about Sea Viper Evolution that I received in January, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry responded: “Continued progress…remains subject to”— guess what?— “the Defence Investment Plan.” In Defence oral questions on 15 December, there were just four sitting days left before the rise of the House, and the Secretary of State could not tell us whether the Government would publish the DIP before recess. Given that there are once again just four sitting days left before recess and that he must know his diary for the week ahead, can he tell us whether the defence investment plan will be published before the rise of the House on Thursday, and if not, will he publish it during purdah? Above all, if the DIP is not going to be published this week, will he—to break the logjam with the Treasury—urge the Chancellor to take the difficult decisions required to set a course for spending 3% on defence in this Parliament, not the next? Finally, surely even the Secretary of State can see that hypothetical legal action under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea by a country without a navy or a standing army is less of a threat to our base on Diego Garcia than long-range missiles fired by Iran. Is not the best way that he could stand up for our sovereign territory of Diego Garcia be scrapping Labour’s crazy Chagos deal and spending every penny on the British armed forces?
These despicable attacks have been claimed by Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya, a group assessed by analysts to be an Iranian proxy linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah. Emma Schubart of the Henry Jackson Society has warned that this reflects a pattern of co-ordinated attacks on Jews across Europe. Do the Government share that assessment, and if so, when will they finally proscribe the IRGC? The best time to do that was 10 years ago; the second best time is now.
I served on the Bill Committee, and the subsequent process of scrutiny of this Bill has been entirely as expected. I was disappointed, though not surprised, by a failure to engage critically with its contents and to listen to the real concerns, in particular those of the high street businesses and the hospitality industry, which it will impact on most. I disagree with this socialist Bill on principle. Although I have a lot of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), I am sorry to see my Front Benchers continuing to support the broad thrust of the Bill. It creates two tiers of adults and, at its core, is fundamentally illiberal. However, I was willing to look beyond that and engage constructively with the Government to improve the legislation, which is why I tabled a series of common-sense amendments both in Committee and on Report. They would have allowed for the advertisement of smokefree products in venues that are already adult-only; required a consultation on the impact of advertising bans on retailers; and permitted the targeted advertisement of vapes and smokefree alternatives to existing adult smokers. Those proposals had some cross-party support in this House, and two of them were taken up by peers in the other place, notably Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Sharpe for the Opposition. Throughout this process, I have engaged with the Minister and her predecessors through letters and written questions, and I genuinely thank her for her timely responses. However, it quickly became clear that there was little interest from the Government in improving this Bill, which is driven more by puritan ideology than by evidence or practicality. As a result, we have seen it forced through by the Labour Government and their little helpers, the illiberal Democrats in the other place, with no regard to implementation or unintended consequences. Today, we are likely again to wave through 100 Government amendments from the Lords with minimal scrutiny. All parties will welcome the fact that smoking rates in this country have declined from 30% in the early 2000s to 10.4% today. The free market has played a key role in that, with companies creating less harmful, smokefree alternatives such as vapes and nicotine pouches. There has been a consistent failure to recognise what an important role such products have played in the decline of smoking, and I hold concerns that the tight restrictions in this Bill on flavours and advertising will stop adult smokers from making the switch.
I absolutely recognise that. We should make sure that these products are available to adult smokers—children should never start. However, I am afraid that the heavy-handed nature of this Bill risks sending the broad message to the general public that vapes are bad, which is not a message that we want to send to existing adult smokers. That point was ably made earlier by some of the hon. Gentleman’s friends on the Labour Benches. I believe that we would be doing a disservice to, and setting back, the public health aims of the Bill by advancing it as it stands. Lords amendment 72 rightly protects the advertisement of vapes and nicotine products as part of a public health campaign, but this demonstrates the great irony of the Bill. The Government know that vapes and nicotine products are an effective quit aid and actively promote them for that purpose, but at the same time they are bringing in measures that will reduce their availability and attractiveness to adult smokers. If Ministers will not listen to Members of this House and peers in the other place, I had hoped that they might at least listen to the hundreds of high street businesses that took the time to write to them. I share those businesses’ concerns about the extra pressures the Bill will place on corner shops, convenience stores and hospitality businesses, and how it will change the face of our high streets. That is where the real impact of the Bill will be felt. Those businesses are already under immense pressure from high energy costs, increasing national insurance contributions, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and changes to business rates—I will admit that the Government are nothing if not consistent. Corner shops and convenience stores now face losing custom due to the generational ban, alongside further compliance burdens through advertising restrictions and licensing schemes. The ban alone is expected to cause 7,680 store closures, to cost 70,000 jobs and to cost retailers £6.52 billion. Those are not my numbers; they are from the Government’s own impact assessment.
I am not suggesting that at all, sir. I am suggesting that the generational smoking ban that applies to smoking adults—I have never met a smoking adult who did not know that smoking was bad for them—is an illiberal policy that will create two tiers of adults. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people making decisions that we individually might think are bad for them. The evidence suggests the same, but people should be perfectly able to make those decisions should they choose to do so. As legitimate businesses struggle, less scrupulous operators will inevitably fill the gap. The rapid growth of seemingly dodgy vape shops is a real concern for my constituents in Windsor, and it will be a concern for the constituents of Members right across the House. On the high street in Windsor, there are eight such shops. This is not a response to the demand for vapes, so we should ask whether fraud, money laundering or organised crime are taking place. We already have much evidence to say that they are. During a mystery shopper exercise in Windsor and Sunninghill, I witnessed the sale of illicit tobacco in three shops—it was alarmingly easy to obtain. The price difference explains why: a pack of illicit cigarettes can cost as little as £3.50, compared with £16.75 at retail. If such activity is taking place openly today, that raises the question of what else might be happening behind the scenes, and where this activity will go under the Bill. The Bill risks turbocharging an already thriving black market. Tobacco receipts are down by £414 million, or 10%, in the last six months alone, and have fallen nearly 30% over the past decade, far outpacing the decline in smoking rates. More than one in four cigarettes consumed in Britain are now illicit, amounting to about 2 billion cigarettes each year, and the international evidence, including from Australia, should serve as a warning. Members who are sceptical should spend time with their local trading standards office to see the reality for themselves. That is why hundreds of retailers backed an amendment, tabled by Lord Murray of Blidworth, that would have replaced the generational ban with a minimum age of sale of 21. That would have been more enforceable and less costly. Naturally, that amendment was rejected. Hospitality businesses have voiced real concerns about provisions in the Bill. That sector is so important to the economy in Windsor, and it is already struggling: since the 2024 Budget, job losses in the sector have made up around 50% of job losses overall. UKHospitality has said that many businesses have no capacity to absorb additional costs. Labour has hiked alcohol duty, is banning smoking and is considering health warnings on alcohol. Labour hates fun—it is no wonder that landlords are barring MPs from their pubs. Amendments tabled in the other place by Lord Sharpe of Epsom would have protected our beer gardens from being designated as smokefree and allowed the advertising of products that do not contain tobacco in age-gated venues, in a similar way to the amendments that I tabled in the Commons. Those amendments would have gone some way towards reassuring pubs and venues that the Government are not completely set on destroying them. Again, those amendments were rejected—or am I to understand that the Government have U-turned on that? Before I conclude, I will briefly raise one further concern regarding the powers granted to Ministers to prohibit cigarette filters in future. The justification for this measure remains unclear, and it is yet another example of the broad and—I would argue—excessive powers that this Bill contains, including the host of Henry VIII powers it grants. Through this Bill, the Government have teed themselves up to bring in further puritan measures in the coming years without needing to consult this House. Any such steps will simply exacerbate the growth of the black market and the decline in duties collected. Smoking rates are falling naturally, but this Bill may well reverse that trend, as it limits access to quit aids. It will likely mean less revenue for the Treasury as the black market grows, and it will cost our high street businesses billions. The amendment process has done little to address, or even acknowledge, those concerns. However, I will end on a more positive note by saying that I welcome Lords amendment 80, which requires a review of the Bill within four to seven years of its implementation. I believe that review will vindicate me in many of the concerns I have raised today and provide a future Government with the opportunity to address or, indeed, repeal those aspects of the Bill that prove most unworkable—not that I believe this Bill will get that far. It will not survive a change in Government, which will happen at the next opportunity afforded to the Great British people.
The hon. Member is right that the Bill, if it does apply, should apply to the whole United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is an integral part. Under the Windsor framework—the sell-out that is disgracefully named after my constituency—Northern Ireland is subject to the tobacco products directive, is it not? Is it possible, then, for the Bill to apply equally to Northern Ireland?
Will the Minister give way?
I thank the Minister for her implied compliment to the Leader of the Opposition, who voted against this Bill on Second Reading when the previous Prime Minister brought it forward. She voted against it because the Bill does not respect the proper relationship between the state and the individual, and does not deliver equality under the law, so we will take that as a compliment in the new Conservative party, which is being refreshed in an authentically conservative direction.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. My constituents have a clear expectation that we proceed with caution when it comes to children’s healthcare, but there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this trial: the Government have already restricted these drugs due to what they described as an “unacceptable safety risk”, but those same drugs are now being made available through a clinical trial. We must also look squarely at the evidence. There is no robust proof that puberty blockers deliver the benefits often claimed. In fact, the evidence suggests that, for many children, gender-related distress resolves naturally through puberty. The risks, however, are very real—to bone density, brain development and fertility. There are also serious ethical concerns. We are talking about administering powerful drugs to young children with no reliable way to predict who will benefit. This is not a targeted intervention; it is a gamble with children’s futures. The design of the trial only adds to those concerns. It compares immediate treatment with delayed treatment, rather than examining long-term outcomes, and relies heavily on subjective measures rather than clinical evidence. It risks answering the wrong questions while exposing children to the well-rehearsed risks. Even more concerning is the sequencing—clearly, we should understand past outcomes first, and yet the trial presses ahead before we do. The process itself also gives us pause. The trial received ethical approval and £10.7 million of public funding, and yet within months it has been paused following intervention by the regulator over concerns about safety and design. If a trial collapses under scrutiny before it begins, that tells us it is not ready and raises a serious question about why it was pushed forward in the first place. I urge the Minister to explain why, given the known risks, the trial should proceed at all. When the evidence is weak, the risks are real and the patients are children, pressing ahead is not leadership, but recklessness.
Will the Minister give way?
T7. Given the ongoing national security concerns, including the risk of foreign interference in elections, will the Home Secretary set out what her Department is doing to ensure that individuals convicted of terrorism offences are prevented from standing for elected office in the UK?
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. Energy efficiency in the home sits at the heart of our ability as a country to support those struggling with energy bills, protect consumers from volatile energy bills and maintain the skilled retrofit workforce that this country will need in the years ahead. Since 2013, the energy company obligation has delivered around 4.4 million measures in 2.6 million properties. Under ECO4 alone, around 949,800 measures have been installed in approximately 281,000 households. Whatever its imperfections, it has been a lifeline for millions of low-income families, and the supply chain that grew around it employs tens of thousands of people across the country. As the Minister said, this statutory instrument will extend the ECO4 end date by nine months to 31 December 2026. The stated purpose is to allow suppliers additional time to meet existing targets, remediate non-compliant installations and avoid a cliff edge in delivery before any successor arrangements are in place. The Opposition support this extension. It is responsible and the right thing to do and we will not stand in its way this afternoon. However, support for the principle of orderly transition does not mean that the Government escape scrutiny and there are several questions that I would be grateful if the Minister could answer clearly. On cost, the Chancellor was emphatic in her Budget statement last year that ECO costs households £1.7 billion a year through levies on their bills and that ending the scheme would save the average household £59 annually. She described it as a failed scheme and said that she was scrapping it. However, this nine-month extension means that the levy continues on bills for longer than households were led to expect. Ministers must set out plainly how much consumers will pay during this extended period, and whether that figure of a £59 saving remains accurate. As the shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), has rightly observed, moving costs from energy bills to general taxation is not the saving it appears on paper. Households are still paying; they are just paying from a different pocket. On the issue of quality, a National Audit Office report published in October 2025 found that many of the home improvements funded under ECO were carried out to a poor standard, particularly those involving external wall insulation. Families have been left with damp, mould and homes made worse by interventions that were supposed to help them. That is not an abstract concern and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has raised those failures directly in the House. The Opposition have committed to working cross-party to ensure that affected households receive proper remediation—and we stand by that commitment. However, the Government must confirm that Ofgem’s oversight is fully resourced, that installers and not consumers are funding that repair work, and that further audits will be carried out without delay. Finally, on the supply chain, the Government’s own rationale for this extension acknowledges the need to protect the supply chain and jobs while continuing support for low-income households. That language reflects a real anxiety in the sector. Anna Moore, chief executive of retrofit company Domna, put it plainly when she warned that suddenly removing £1.3 billion of funding was “chaotic” and had “created a cliff edge for thousands of low-income households in fuel poverty as well as SMEs employing some 10,000 people.” Joel Pearson of Net Zero Renewables made the same plea directly to the Chancellor. These are not abstract economic arguments; they are real firms, jobs and communities that depend on this sector continuing to function. The extension buys a little time, but time alone is not a strategy. The Chancellor has announced that there will be no successor to ECO4, and that future support will come through the warm homes plan—£15 billion over five years, funded through general taxation. The Opposition do not oppose the principle of that shift, but the warm homes plan remains, at this stage, more promise than programme. It has not yet been finalised, piloted or mobilised. This extension exists in part precisely because the replacement is not ready. This is an honest admission and we welcome it, but it underlines that the instrument is a holding measure, not a solution. ECO4 is also estimated to deliver carbon savings of around 0.38 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year once all measures are installed. Whatever replaces it must be designed to match and exceed that ambition—not simply to fill a political gap. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could address three specific points. Can he confirm the precise additional cost to bill payers during the nine-month extension period? Can he provide a full update on the remediation programme for substandard installations and give this Committee confidence that affected households will not be left waiting indefinitely? Finally, can he set out a clear timetable for the warm homes plan so that the supply chain can plan with confidence, rather than continuing to operate under uncertainty? The households who have relied on the ECO scheme deserve an efficient transition, not the chaotic cliff edge that the Government are presenting; the retrofit workforce that will be central to this Government’s own climate ambitions deserve certainty, not managed decline; and taxpayers deserve full transparency about what this extension will cost them. We support this instrument, but the Government must use the time it buys wisely.
On top of the direct attacks by Iran, its principal proxy in the region, Hezbollah, continues to defy the Lebanese Government by using Lebanon as a base from which to fire rockets into Israeli civilian populations. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking, in conjunction with the Lebanese Government, to help them dismantle this absolute cancer in Lebanon? More importantly, what steps are being taken to ensure that infrastructure built in Lebanon in recent years using British taxpayers’ money is categorically not being used for any of those attacks?
I join the Minister in condemning this evil attack and expressing my sympathy with the British Jewish community. To build on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), we have been talking about this issue for years, including when I sat on the Government Back Benches in the last Parliament. When I went to a Hanukkah event in my constituency led by the South Bucks Jewish Community in 2024, the rabbi opened the ceremony with words of welcome, saying “even though we no longer feel safe to meet as a community”. That should shock each and every one of us. Does the Minister accept that we need not incremental change or modest change but a sea change in the way that we as a country put our arms around the British Jewish community and protect them?
I welcome the new Minister to her place; she is stepping in and taking the Bill through this stage, like a technical finishing substitute. I, too, have been substituted for my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who spent a huge amount of time going through the Bill in Committee. I place my thanks to her on the record. Because of what she did, I have not had to do it, which has been a relief. Eradicating smoking among young people is a public health priority. There may be differences in how we would achieve that, but the objective is shared by Members across the House, and we will not divide the House on the Bill tonight. There has been important common ground. As my colleague Lord Kamall said in the other place, smoking is harmful, vaping is less harmful than smoking, and not vaping is better than vaping. I think we can all agree that those principles should guide this legislation. Those principles underpinned the Bill introduced by the previous Government. Since then, it has expanded, and at times it risks losing focus on its central aim of reducing smoking, particularly among young people. The Opposition have been concerned, for example, about measures that have placed additional burdens on hospitality and retail, and about restrictions on vaping that could undermine its role as a quitting tool for adult smokers. I therefore welcome the changes made in the House of Lords and the Government’s acceptance of them. Further, the exemption of the adult mental health in-patient setting from the ban on vapes vending machines is a sensible and compassionate decision. Ministers were right to respond to concerns raised by peers, including my colleague Lord Moylan, and mental health charities, and we welcome the changes to clause 12. It is also right that local authorities will be able to retain proceeds from fixed penalty notices to support enforcement under the amendments to clause 39. However, the Bill marks not the end of the process, but simply the end of the beginning. Key questions remain, including about the regulation of flavours and descriptors, advertising, and the designation of vape-free places. Those decisions will pretty much determine whether the Bill works in practice. It is therefore essential that the Government proceed in a way that is proportionate, enforceable and sustainable. We have already seen the importance of that balance. I welcome the decision to drop proposals to extend restrictions in pub gardens, which would have placed further strain on the hospitality sector. However, Ministers should take note. Restrictions should be targeted at areas where there is a clear and significant risk to public health. Possible considerations include restrictions outside schools and playgrounds, and I gently ask the Minister to reflect that approach as further regulations are developed. The Lords also strengthened the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to cigarette filters, enabling more effective regulation of components that contribute to environmental harm. In addition, a series of technical amendments were agreed to, aimed at clarifying definitions, improving compliance mechanisms and ensuring that secondary legislation is subject to the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. For example, Lords amendment 1, relating to age verification regulations under clause 1, requires the affirmative procedure to be used, increasing oversight of a core part of the Bill. Those are sensible improvements that reflect the spirit of constructive scrutiny. A key and central issue raised throughout the passage of the Bill has been the risk of unintended consequences, and particularly the growth of the illicit market. Whether we are for the Bill or against it, one concern unites us all: the black market. If regulation is too restrictive or poorly enforced, it will drive consumers away from the legal market and into illegal supply, which would undermine both public health and enforcement. The Opposition proposed an annual report on illicit tobacco and vaping activity, which the Government rejected. Given the concerns raised throughout the passage of the Bill, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out clearly how the Government will monitor and respond to changes in the illicit market. We support the broad objectives of the Bill, but we will be watching closely. Its success depends not on its intentions, but on its delivery. When it was first introduced, I spoke about my experience as a junior doctor on a respiratory ward—my first hospital job. I saw patients struggling for breath, families in distress, and moments when, despite everything, there was little more that could be done. The true test of the Bill is simple: in years ahead, fewer families should have to experience the same pain, suffering and despair. Let us hope this works.
I am glad the Minister has addressed many of the questions that I posed. One was about the designation of vape-free places, and I think there is consideration of what that will look like. How will the Government approach that? I would welcome it if she could at least set out the framework of what she might think about in her new role.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He is proving himself to be a consistent and doughty champion of victims and the issues that they raise with him. I also acknowledge the long-standing campaigning of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in this area. I welcome today’s opportunity to discuss this issue as part of our wider debate about transparency in the justice system. Sadly, I think that I can predict to some extent what the Minister will say: the phrase “14 years” will make an appearance; there will be lots of rhetoric about how terrible the previous Government were; and there will be a complete absence of any idea of how the current Government would have managed differently the challenges that the previous Government faced. I can also be pretty confident about what the Minister will not say. There will be no real engagement with what the challenges of covid presented to our justice system, even though they truly were unprecedented. However, that is the standard that Ministers and Labour have set, not just for justice, but across the Government on issues such as inflation and energy bills. There is no acceptance of the challenges that the previous Government faced and no exceptions made for things outside their control. It therefore should not be any surprise when the present Government are held to exactly the same standard. In reality, this issue is a good example of what more fair-minded commentators accept as a multi-decade failure to give the justice system and those involved in it the priority and resources they deserve. I am sure that if the Minister and I were to design the justice system from scratch together, we would agree that free access to transcripts was important and, indeed, should just be the default. However, we are where we are. Sadly, I am realistic about what success we will achieve on the issue of transcripts today, even when a petition has been signed by an impressive 200,000 people. After all, this is the Government who tried to delete the Courtsdesk archive, which has been one of the biggest steps forward for transparency in our justice system in recent years. I raised that issue in the main Chamber because I was deeply concerned about the decision to delete a unique archive of corrected and correlated court listings. In the absence of retrospective access to court transcripts, the work of journalists is absolutely vital, and Courtsdesk had become a valuable tool for journalists, campaigners and others seeking to identify patterns in offending and to expose failings in our justice system. Rather than seeking to preserve that transparency while dealing constructively with any data protection concerns, the Government moved towards deleting the archive altogether. Of course, the Government’s defence of that decision did not hold up to scrutiny. When the Minister for Courts and Legal Services came to the House and said that there were serious data protection concerns with Courtsdesk, she did not tell us that the Government’s internal processes had found the incident she cited to be low-risk, not even warranting referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office. At a time when confidence in the justice system depends on greater openness, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services was going to deliver the exact opposite, and that is part of the context for today’s debate. It relates to the broader question of whether the Government are approaching transparency in the justice system with sufficient urgency and seriousness. The petition speaks to the basic principle that access to justice should not depend on the ability to pay, and open justice is not an optional extra to be considered only once the administrative convenience of the system has been satisfied. The petitioners are right to identify transcript fees as a paywall. For too many people, they are exactly that: a barrier to understanding what happened in court; a barrier to considering making an appeal; a barrier to holding the system to account; and, in some cases, a barrier to justice itself. That matters not just for journalists and campaigners, but for victims, bereaved families and ordinary members of the public who are trying to make sense of a justice system that is supposed to work for them. There is clearly public demand for greater transparency in the system, which was why the previous Conservative Government started moving in that direction, including through the pilot of making sentencing remarks available free of charge to victims of rape and other sexual offences. That was a start, although I now think that we should have moved faster and further while we were in government. I find it hard to think of any other walk of life in which we would expect a member of the public who is part of such an important process—it is important for them, for their friends and family, and for the wider justice system—to be asked to remember key things that may or may not have been said in court, and to be asked to be in court every single day if they want to understand the full process, although that might not necessarily be appropriate. What disappoints me in particular is the Government’s resistance not just to making full transcripts available, but on the much narrower and more readily resolvable issue of making transcripts of sentencing remarks available. The Government have refused to accept our proposal—it has been voted on in the Lords—to have such transcripts produced within 14 days and free of charge. They will accept doing that only from spring of next year and not necessarily within 14 days. As we have heard, given the unduly lenient sentence scheme, people need those transcripts quickly if they are to be able to make good use of them. It is particularly clear that there is public interest in sentencing remarks. I look forward to the Labour Members who spoke today backing amendments that the Conservatives, with cross-party support, are attempting to pass so that transcripts of sentencing remarks are made available. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), pointed out, similar amendments have been proposed to allow victims to have even more made available to them, including the route to verdict and bail decisions. Those amendments have cross-party support, so I hope that Labour Members and others will support them when the House considers them this week. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) showed his ministerial experience through the well-articulated questions that he put to the Minister. I will add my own questions to his. It is all well and good for the Minister to talk in warm words about access to sentencing remarks and court transcripts, but do we have an actual date for when the Government will deliver that? What cases will it apply to at first, and what barriers are preventing us from implementing this much more quickly than the Government have committed to? I pay tribute to everyone who signed the petition, particularly those campaigners such as Fiona Goddard, who my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley mentioned and focused on grooming gangs. That has been a key driver of the demands for greater transparency in our justice system. The Government resisted an inquiry on that matter in a similar vein to how they are resisting transparency in our justice system. I look forward to the Minister giving us concrete answers about how we will make progress, rather than just warm words.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Mundell. I must first declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician. I thank James Esses for the petition and the thousands of people who have signed it, including many of my constituents, for enabling today’s important debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for leading the debate so well. The petition asks the Government to cancel the puberty blockers trial and to safeguard vulnerable children. Perhaps it is worth considering whether clinical trials in children are a good idea in principle. The answer, of course, is yes. Children are not just small adults; they have different illnesses from adults, they present with different symptoms and respond differently to medication, and they require different doses at different ages. Properly designed clinical trials ensure that children’s medicines are safe and effective for them. However, today we are discussing one particular trial: a proposal to give puberty blockers—gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues—to children, specifically for gender incongruence. Perhaps at this point it is worth considering why doctors and others prescribe medication; we do it to treat or cure disease, to treat or lessen symptoms and to aid in diagnosis. What does this trial seek to do? On the face of it, it seeks to establish whether puberty blockers are a safe and effective treatment for gender incongruence. ICD-11 defines gender incongruence as: “A marked and persistent incongruence between an individual’s experienced gender and the assigned sex”. To suggest persistent incongruence with gender stereotypes is wrong could undo years or decades of rolling back gender norms. If it is not causing the person any distress, why would we want to treat it, especially when we know that most children, even those with gender dysphoria who do have distress, will get better without any puberty blockers? Currently, there is no way to identify which children will persist with a trans identity as adults and which will not. The much-delayed data linkage study could help with that. It could enable more targeted interventions and may also provide information on the long-term outcomes for people who have taken puberty blockers in the past. However, the Government insist on pushing on with the puberty blockers trial anyway, before the data linkage study is complete. Why? In written parliamentary questions, Ministers have said that they expect the data linkage study to be finished by April 2027, so what is the rush? What is the point of the treatment? It has been suggested that it helps transgender adults pass more easily as the opposite sex and potentially avoids surgical operations in adulthood, but how on earth can it be ethically, morally or medically right to treat a large group of children with risky medication to give cosmetic benefits to a much smaller number of adults? There are also cosmetic risks to the treatment. The penis grows very little between the ages of three and 10 years. The use of puberty blockers restricts growth, meaning those with a persistent trans identity may struggle with having enough tissue for a vaginoplasty surgery, and those who do not have a persistent trans identity may struggle with normal intimate relationships. As mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State has said that he has confidence in this trial. Now it has been paused, we can presume that he is not quite so sure. But can we, patients and the general public have confidence in this trial? There are certainly causes for concern. In fact, there are so many that I cannot speak of them all today, but I would like to speak of a few in the time I have available. First, on the selection of patients, we have had a dramatic change in the demographic. There has always been a small number of children uncomfortable in their own bodies, but there has been a rapid increase, which is not fully understood, particularly among girls. Many of them are in care, some have autism spectrum disorders and many are same-sex attracted. We need to understand this before prescribing irreversible treatments. We do prescribe—and I have prescribed—drugs that are high risk or potentially harmful to children. An easy example would be chemotherapy, but that is being given to save a child’s life; it is not used to pause a perfectly normal physiological process in a physically healthy child. The risks of these treatments have been listed today, but I will list just a few: fertility problems; idiopathic intracranial hypertension; demineralisation of bone density, leading to fractures; in some studies, an increase in depression and anxiety; and the long-term loss of sexual function in some patients. We have discussed consent. How do you get consent from a parent of a child—a boy or a girl at Tanner stage 2—about long-term sexual function and fertility? On the design of the trial, it is said to be a randomised controlled trial. Well, it is, but that is a bit of a fudge, because instead of an actual randomised controlled trial where some patients receive puberty blockers and some do not, it has given some now and some slightly later, with a very short difference in the timing. The comparison group that does not have any puberty blockers at all is taken from a slightly different population, which introduces an unnecessary bias. The trial’s organisers have said that they are doing that because they think the children would get the drugs from elsewhere or from abroad, but that is not how we do medical trials. When I have raised this issue, Ministers have responded that it cannot be blinded, but blinding and randomisation are not the same thing. The trial is also far too short to provide data on long-term outcomes. On the process of the trial, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) raised questions about what children are being asked as part of this trial. Why is the trial proposing to ask children about their sexual experiences? Why is this helpful to the trial?
I will not because I am aware of the time. The Commission on Human Medicines’ report heard that, because trials of puberty blockers have been blocked, some clinicians are trying to use other drugs to limit puberty, such as spironolactone and cyproterone acetate. There have been reports that the number of prescriptions for spironolactone in 10 to 17-year-olds is going up. Could the Minister confirm whether that is the case and what the Government are doing to look into it? The MHRA was happy with the process; now it is not. What has changed? None of the issues raised seem to have not been raised before. The Government are being secretive about it: in February, Ministers brought forward a written statement referencing an MHRA letter in November, but the Minister is refusing to publish it. I have asked Ministers whether they talked to MHRA officials about the trial before February 2026, and they will not answer the question. There was a letter between the MHRA and KCL; I asked when it was received, when the Department became aware of it and when Ministers became aware of its contents. They will not tell me. What about the people controlling the trial? As has also been mentioned during this debate, Professor Jacob George has been recused from further involvement. According to the MHRA’s statement, this is “a precaution”, because of social media posts made before his involvement. Why have those who have made the opposite type of comment not been recused too? This will inevitably make members of the public think there is bias involved. There is an oversight board. What has the Minister done to ensure that the clinicians and scientists on that board are impartial, and that it is balanced between both perspectives? The Tavistock trial was supposed to report to the MHRA, but it did not, seemingly with no consequence. There will be lay members on the board with lived experience; will one of those be a detransitioner, or will they all be people on one side? That would increase the perception of bias in this trial. In summary, this is a trial of risky medication on healthy children, most of whose features of gender incongruence will resolve in time, given normal puberty. What is particularly worrying is that, at the end of this treatment, the trial has so many flaws that it is bound to be disputed, whatever the result. To give this treatment, the lead clinician will need to think that there is a reasonable prospect of a patient benefiting from puberty blockers. Given all that has been said, how can any clinician believe that that is the case? I hope we can all agree that we do not need a clinical trial to know that helping a child to be at peace with themselves and their body is infinitely preferable to a lifetime of harmful medical intervention.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome this motion, which will allow the Secretary of State to make individual payments above £30 million to successful applicants to the life sciences large investment portfolio. The LSLIP has been developed and designed to support large-scale manufacturing and R&D investments in medicine, medtech and diagnostics, with a total budget of up to £570 million, and scope for individual awards of up to £130 million per project. It very much builds on the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund set up by the last Conservative Government to provide substantial capital grants for manufacturing innovation to strengthen the UK’s health supply chain. Together, the life sciences large investment portfolio and the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund provide a pipeline of support in the UK for both resilience-building manufacturing and global-scale industrial capability. The year 2025 was a challenging one for the UK life sciences sector, with AstraZeneca first scrapping plans to invest £450 million in expanding a vaccine manufacturing plant in Merseyside, blaming a reduction in Government support, and then announcing in September that it was pausing its £200 million research investment in Cambridge. That same month, Merck announced that it was scrapping a planned £1 billion expansion of its UK operations. However, that was not the full extent of the problems, with Eli Lilly and Sanofi also pausing investment in their UK operations. Several life sciences investments secured under the previous Conversative Administration were culled or put on hold after this Government took office. The life sciences large investment portfolio may go some way to recovering that lost ground and signalling to the life sciences sector that the UK remains serious about attracting, retaining and growing a world-leading life sciences R&D and manufacturing sector. Sadly, it will not be sufficient in isolation. The Government intervened late last year to stabilise the rebate rate applied to newer medicines under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth for 2026. However, UK rates remain significantly higher and more volatile than those in many of our peer countries, which is a deterrent to significant investment in UK life science industries. My first question therefore is, what further action are the Government taking to secure longer-term stability and predictability in this area? Last year, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry made a pre-Budget submission calling on the Government to take action to restore the UK’s position as a global leader in life sciences. Among the ABPI’s recommendations was ensuring that VAT is not applied to free-of-charge medicines under early-access schemes, to preserve access for UK patients and maintain the UK’s attractiveness for clinical trials. However, The Sunday Times reported yesterday that one multinational drug company has stopped patients receiving early-access medicines, with another considering similar action after His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs issued VAT bills to pharma companies providing medicines under the scheme. That fiscal folly has real-world effects on not only the economy, but the lives of patients with debilitating and life-threatening conditions who are taking part in those trials. Therefore, my second question to the Minister is, what discussions has he had with Treasury colleagues about the urgent need to reform the tax system to make the UK a more attractive and stable jurisdiction for investment in life sciences?
Will the Minister respond on the point about VAT on medicines and trials?
Given that it takes about a month to move a minor war vessel from Portsmouth to the Gulf, and notwithstanding the meetings that the Secretary of State says that he is having with allies about ensuring freedom of navigation through the strait, would it be a good idea to start shifting those minehunters now, so that when he has the results of his discussions, which I hope will be a bit more than just handwringing, we will be in a position to genuinely do something in an area that we are actually really rather good at?