Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Happy new year, Mr Speaker. Can we have an urgent debate on the need to proceed with the local elections in May? In July 1945 we held a general election, even though we were still involved in fighting the second world war in the far east. If we can have a general election in wartime, why can we not have local elections in peacetime four months from today, including in Labour-led Basildon, Southend and Thurrock? What is Labour frightened of—other than losing, of course?
Another way to improve road safety is to reduce driver frustration caused by roadworks, particularly those that overrun. That is why in 2022 I launched a campaign to “Can the Cones” and introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to tighten up on roadworks regulations. I lobbied the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and after the election I lobbied the road safety Minister, who kindly gave me a hearing. I welcome the fact that the Government have just announced that they are tightening the regulation of roadworks, particularly by increasing the fines for those that overrun, which was integral to my Bill. I give credit where it is due and I thank the Minister personally for listening. The measures will not solve the whole problem of roadworks, but they should certainly help, and my constituents and I will be grateful.
I commend the Committee’s report and the hon. Member for summarising it so excellently. There are several questions I would like to ask him, but for brevity I will confine myself to one. A few minutes ago, he suggested that the Government should consider including a cable repair ship in its new defence equipment programme, and I think we would have sympathy with that, but for that we need a defence investment plan. The House was faithfully promised such a plan in August and then very faithfully promised it by Christmas, but the rumour is that we will not get it till March. Would he agree with me that we need that equipment plan sooner rather than later, and ideally this month rather than having to wait till March?
I apologise for intervening on my right hon. Friend so early on, but he has mentioned Russia several times. He will be aware that there has been much talk about ceasefires, but there is no sign of one yet, because Putin still thinks he is winning in Ukraine. Would he agree with me that, if we really want to compel Putin to stop killing Ukrainians, we need to increase sanctions on the Russian Government, particularly on their hydrocarbons, which means action not just by us and Europe, but further sanctions from the United States?
I receive regular correspondence from constituents raising concerns about unreliable bus services. These are especially problematic in areas like Croxley Green, where residents are already suffering because of limited bus routes and late-running services. Given that many people rely on buses to travel throughout my constituency, what steps are the Department taking to ensure that the residents of South West Hertfordshire have access to a reliable transport network?
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that individuals such as Sasi in Croxley Green and Usman in Maple Cross are not just sub-postmasters but community champions, and that, like the village pub, they remain a critical asset in our communities?
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
Earlier, one of the Ministers dodged a very straightforward but important question, so will the Secretary of State now set the record straight? Do the Government have any plans that would change the scope, funding or timelines for Northern Powerhouse Rail—yes or no?
Twelve out of the 15 constituencies in Lancashire benefited from the Pride in Place scheme, I believe, but people may not be surprised to learn that Fylde, the only Conservative constituency in Lancashire, was not on the list. We will not let that deter us, however, because we have pride in our place and ambitions for it, whether that be the pier link, the Island site in St Annes, the public realm improvements we want to make in Lytham and Poulton, or reopening the derelict Kirkham baths. Can we have a statement from the Government about how those areas that have been left behind and are not in the Pride in Place scheme can attract investment to continue to improve their towns and villages?
I thank the Minister for her time in discussing these issues. As a former police and crime commissioner who funded a dedicated roads policing unit, this issue is close to my heart. I wish to make two points about drink and drug-driving. First, I fear that reducing the alcohol limit for England and Wales is potentially a red herring policy that will distract from focusing on where the real harm and damage comes: from those who ignore the drink-drive limit no matter what it is. Secondly, I thank the Minister for the focus on drug-driving. This year, after their Christmas operations, police forces will be reporting more drug than drink detections for the first time. It is good that that is being detected, but it is scratching the surface of the problem and we must focus in on those who take drugs and drive cars. I would welcome any further details from the Minister on the specifics so that we can start doing that as soon as possible and get those people off our roads.
I thank you, Mr Vickers, for chairing the debate, and the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing it. The prevalence of drug deaths and the broader misuse of drugs in Scotland is devastating. The fall in drug deaths in 2024 was welcome, but the figure remains the highest in Europe. Between March and May 2025, drug deaths actually increased by 15%, with statistics showing that people in deprived areas in Scotland are 12 times more likely to die of drug misuse than those in the least deprived areas. We all recognise that this must change. Nevertheless, the question of how we achieve that is not simple. We are right to reflect on how we reached this situation. The monumental failure of the SNP Scottish Government is apparent. Former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon admitted that her Government had taken their “eye off the ball”. I dare say that turn of phrase vastly understates the scale of the crisis that has gripped individuals and communities in Scotland. When my former colleague, the previous Scottish Conservative leader, put forward his Bill in the Scottish Parliament to address this problem, he said: “This is a crisis that was made in Scotland, and it is one that can be fixed in Scotland, but not if we do not have willing participants in the Government.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 9 October 2025; c. 106-7.] I will return to the efforts made by my Conservative colleagues in Holyrood later. However, we believe that approaches to dealing with drug use must go beyond the narrow debate about drug consumption centres. Let me be clear: both the Conservative party and I respect the independence of the Lord Advocate as the prosecutorial authority in Scotland. The last Government were clear that, provided that power is exercised lawfully, we should not stand in the way. Respect for the institutions that underpin our Union is critical, and I would not desire to undermine them. However, that should not preclude us in this place from criticising decisions made in Scotland or from questioning some of the comments underpinning the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report. That is why the Conservative position on drug consumption rooms in England and Wales is simple: we do not support them. That position was set out transparently when the party was in government, and it is appropriate to continue supporting it now. It is appropriate to offer clarity on this matter. I understand that was a challenge faced by the Scottish Affairs Committee when questioning the former Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). When she was Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, she produced a report that backed such proposals. As such, it would be interesting to hear from this Minister whether she or the Government believe that these facilities are now appropriate. The reason for our concern is that the use of drug consumption rooms condones or even encourages illegal drug use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who is a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, stated: “I cannot ever support the facilitation of addiction as a way of helping to treat addictions”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 111.]
I definitely believe that we should be helping people with addictions, but feeding those addictions and allowing the illegal use of drugs is not the way forward. There are many ways in which we should support people with addictions and their families, but we clearly have a fundamental difference of opinion about the role of consumption rooms. As my colleague on the Committee stated, we can never support the facilitation of addiction as a way to treat addiction. That is alongside the impact of potentially encouraging the continued supply of illicit substances, which invariably happens if there are specific locations at which to consume the products of this trade—a trade that, as we all know, has devastating consequences for our communities. Police Scotland states clearly on its website: “Drugs can be very dangerous to your health and can kill. The advice of Police Scotland is simple…There is no ‘safe’ way to take drugs, there is always a risk…The only way of staying safe is to avoid drugs altogether.” Let me demonstrate why we need an effective police response. The county lines programme—which was started by the previous Government, and which has rightly continued—found a notable impact on drug misuse. Its evaluation, released at the very end of 2025, illustrated that drug misuse hospitalisations decreased by 29% in the exporter areas as a result of the county lines programme, when compared with the control group of areas that receive direct county lines funding. At the same time, the evaluation showed a 15% reduction in drug-related hospitalisations, equivalent to 22 fewer hospitalisations on average per quarter, in the importer forces, which were defined as those police forces most likely to be impacted by spillover effects from the county lines programme. Comparing the data to the 2024 evaluation illustrated that the programme is having a continued and seemingly increasing impact on reducing drug-related hospitalisations. Despite the best intentions of those who work at drug consumption facilities, it is inevitable that those taking the drugs will acquire them by criminal means. When we have targeted police action, the evidence appears to show improved outcomes for those who abuse drugs. Clearly, enforcement is not and should not be the only approach to the problem. That is why the 10-year drugs plan published by the previous Government set out that any plan needed to be underpinned by enforcement and treatment. I appreciate that it was not focused on Scotland, but I would highlight that the previous Government’s drug strategy saw £532 million of additional funding through to 2024-25 to support improvements in alcohol and drug treatment. Additionally, the previous Government took steps through their consultation—and we have backed secondary legislation while in opposition—to expand access to naloxone to more healthcare professionals and services. As Members will be well aware, the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill introduced by a former Scottish Conservative leader, Douglas Ross, sought to give those diagnosed with drug and alcohol addiction a statutory right to receive treatment from a relevant professional.
One drug death is one drug death too many. We agree on that, and we agree on the need to treat people. However, I fundamentally believe that there is a role for enforcement. I do not believe that giving people the ability to take these illegal products, in whatever environment, helps to end that addiction. There are very varied views on that, but I fundamentally do not agree. The robust and costed provisions set out in the Bill introduced by Douglas Ross are essential if Scotland is to turn around its record on tackling the dangers of drug use by setting out the treatments that would be available, and the data and reporting requirements on the Scottish Government. It would provide a Scottish blueprint for reversing the trends that we have seen over the last decade. It was welcome that the Labour party in Scotland supported that Conservative-proposed recovery Bill to give addicts the treatment they need. Unfortunately, the SNP and the Green party in Scotland failed to back it, which was shameful. In addition, the Scottish Conservatives have set out robust plans to end the drugs trade behind bars, following significant increases in prison drug consumption over the last couple of years. That would be achieved by installing window grilles, which have been proven to stop drone deliveries, in all prisons, and by investing in drone detection technology, sniffer dogs and X-ray machines. The scope of those proposals shows the variety of approaches needed to tackle drug use. We know that the Thistle is an expensive experiment. Obviously, we welcome any decrease in drug abuse and drug deaths, but we must ask whether we want our actions to encourage drug use or discourage it. It is right that the Scottish Government take steps to fix this problem, but I am afraid they are not taking the steps that are needed. I would ask the Minister, when she gets the opportunity, to encourage her Scottish Government counterparts to back the proposals put forward by the Scottish Conservatives and supported by Labour. That would ensure that the Scottish Government got back to providing treatment for those diagnosed with an addiction in Scotland.
While keeping fares down is welcome, as is simplification, the Secretary of State will be aware that London North Eastern Railway introduced what it called a simplified system a few months ago, which has actually resulted in a number of increases, and that is causing considerable concern to my constituents and others. Does the Department intend to review LNER’s ticketing process in due course?
The village of East Halton in my constituency is partly cut off at the moment because of a sinking road. Natural England is refusing permission for the local authority to move in and carry out the work because of badgers in the area. This is causing complete chaos, and tractors and heavy goods vehicles are having to use country lanes. That highlights yet again that Natural England and other agencies have the power to overrule democratically elected authorities that want to carry out work on behalf of local residents. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the powers that these agencies have, and how we can return some of those powers to elected authorities?
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
Mr Speaker, may I begin by wishing you, the Leader of the House, right hon. and hon. Members and all staff of the House a very happy new year? I appreciate that the Leader of the House may still be recovering from the excesses of the festive season, so I will try not to add unduly to his discomfort, but I will start with a simple request: will he give a clear commitment that the Government will stop making significant policy announcements when Parliament is not sitting? I know that you take this issue very seriously, Mr Speaker, but we had another significant announcement made not to Parliament but to the media. While Conservative Members welcome the partial U-turn of the vindictive and cruel family farm tax, it was utterly wrong for the Government to sneak out such a major policy shift just a few days before Christmas, when the House was not sitting and Members could not properly scrutinise Ministers about their change of course. We then saw Labour Members rush to social media to claim that they had “always thought it was the wrong policy”, and had been “working hard behind the scenes” to persuade Ministers to change it. I have to say to the House that that will simply not wash with farmers. Farmers are not daft. They will remember right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches trooping through the Lobby to vote down Conservative attempts to stop the dreadful family farm tax. They will remember Labour MPs clapping like seals from the Back Benches every time the Prime Minister insisted that the tax was the right thing to do. There was, however, one exception: the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). He did the right thing. He knows the difference between right and wrong. He stood up for farmers and businesses in his constituency and voted against this disastrous policy because he knew that Labour had promised before the election not to introduce such a tax, and he knew that that pledge had been broken. Now that events have proved him correct, when will the Whip be restored to him? If the Government now accept that the policy was wrong, will they accept that punishing those who opposed it was wrong, too? The turn of the year is traditionally a time for reflection and resolution. Before Christmas, the Leader of the House informed us that he does not make new year’s resolutions—may I ask him please to think again? In truth, 2025 was a year defined by U-turns. What will the Leader of the House do to ensure that the Government are better led, more stable and more honest with the public in the year ahead? In 2025, we had U-turns on: inheritance tax on farmers and small businesses; a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs; winter fuel payments; the two-child benefit cap; income tax; welfare reform, national insurance; and compensation for WASPI women. The Prime Minister warmly welcomed el-Fattah back to Britain only to claim that he regrets it. The Deputy Prime Minister forced to resign over her tax affairs. The US ambassador Peter Mandelson was sacked for his links to a notorious paedophile, and the Homelessness Minister quit after making her tenants homeless. On issue after issue, the Government have lurched from announcement to reversal, creating uncertainty for families, for businesses and for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. With all that chaos and uncertainty at the very top of Government, does the Leader of the House believe that the Prime Minister will still be in his job this time next year? If the Prime Minister’s beloved Arsenal stay top of the table and win the league this year, will he be enjoying that as Prime Minister or as a punter? There has been speculation that His Royal Highness the King will open the new Session of Parliament on 12 May. Can the Leader of the House confirm that and when Parliament will prorogue? Finally, the pub and hospitality sector face a bleak “dry” January, but this winter is particularly bad because of the policy decisions taken by this Labour Government to hike their taxes. Hundreds of pubs, restaurants and hotels across the country have now banned Labour MPs from their premises. One publican said: “Everyone is fed up because the Labour government hasn’t listened and instead has taxed us more.” Why do the Labour Government not understand the important role that local pubs and hotels play in our economy? The country is ready to call time on the Prime Minister. It is last orders for his Labour Government. After just 18 months in power, the Prime Minister’s leadership is stale. He is like a flat pint—even the regulars have had enough. Will the Leader of the House commit to make representations to the Chancellor to lessen the tax burden on this industry, and will he tell us if he has been banned from his local pub?
The Government talk about affordable transport for passengers in the UK, but on the Isle of Wight we are at the mercy of privatised, unregulated ferry companies that charge extortionate prices for unreliable services. If those companies refuse to lower prices and improve services, will the Minister intervene, given that he would not accept that for any other community in the United Kingdom?
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate, and to the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for bringing it forward. Before I turn to some of the specifics of the case she made, I remind the House that the vast majority of people who gamble do so responsibly, safely and without risk of harm. Indeed, some of our annual events in this country are associated with gambling and form part of our national identity. I am thinking in particular of the grand national. Indeed, the first time I ever placed a bet was on a horse called Party Politics. It probably led to an interest in something different from gambling, but that is another matter. The Government’s own figures show that problem gambling affects around 0.4% of adults. That figure has remained broadly stable for many years. Meanwhile, 22 million people gamble every month without harm. Gambling harms exist, of course, and I sat through oral evidence on that issue in the Health and Social Care Committee in April last year. We have heard some of the most powerful testimony from the hon. Member about real lives that have been harmed because of gambling. Problem gambling can ruin relationships, destroy mental and physical health and, in the worst cases, end lives. The number of gambling-related deaths is far outnumbered by alcohol-specific deaths or alcohol-related deaths, but any life lost and any life destroyed is a tragedy. We must do more to support people with gambling addictions and crack down on illegal gambling and lawbreaking. However, policy must be based on evidence. Betting shops are among the most heavily regulated retail premises. They have strict age verification requirements, limits on gaming machines, trained staff and formal self-exclusion schemes. Those protections only apply when people gamble in licensed premises. They do not exist in the same way at home and not at all on the black market. We should not assume that further reducing the number of high street betting shops will reduce problem gambling. When it comes to high street betting shops, research by ESA Retail found that 89% of betting shop customers combine their visit with trips to other local businesses, thereby supporting the high street. Betting shops support around 46,000 jobs, contributing nearly £1 billion a year in direct tax to the Treasury and a further £60 million in business rates to local councils. We have heard how betting shops have spread uncontrollably in some areas, but nationally betting shops are closing. Since 2019, the number of licensed betting shops has fallen by 30%, from more than 8,000 to fewer than 6,000. Thousands of jobs have already been lost as a result, and many more are now at risk following the tax rises announced in the Budget.
I think the hon. Member himself agrees that this is not about stopping people gambling. The point I am making is that high street premises represent some of the safer environments for gambling, and some of the riskier forms of gambling are far less visible than the high street shops we have heard about today. I am certainly not minimising in any way the effects of problem gambling and some of those involved in the industry, particularly on the black market. While the Budget did not directly target betting shops, many operators run integrated online and retail businesses. With online gambling duty doubling and sports betting duty rising by nearly 70%, the UK will have one of the highest tax rates on gambling in the world. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brent East for talking about local empowerment. I think her key point—the heart of her argument—was about empowering local communities and local councils to be able to exercise greater control over high street premises. I want to raise a specific issue that shows how confused the system has become, and which is related to her argument. Recently, Chesterfield borough council allowed an adult gaming centre to introduce betting facilities without a formal change of planning use, on the basis that betting was considered ancillary. This shows that the council was effectively able to bypass planning laws, and to create confusion and inconsistency in how planning and gambling laws are applied, which is deeply worrying. Betting shops and adult gaming centres are fundamentally different types of premises; they are regulated differently and treated separately in planning law, for good reason. Allowing betting facilities to be introduced into adult gaming centres without proper scrutiny risks creating a back-door route for betting operations to open without local consent or oversight. We support the sentiment behind the argument made by the hon. Member for Brent East: local communities and local councils should be better empowered to make decisions for their high streets. I want to finish by asking the Minister four questions. First, will the Government act to close the planning loophole that allows adult gaming centres to introduce betting facilities without a proper change of use? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the impact of recent tax rises on high street betting shops, including closures, job losses and empty units, and will it be published? Thirdly, what concrete action is being taken to tackle illegal gambling, and particularly operators that target people who have self-excluded from licensed betting shops? Finally, the Government wrote to the Health and Social Care Committee on 12 June last year and said that they would look to complement local authorities’ existing powers in relation to the licensing of gambling premises. Does the Minister have an update?
But it is not just LNER, is it? We have also heard worrying accounts about Greater Anglia and c2c, shortly after they have been nationalised. The Government say that fare simplification is one of their key objectives; fair enough, but there are increasing numbers of accounts of discounted tickets being removed in the name of fare simplification. How will the Secretary of State prevent the fare simplification process from turning into just the removal of discounts?
Rumours are swirling around the northern mayoralties that the Government are about to row back on Northern Powerhouse Rail. Is this going to be another U-turn from the Government, or can the Minister take this opportunity to put those rumours to rest by saying from the Dispatch Box that the scope, funding and timeframe for Northern Powerhouse Rail are not going to be changed?
We are one of the safest.
There are 1 million privately owned scooters, which are illegal to use on public roads. I declare an interest, having bought one a few years ago in the expectation that I would be able to ride it legally by now, but that is permitted only under state-licensed schemes. Why have the Government extended trials that began six years ago by a further two years, rather than getting on with allowing people to use their e-scooters with proportionate regulation to deliver the benefits of micromobility, particularly in areas such as North West Norfolk that have limited public transport?
T5. London tube fares are due to rise by 5.8% this year. Despite that, my constituents, train drivers and station staff are frustrated by ongoing disruption with the tube services to my constituency. The Piccadilly line was out of action for weeks due to leaves on the line before Christmas, and the past 24 hours have seen a further extension of cancellations. What further pressure can the Secretary of State bring to bear on the Mayor of London to ensure a punctual and reliable service so that my constituents can get to work or school and go about their business?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The provision of social housing by the London borough of Hillingdon is important to the two thirds of my constituents who are served by that authority. They are therefore concerned that the House may have been inadvertently misled by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), who said on 5 November, and I quote from Hansard, that one of the crucial sites the council is progressing had been “left derelict for years, with the council not determining the application”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 401WH.] It is clear that the decision about this key provision of great concern to my constituents sits with the Mayor of London. A stage 2 decision by the mayor is required before any planning can progress on the site, and it is therefore important that the House is aware that the delay is attributable not to the London borough of Hillingdon, but to the failings of the Mayor of London. How can I ensure that the record stands corrected?
In light of what was essentially a very sensible statement, may I ask the Minister a point of clarification? She talks about data technology and innovation, but have the Government considered an experiment in mandatory black box technology for very young drivers? The AA and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association say that that could save money and reduce the number of accidents by 35%.
Order. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady has reached the seven-minute limit. I call Feryal Clark.
Order. Members will be able to see that four Members are left. I plan to call the Front Benchers at 4.35 pm. I shall leave Ruth Cadbury on seven minutes, but there will be a five-minute limit for the remaining Members.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the shadow Minister.
18. What recent discussions she has had with the Mayor of London on the extension of the management of commuter services by Transport for London.
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. She will well know, as a former deputy mayor for transport in London, that the confusing picture of the use of the underground and of Overground services has been a problem for Londoners and for the mayor. However, it would be very controversial to introduce such a measure for all the Overground services and National Rail services for commuters into London. Are the ongoing conversations about the entirety of the network, or are they limited to just one service?
Happy new year, Mr Speaker. At this time of year, sadly we often have to report on deaths, including those of Martin Chivers and Terry Yorath. Indeed, Kevin Keegan is facing a fight against stomach cancer. I am sure the whole House will wish their families a long life, and Kevin Keegan a swift recovery. In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, there will be a statement next Thursday from the Justice Committee on drugs in prison and what action needs to be taken. The Leader of the House did not announce whether the Backbench Business Committee will be getting time on 22 January, so we have not allocated any business for that day as yet. If we are given Thursday 29 January, there will be a full day’s debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. On Tuesday in Westminster Hall next week there will be a debate on a statutory duty of care for universities, and on Thursday a debate on the impact of food inflation on the cost of living, followed by a debate on the impact of gambling harms on children and young people. On Tuesday 20 January in Westminster Hall, there will be a debate on the role of the NHS in preventing homicides and domestic violence, and on Thursday 22 January a debate on transport connectivity in the midlands and north Wales, followed by a debate on the International Day of Education. The whole House will be well aware of the outrageous crimes of David Carrick and Cliff Mitchell. This morning a report has been published about the Metropolitan police and the way it has recruited police officers and staff. Between 2018 and 2023, because of the need to recruit more police officers, normal vetting procedures were completely ignored and 5,073 individuals were recruited without vetting. Some 4,528 had no special branch approval, and 431 had no Ministry of Defence approval. Even more scandalously, 114 of those who were vetted and refused were allowed on appeal to join the Metropolitan police. The estimate is that 1,200 officers and staff who would have been refused were recruited to the Metropolitan police. The vast majority of police officers—the overwhelming majority—do a brilliant job on our behalf and keep us safe. However, this is a clear scandal where vetting was not carried out, and it creates a crisis of confidence in the police. It also casts doubt on the police themselves, who want to see the bad apples removed and indeed prevented from coming into the police force in the first place. There is concern that this may have happened in other police forces across the country, so could we have a statement from the Home Secretary—I know she has condemned the position—about what action will be taken to prevent such things from happening?
Dangerous driving and speeding are among the biggest road safety issues in my constituency. Despite that, the local Cheshire councils frequently say that they cannot introduce further safety measures because the police are unable to enforce them. What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office to ensure that police forces have the funding and resources necessary to enforce existing, as well as new, driving laws as part of the road safety strategy?
The Post Office is a critical part of our national infrastructure. I do not believe that to be an exaggeration. In the time available to me this afternoon, I hope to demonstrate to the House, and to the Minister, why I, many right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches and, most importantly, my constituents, feel so strongly about the need to safeguard the future of the post office in Cheshire and across the country. By way of introduction, it is worth briefly setting out where the post office network stands today. In November 2010, the Conservative-led Government introduced a mandate requiring the Post Office to maintain a national network of at least 11,500 branches, alongside access criteria ensuring that 99% of the population live within three miles of a post office. That mandate has provided an essential degree of certainty and stability for post offices over the past decade. I will set out why each post office plays a vital role in our communities and ask the Minister to commit today to there still being at least 11,500 post office branches at the end of this Parliament. At a time when other high street services are steadily reducing their physical footprint, including banks and, with them, access to cash—a point to which I will return—it is more important than ever that we protect the physical presence of post offices in our communities. For many people, particularly the elderly, those without reliable transport and those who are digitally excluded, the local post office is not just a convenience but a necessity. The economic case for the post office is also compelling. Independent research estimates that for every £1 spent through the Post Office, a further £1.51 is generated across the wider economy. In total, the Post Office contributes more than £4.7 billion in economic benefit to the UK each year, underlining the vital role it plays in supporting business and trade, particularly small and microbusinesses that rely on local services to operate efficiently. The Government often speak of their ambition to deliver a high-growth economy—even if their actions and policy decisions too often act as a hindrance to that goal. I urge the Minister not to underestimate the contribution of the Post Office to economic growth and local prosperity. As an organisation, the Post Office has also demonstrated a clear commitment to rural communities, something that is particularly relevant to me as the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, and for our county of Cheshire more broadly, where, alongside our towns and cities, we have many rural villages. Some 43% of the post office network is located in rural areas, which reflects not only the opportunities presented by rural economies but the unique challenges those communities face. It reinforces the importance of maintaining reliable, accessible, face-to-face services where alternatives are often limited. It would be remiss of me not to mention the Post Office Horizon scandal and to pay tribute to the sub-postmasters in Cheshire who were so wronged. When the future of the post office is under threat, it is vital that we do not deter people from entering the sector; if we want to see a robust post office network in the future, we must ensure that staff have confidence in the systems that they operate. Before turning specifically to Cheshire and my constituency, I want to briefly acknowledge some of the challenges facing post offices today. More and more of us are going online for shopping and to access services and, as a result, customer visits to post offices have fallen by nearly a third since 2008. Alongside that, the range of Government services delivered through post offices has declined since 2010. While there is a responsibility on Government to operate efficiently and deliver value for money, we cannot ignore the cumulative impact that this shift has had on the post office network and on the digitally excluded. Perhaps the most pressing challenge, however, is the broader economic context. Rising operating costs, including rent, utilities, energy costs, increases in employer national insurance contributions and the increases in business rates introduced by this Government, have all placed further pressure on already stretched post office operators. Back in March last year, the Minister’s predecessor said that the Post Office’s plan aims to achieve operational and financial stability by 2030 and includes a commitment to boost annual postmaster incomes by £250 million by the end of the decade. However, local postmasters have raised concerns with me that, of the £120 million expected in this financial year, the Post Office has confirmed that only £89 million would be delivered by the end of March. What discussions has the Minister had with the Post Office about this reduction, and what steps will the Government take to address the resulting uncertainty for the postmaster network? The financial challenges that post offices face are real. They are acute, and they must be properly understood by the Government. With that context established, I want to turn to Cheshire, in particular my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury. There are 21 post office branches across my constituency. I want to highlight a small number of examples that demonstrate both the immense value that those post offices provide and the very real consequences when services are lost or reduced. I begin with the village of Kelsall, where a post office once operated at the heart of the community, serving residents and local businesses alike. Last year, that post office was forced to close after the Co-op, which hosted the branch, withdrew from operating it, citing challenging economic circumstances. That decision reflects the wider pressures facing retailers and is a direct consequence of rising costs. Following the closure, I received a significant volume of correspondence from concerned constituents, anxious about the loss of their post office and the impact it would have on their daily lives. In response, I launched a petition to save Kelsall post office and demonstrate clearly the value that the community places on the service. I am grateful to the 337 residents who signed that petition. For some, the closure affected business continuity—being able to deposit cash takings or send goods—while for others it was about access to cash itself. Many relied on the post office for help in navigating complex digital processes, particularly older residents. In every sense, Kelsall post office was a vital community asset. While we have not yet been able to secure a new site, I want to reassure my constituents that I will continue to work with local stakeholders and the Post Office to make the strongest possible case for a community post office in Kelsall. Current access requirements state that everyone must live within 3 miles of a post office branch, and while Kelsall residents do have an alternative branch just within the distance under that criterion, some rural roads have no safe walking routes, offering little comfort to those who cannot drive, have limited mobility or lack decent public transport options. For many, the impact of the closure is therefore still keenly felt. Each of the 21 post offices in my constituency is highly valued, and the closure of any additional branches would have a significant impact. In rural areas in particular, where public transport is limited or non-existent and digital connectivity has suffered from long-standing under-investment, the local post office plays a vital role in meeting the needs of the community. The reality is that Kelsall is not the only rural village to have had a post office closure. There will be many, many more across the country. Audlem, another village in my constituency, has been without a post office for two years. Then last year, the Labour-led council significantly cut the bus frequency further, reducing residents’ access to vital services. What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to help rural villages and areas not only save their post offices but regain the Post Office services that they have lost? I turn now to the village of Malpas to highlight the issue of access to cash and banking services. In July 2024, the village lost its final bank branch. Thankfully, Malpas post office stepped in to provide some of the services previously offered by the bank. However, in recent months the post office closed without warning, and when it initially reopened there was no access to cash. This situation has caused significant anxiety for residents and local businesses. I am pleased that the service has become more reliable under new management, but this case clearly illustrates the fragile state of high street provision. There is now not a single bank branch anywhere in my constituency. The services provided by the Post Office are vital. The risk that the situation experienced in Malpas could be replicated across many villages has serious consequences for residents, businesses and the local economy, so will the Minister commit to considering access to cash and vital banking services in any future sustainable model for rural post offices? I pay tribute to all those working incredibly hard in post offices across Chester South and Eddisbury. I highlight in particular Sandra and Tony, who do a brilliant job running Tarporley post office, which is one of our four main post offices in Chester South and Eddisbury, alongside Sandiway, Westminster Park and Lime Avenue post office in Weaverham. Of those four, Tarporley is the most rural and, as a result, is absolutely critical to the community it serves. Other branches in my constituency are classified as outreach post offices, which means that they might be part-time services hosted in village halls, for example, or where post office services are an add-on to a shop, providing a more limited service offering. As a main post office, Tarporley provides services that others do not. It is consistently open, reliably serving customers, offering local businesses a place to deposit takings, providing access to cash and acting as a vital hub for the wider village and surrounding area.
My hon. Friend makes an important point and mentions the sub-postmasters in his constituency. I echo what he has said and pay tribute to those who work so hard in my constituency. Although I sincerely hope there will be no future branch closures, if the Government intend to make changes to the network, will special consideration be given to branches classified as main post offices, particularly those serving large and predominantly rural geographical areas? The final example I will highlight is Wybunbury Village post office, which demonstrates the wider community role that these facilities provide. Wybunbury is a very rural village with just two amenities: the local pub and the post office, which also operates as a convenience store. At a time when our hospitality sector is under immense pressure from rising costs and business rates, the loss of either would be deeply felt. Currently, approximately 14% of post office branches are the last shop on the high street. That is both a sad reality and a wake-up call to Government about the need to protect what we have left. Again, I say this with respect to the Minister, but the Government have demonstrated, in policy after policy, that they do not understand the countryside and do not see it as a priority. Will he assure me today that rural branches will not be seen as low-hanging fruit and closed, only to be replaced by urban branches? The social and economic impact would be significant, as I know would be the case in Wybunbury, as just one example. The post office in Wybunbury is a true community hub, brilliantly run by Kirsty and Daniel. The affection in which it is held was demonstrated clearly when, as part of my recent small business competition, nearly 100 residents nominated it for an award. I was delighted to visit just before Christmas to present the team with a certificate, and I place on record my thanks to them for their continued service to the community. I have used this Adjournment debate to highlight the vital importance of post offices to Cheshire, to my constituents and to our country as a whole. The campaign to protect the post office network has been championed by Conservatives, and I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) for her leadership in securing 165,000 signatures for our petition, which was delivered to the Prime Minister. As the Minister considers the response to the Government’s consultation on the future of the Post Office, I urge him to listen carefully to the voices of my constituents, to recognise the unique role that post offices play in rural communities and to commit to maintaining the network at its current level.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Like other Members, I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate and on his long-standing and tireless commitment to defending freedom of religion and belief around the world. This debate is the latest example of those efforts. Once again, he has brought before the House an issue of grave moral urgency and deep international concern, which too often escapes the sustained attention of hon. Members across this House. For that, he deserves our sincere thanks. In my capacity as a shadow foreign affairs Minister, I have stood in this very place on a number of occasions to raise the vital importance of defending freedom of religion and belief. Sadly, it is abundantly clear that the assault on the right to believe, to worship or simply to think freely is not receding. I regret to say that in many parts of the world it is intensifying, and Myanmar is the most tragic and alarming example of that. It is, sadly, a depressing way to start 2026: to hear that such tragic circumstances in a country continue in the second quarter of this century. However, I find it reassuring that today we have heard from MPs from about six different political groups who all had the common theme of wanting to see the tragedy in Myanmar end. I thank all Members who have helped to play a part in that process over many years, some of whom have spoken today. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke about the importance of upholding the rights of religious minorities and about the need for international action in Myanmar. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) hit on a very important point about the motivation behind all this, so there are still questions to be answered. Why is there such severe repression against religious minorities in that country? The hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who served as a Minister until recently and who worked on this issue as a shadow Minister, spoke about the fragile situation on the border with Bangladesh and the importance of remembering that issue as part of the overall tragedy taking place in Myanmar. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for highlighting that the issue is not about one religion; it is about all religions that are persecuted. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians are all being persecuted, and he particularly highlighted the plight of the Rohingya. I was not aware that the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) had been so involved in the Burma Campaign over the years. I commend him for that. He also spoke about the appalling humanitarian crisis and the tragic failure of the global community to highlight it more seriously. We look at so many other issues going on in the world, but we rarely talk about that. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), made a similar point. Finally, the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) spoke about erasing identity and culture—exactly what is happening in Myanmar today—and Burmese nationalism. I think there is unity among all Members this afternoon, but there is a lot more to be said on this. Religious persecution is at the very centre of the wider conflict taking place in Myanmar. The military junta has deliberately targeted religious minorities—whether they are Muslims, Christians or others, as hon. Members this afternoon have mentioned—simply because of their faith, identity and ethnicity, which are so deeply intertwined in that country. The result is a campaign of terror that has displaced millions of innocent people and destroyed so many places of worship. Independent human rights organisations such as Fortify Rights have documented deliberate aerial attacks on civilian infrastructure, including schools, churches and hospitals, in the run-up to the sham elections, blatantly indicating how systematic and widespread the military junta’s violence is. The latest report shows multiple airstrikes targeting civilian areas, many of which may constitute war crimes under international law. Muslim communities, particularly the Rohingya, continue to suffer what many have rightly described as crimes against humanity. Hundreds of thousands remain in refugee camps in Bangladesh, a nation that has its own international issues to overcome, while those still inside Myanmar endure what Human Rights Watch has described as apartheid-like conditions, arbitrary detention and systematic deprivation of their most basic human rights. Christians, too, often from ethnic minority communities and most starkly in Chin state, have been brutally targeted. Churches have been bombed, clergy have been killed and congregations have been forced to flee into jungles or makeshift displacement camps. Nor has Myanmar’s religious and cultural patrimony been spared, with historic cathedrals and churches damaged or destroyed in a deliberate attempt to erase identity as well as faith. That amounts to a sustained pattern of persecution carried out by the Tatmadaw armed forces with impunity. As a country, and particularly in this place, we cannot look at Myanmar without recognising our own historical connections to that country. During the period of British administration, Burma was, as it remains today, home to a remarkable tapestry of peoples, languages and faiths. In its latter years as a Crown colony, there was at least a recognition, imperfect though it was, that diverse communities could co-exist under the protection of shared institutions and the rule of law. That pluralism was and is very much still being violently dismantled by the current regime. The very sense of cultural multiplicity that once defined Burma is now treated by the military junta as a threat to be eradicated. That should matter to us in Britain, given our role in establishing what is now Myanmar but, perhaps more importantly, because Britain’s standing in the world rests on our willingness to uphold the values that helped to hold that country together, with the borders that it still has today, in the first place. I acknowledge that the United Kingdom, under Governments of both colours, has taken a strong stance on Myanmar. Successive statements at the United Nations have rightly condemned the violence and reaffirmed support for freedom of religion or belief. However, we all know that in the second quarter of the 21st century, eloquent statements in international forums are not enough when entire communities are being erased before our eyes. The International Court of Justice case involving the Rohingya continues at a glacial pace while atrocities persist on the ground, so I say this to the Minister: what further support are the UK Government providing to the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar to ensure that evidence is preserved and that perpetrators are identified and, we hope, brought to justice? Beyond judicial mechanisms, what discussions has the United Kingdom had with counterparts in the region, particularly countries such as China and India, to ensure that those responsible, particularly within Myanmar’s military leadership, face real political and diplomatic pressure today and not at some indeterminate point in the future? Action is required immediately. Despite the UK’s imposition of sanctions, including on aviation fuel suppliers, airstrikes against religious sites continue. Does the Minister believe that the current sanctions regime is sufficient, or should we go further? What concrete steps are being taken to close the loopholes—particularly on jet fuel, arms transfers and financial flows—that continue to enable these atrocious attacks? The UK Government rightly state that freedom of religion or belief is a core human rights priority, but how is that reflected specifically in our Myanmar policy? Is there a dedicated strategy to support persecuted religious minorities both in Myanmar and among refugee populations in neighbouring countries? We know that aid is being deliberately blocked from reaching displaced religious minorities, particularly in ethnic and Christian-majority areas, so what pressure are the UK Government exerting, bilaterally and through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those for whom it is intended, without interference or manipulation from the junta? Will the UK Government commit to raising once again at the UN Security Council the crisis facing religious minorities in Myanmar? Will the Minister work with international partners to build a stronger coalition in defence of freedom of religion or belief across south and south-east Asia more broadly? We have seen the United States take a strong stand in defence of persecuted Christians in countries such as Nigeria, and the US Congress’s work on freedom of religion or belief in Myanmar. Although the findings are grim, they have been instructive, so what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in Washington? Is she pressing for deeper American engagement on this issue? The United Kingdom has long been a world leader on freedom of religion or belief. When dealing with religious regions that have modern political foundations tracing back in part to this very building, I believe that we have a particular responsibility to show leadership—if not for the sake of those suffering today, to ensure that Britain is seen not as an irrelevant observer in global affairs, but as a nation that still stands up for justice, freedom and the rule of law, as our forebears have always done.
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all of your staff in the Speaker’s Office. I would like the Leader of the House to know that I am very concerned to hear that several police and community support officers, who are currently under transport policing command in the Metropolitan police, are being forcefully redeployed to a private contractor within Transport for London. That has caused a tremendous amount of upset for those concerned, including one of my constituents whose only other option is to resign. Will the Leader of the House consider having a broader debate on the structure of the Metropolitan police and its relationship with outside, private organisations?
I welcome all efforts by the Government to make roads safer for pedestrians and motorists, but I heard nothing about roadkill of wildlife, horses, pets, and other animals that can also cause collisions involving the deaths of human beings. In my constituency, Havering-atte-Bower is a rural Essex village with a lot of horse riders. I am told that up to 700 horses have been killed on the roads in recent years, and up to 50 riders. We also have a lot of roaming deer in areas such as Harold Hill and Noak Hill. Apparently, up to 75,000 deer are killed on the roads, along with hedgehogs and other animals, so there is a lot going on with wildlife which needs to be considered. We know that some creatures do not have to be registered if they are run over by a motor vehicle, so will the Minister consider amending the Road Traffic Act 1988 to include cats and other wild animals?