5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Small cider producers in Somerset benefit from a duty relief scheme. I realise that the Minister is about to conclude his remarks, but he does not appear to have touched on the subject of duty relief for small vineyards. Will he at least give a commitment that he will talk to the Treasury about that, because it seems illogical that small brewers and small cider producers benefit from duty relief but small vineyards do not?
The Chancellor substantially increased the budget of the Ministry of Justice in the spending review from £11.9 billion in 2023-24 to £15.6 billion in 2028-29. We are told that that is a real-terms increase of 3.1% over five years. It is our duty in this place not just to applaud ever larger sums of money being spent, but to scrutinise whether that money is spent well and to ensure it represents good value for money for the taxpayer. There is no question but that the criminal justice system is under strain. I trust the Lord Chancellor will do her best to ensure that she uses the money wisely to fix the various problems the Chairman of the Select Committee has described. One of the biggest problems facing the criminal justice system is the Crown court backlog. As of the end of 2024, almost 75,000 cases were awaiting trial. That is an increase on the figure when the Lord Chancellor took office and it is projected to rise further. Justice delayed is justice denied. Witnesses’ memories fade and victims feel that they have been forgotten. I appreciate that much of that rise was caused by the pandemic, and we are still dealing with the fallout, but the Lord Chancellor must do more to reduce that backlog. Although there is more money for the courts as part of the spending review, we need to ensure it is effectively deployed. The Government say it is a priority, yet we still have empty courtrooms. When the Lady Chief Justice came to Parliament last November, she offered 6,500 additional sitting days. Will the Minister explain why the Lord Chancellor did not accept every single one of the extra days offered? The Lord Chancellor must use the additional money she has been given to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of both the Crown and magistrates courts, and to reduce the backlogs. The justice system also faces a lack of prison spaces. The Gauke review, commissioned by the Lord Chancellor, has effectively recommended the ending of short prison sentences in favour of community sentences. About half of admissions to prison are for sentences of less than 12 months. The Howard League says that about 30,000 people a year are sentenced to six months or less. Setting aside for one moment whether that is the right policy, which I doubt, if it is implemented by the Government it will require a very large increase in the number of probation officers.
The danger is that the public lose confidence in the criminal justice system if prisoners are released so early. As I mentioned, there is already a shortfall of nearly 2,000 probation officers. In fact, there are now 200 fewer probation officers than when Labour took office. If the Government intend to go ahead with this plan, we need to know how they plan to recruit the additional probation officers that they will need. What is their plan? If they go ahead with abolishing short sentences, those community sentences will have to be seen by the public to be really tough and worthwhile if the criminal justice system is to retain confidence. I fear that the Government do not have a plan for that. Although we see more money allocated in the budget for prison and probation services, we do not get any detail about what that means for the recruitment of those extra probation officers. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that point. I also ask the Government to look at other methods of alleviating the strain on prison places that do not involve additional expenditure—for example, deporting foreign national offenders. There are currently 11,000 foreign offenders in our prisons, but our record on deporting them remains poor. Only 3,500 were deported last year, and too many are still able to avoid deportation by using the European convention on human rights. This needs to change. The Government have said that they will review the right to family life being used in appeals in serious cases related to asylum seekers who have been convicted of sexual offences. I welcome that, but we need to go much further. We should deport all foreign national offenders at the end of their sentences and disapply the Human Rights Act. The obvious way to ensure that we have enough prison spaces in the longer term is to build more prisons. During the general election campaign, Labour promised to build 20,000 additional places, but in the year since the Government took office, little progress has been made, and it was recently revealed that they have actually cut hundreds of millions of pounds from the capital budget to cover the cost of pay increases for staff and the imposition of the Chancellor’s jobs tax. It is always tempting to welcome an increase to a Department’s budget, but we need to ensure that the spending is matched by proper accountability and planning. We cannot afford for this new funding to be simply absorbed by justice bureaucracy. Will the Minister explain how much of the extra money that his Department has been allocated will go in additional national insurance charges, wage rises and inflation? It is simply not credible to make countless promises in opposition or on the campaign trail, only to quietly shelve them when in office. The Opposition will hold the Government to account for the commitments they have given.
During my speech I asked the Minister how much of the extra money allocated to his Department would be spent on higher wage rises, higher national insurance charges and inflation. I am just giving him a chance to respond before he finishes his own speech.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley on bringing forward this Bill, and on speaking so eloquently. This is not just about people being able to enjoy football matches, but also about safety and preventing serious injury and—God forbid—in the worst cases, death. I would like to declare that I am a very tortured Manchester United fan—I see some heads shaking in disapproval—but I do enjoy my football. The Bill speaks to me. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to Baron Brennan of Canton, who introduced this Bill, albeit in a slightly different form, in the previous Parliament. The previous Government supported the Bill, and it is a pleasure to be here today to add the support of His Majesty’s official Opposition. In 2021, like everyone around the country, I was on the edge of my seat as our heroic national men’s team came so close to bringing it home. Sadly, it was not to be, as we lost to Italy on penalties in the final. Everyone here will be familiar with the scenes at the game where fans tried to force their way into Wembley stadium. Gates were stormed, fans gained entry by tailgating through turnstiles or forcing emergency exits, and there were shocking reports of some stewards being attacked or bribed. The then Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee was right to label that day as a day of “national shame”. The safety of spectators at sporting events is of the highest importance and the last Government took decisive action to help protect spectators. I hope that one day I will be able to take my children to a winning Manchester United football match—I hear the joy from the Committee as I said that—but perhaps also one day I can let them head to games on their own.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; he clearly has great experience of Wembley. That is a very fair challenge for the Minister. No parent, family member or friend should ever be worried about the prospect of their loved one getting hurt watching the beautiful game. That is why, in 2022, the previous Government amended and strengthened the football banning order regime. As a result, the Crown Prosecution Service can now ask courts for tougher penalties for online abuse involving race, sexuality or religion. Previously, FBOs could only be issued for in-person offences. Furthermore, in November 2022, the previous Government added the possession or supply of class A drugs at football matches to the FBO regime. Following the addition, there was an increased willingness among the police to make arrests at football matches for class A drug offences. FBOs are not just about preventing troublemakers from attending matches at home and abroad involving a team from or representing England or Wales. They demonstrate that the UK has taken action to ensure that individuals involved in football-related violence and disorder can be stopped and prevented from attending football matches. The previous Government also supported the Football Association’s commissioning of the Casey review, which highlighted the failures that took place at Wembley and recommended strengthening penalties for football-related disorder, including tailgating. I would like to pay my own tribute to Baroness Casey for her independent review of the appalling disorder that occurred during the Euro 2020 final. However, it is also important to highlight that tailgating is not the only problematic behaviour. Various other routes are used to attempt entry into football matches, such as scaling walls, climbing through windows, forcing exits and using fraudulent tickets. The fact that the Bill is drafted in a way that captures all those who are attempting to evade security measures is welcome. I hope that the Minister agrees with me that football should be welcoming to all, and spectators at games should be safe. Those who bring disorder or evade security should not be present, and I welcome the fact that the Bill seeks to ensure that these people are prohibited from attending live matches. Everyone should be able to enjoy the beautiful game. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Amber Valley has brought forward the Bill, which I entirely welcome.
I just want to say that, if there is anything that the hon. Lady wishes to correct, that can always be done on Report.
After a long campaign, we have finally been successful in securing a banking hub in Ilkley, despite having to wait for the last bank to announce its closure. However, securing access to cash is not just about securing a banking hub; it is about securing an ATM that people can access when the hub is closed. We found that, unfortunately, Cash Access UK and Link, which decide applications for hubs, have determined that we should not need an ATM on the outside of the building. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about the importance of such an out-of-hours facility?
I would like to put on record my thanks to the Minister for her interaction with me in my endeavours to get a banking hub in Ilkley. Could I ask the Minister about the assessment criteria that Link and Cash Access UK are using? Is it the right course to get to the point where we are relying on the final bank to close before we start looking at applications? Secondly, does the Minister not feel it is right that when we do manage to secure a banking hub, an ATM could be located on the outside of that banking hub so that people could access cash out of hours?
I am sure the Minister recognises that in addition to this plan to diversify the deterrent launch method, the UK must ensure that our strategic CASD enterprise has an effective and productive industrial base, delivering faster maintenance times. Can she therefore confirm whether these aircraft will be budgeted from the ringfenced Defence Nuclear Enterprise budget?
Q10. Labour has invited proposals from cities to expand their boundaries, and the Mayor of Leicester wants to expand the city to swallow up areas like Oadby, Wigston and Great Glen, but local people do not want that, and thousands have signed our petition against it. It is not just about the higher council tax; they want to keep their own local identity. Will the Deputy Prime Minister rule out this totally unwelcome city takeover? If she does want to press ahead with it, will she at least give us a say in a local referendum, so that we can tell her again that we do not want this?
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee to open the debate.
Order. Dr Mullan, there is no “you” in the Chamber; you are talking through the Chair.
Order. For the record, I did not comment on the lady’s age.
I thank the hon. Member for his kind personal remarks. He is absolutely right, and I will be saying more about this point in my speech, but would he acknowledge that whatever colour of party is in government, all armed forces across the western world are now struggling to recruit and, particularly, to retain personnel? The problem is not unique to the United Kingdom, or indeed north-east England.
I am ever so sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but technically it is still a Bill. We are debating it in the main Chamber next Wednesday.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Allin-Khan, and to sum up for His Majesty’s Opposition on the important subject of armed forces recruitment from the north-east of England. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing a debate on such an interesting topic, in Armed Forces Week to boot, and, if I may say so, on introducing it so very ably. The British armed forces have a proud tradition of recruiting soldiers, sailors and, more recently, airmen from the north-east of England. I will take the Army as an example; being a former infantry officer, I hope that the hon. Member and the Minister will forgive me if I concentrate on infantry units. There are many proud regiments across the Army, both the teeth arms and those who support them, that historically have recruited from this corner of England. To begin with, the Coldstream Guards, which is the oldest continually serving regular regiment in the British Army, takes its name from the village on the English-Scottish border where it was first formed in 1650. It was originally Monck’s Regiment of Foot, before becoming the Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards following Monck’s death in 1670. It was, of course, instrumental in restoring royal rule after the civil war and proudly remains part of the Household Division to this day. However, there are others. For instance, the Northumberland Fusiliers was first raised as an infantry regiment of the British Army in 1674. In 1751, it became the 5th Regiment of Foot and in 1836, after the Napoleonic wars, it was designated a fusilier unit and became the 5th (Northumberland Fusiliers) Regiment of Foot. This proud name is now incorporated into the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, the deputy Regimental Colonel of which is now Colonel Jez Lamb, an excellent officer with whom I had the privilege of serving in the Ministry of Defence. There are other proud names, too. For instance, there is the Durham Light Infantry, which was formed under the so-called Childers reforms in 1881 and is today part of The Rifles, one of the largest regiments in the British Army. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) paid handsome tribute to the Durham Light Infantry and he was absolutely right to do so. Of course, both the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have also actively recruited from the north-east of England in the past. The RAF has maintained an active presence in the north-east of England, not least at RAF Boulmer in Northumberland, which I visited when I was a Defence Minister and which plays a vital co-ordinating role in the air defence of the United Kingdom. In short, the north-east has always played a part in the defence of these islands and no doubt always will. As I am sure the Minister will go on to agree, armies across the western world find it difficult to recruit and especially to retain regular armed forces personnel. Given modern lifestyles, it is increasingly challenging to find enough people who wish to undergo the rigours of service life, including the pressure that it puts on their families. Indeed, we know from the armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, that although there are often a number of reasons why people leave the armed forces, the pressure of service life on family life is the greatest determinant of that decision and has been for several years now. As the Minister may recall, this is a subject I know a little about. After I left the MOD, where I served as the Armed Forces Minister, in 2017 I was commissioned by the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, to write a report about how to improve recruitment into the armed forces, which was submitted to No. 10 in 2017. It was entitled “Filling the Ranks”, and it is still available on my parliamentary website. Following that work, I was recommissioned to do a further study on retention. Even when looking at recruitment, we soon become involved in discussions about retention, because in effect they are two sides of the same coin. To put it another way, there is no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tab if we cannot put a retention plug in the sink. Partly as a result of that work, I was recommissioned by the same Prime Minister to write a second report on retention, entitled “Stick or Twist?”, which was submitted to No. 10 in February 2020, albeit to a different Prime Minister and just a month before the country went into lockdown because of covid. I am pleased to say that the previous Government actioned the vast majority of the recommendations in both reports, including those designed to help recruiting by taking a more realistic attitude to minor medical ailments that previously disbarred some enthusiastic potential candidates from joining the armed forces. However, as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) ably pointed out, there is still much further to go. As the Minister knows, one of the principal challenges to speeding up the recruitment process is gaining access to candidates’ GP medical records. I have to say that it has at times been like trying to cut the Gordian knot. There must be more that can be done in this area, even if it means—and I do not say this lightly —amending the GP contract. As the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor correctly pointed out, the challenges faced by people living in the north-east of England who want to join the armed forces are not so different from those around the rest of the country. In 2012, the Army decided to outsource its recruiting to a consortium led by Capita. At the same time, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force decided to stick, as it were, and retain their recruitment in-house. Although I admit that it happened under a previous Conservative Government, the outsourcing contract was not an outstanding success. The number of soldiers actively recruited into the Army, including from the north-east, began to fall dramatically shortly after Capita took responsibility for that function, and it has hardly ever hit its recruitment target since. Before the Minister leaps to his feet to intervene on me and point out that that happened under a Tory Government, I would simply offer that I served on the Defence Committee for seven years, during which there was no fiercer critic of Capita than me. We now have a situation in which personnel, including those from the north, are leaving the armed forces faster than we can recruit them. Indeed, Ministers have said several times in the past few months that for every 100 who join across all three services, 130 leave. Against that background, the MOD has recently decided to relet the recruiting contract to a new consortium led by Serco. However, that does not fully go live until April 2027, and there will be a transition period during which Serco will prepare to take over from the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, and will work in tandem with Capita as it runs down the current recruiting contract. In a very knowledgeable contribution, the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) rightly touched on that point. I want to take the opportunity to express real concern about the process and, in particular, the period of joint working between Capita and Serco. All experience suggests that if Capita is unable to hit its targets during the interregnum, there is likely to be a great deal of finger-pointing between the two companies. But it will be the strength of the regular Army, including recruitment from the north-east of England, that suffers, so I very much encourage Ministers to be alert to that. There is a further challenge to recruiting, including in the north-east, and it is one for which a previous Conservative Government cannot be blamed: the current Government’s plans to use a remedial order to excise parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. As of 15 minutes ago, 137,953 UK citizens have signed a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, which we will debate in this Chamber next month. Suffice it to say that I believe all the contributions made by Labour Members have been entirely genuine—indeed, passionate—and I have to believe, therefore, that they would be very reluctant to go through the Lobbies this autumn to vote for a proposal that not only opens up our Northern Ireland veterans to prosecution, but would make it easier for Gerry Adams to sue the British Government. Although I am an Essex Member of Parliament, I am also a bit of a military history buff, so I know that there are counties in the north-east of England that have a proud tradition of providing personnel for what are now His Majesty’s armed forces. I conclude by congratulating again the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor on securing such a timely debate. I look forward with genuine interest to what the Minister has to say to us.
As the hon. Member is well aware, many of those who served on Operation Banner were recruited from what we would now call red wall constituencies, many of them in the north-east of England. As we have many north-east MPs here this afternoon, will the Minister give us an absolute assurance that the Government will not proceed with their totally counterproductive remedial order to throw those veterans to the wolves?
I beg to move, That this House has considered access to banking hubs in Hertfordshire. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank Clementine Manning from my office for the extensive work she has put into researching for this speech and many of my other contributions to the House. I urge colleagues to be gentle with me; this is my first Westminster Hall debate, and I have yet to learn how to do these things properly. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is here to show me the way, with hopefully an intervention in due course. Access to banking services is essential for everyone across the country, and more and more our rural and semi-rural areas are seeing their access to banking services reduced. That is a particular issue for those who are unable to use technology to access online banking, and I know that many who are able to use online banking still feel more reassured if they are able to carry out banking activities face-to-face. Having seen the immensely positive impact that increased access to banking services through the post office has had in Rickmansworth in my constituency of South West Hertfordshire, I am campaigning for the establishment of a banking hub in Abbots Langley, another area in my constituency, to ensure that as many of my constituents as possible are able to access these essential services. I appreciate that everyone else here wants the same. Hertfordshire in particular has felt the impact of the withdrawal of banking services, as, despite there being over 160 banking hubs now opened, just four are in Hertfordshire, with none in my constituency. Rural areas are twice as likely to depend on their local post office for cash and banking services, and it is essential that people in those areas are not left behind. Post offices have always been, and remain, critical assets to our communities, providing essential services. I have had the pleasure of meeting local postmasters in Abbots Langley and Rickmansworth, as well as visiting a Royal Mail distribution centre, to learn more about the sheer volume of service provided by their hard workers. From speaking to those postmasters, the essential role that they play in supporting our communities in all ways is clear. With many people unable to use technology, or simply more comfortable with face-to-face provision, the provision of banking hubs is just one of those essential services. In the UK as a whole, 99% of the population live within three miles of a post office branch, as do 97.9% of the UK’s rural population. Post offices also make up more than 66% of all branch-based cash access points in the UK. That is particularly relevant because of the decline in the number of bank branches. This is not just an issue in Hertfordshire or my constituency; across the UK, we have seen 6,200 bank or building society branch closures since 2015. In my constituency of South West Hertfordshire, 89% of banks have closed since 2015, leaving us with only a Nationwide in Rickmansworth.
My right hon. Friend has obviously had early sight of my speech, because I was going to get on to exactly that about human interaction, but I will let colleagues hold off for a few minutes while I carry on the main body of my speech. As my right hon. Friend said, the situation is deeply desperate, but sadly, not unique to South West Herts. I know other Members in this House will be feeling similar circumstances, as one in seven constituencies across the UK have only one bank or no bank at all. Access to cash is essential, and it is important that we retain the ability to withdraw and deposit cash to support that, particularly as that allows those who do not use online banking to keep an eye on their personal finances. The post office supports this vital service and is essential for people in my area. On average, £1.6 million is withdrawn from post offices in my constituency every month, while £3.5 million is deposited. Although the post office provides an amazing service, a banking hub in a post office gives people proper support. We must prevent the closure of post offices, many of which are now run by a single person and are not necessarily profitable. It would be a great damage to all our areas if post offices were to close too. Although post offices such as the one in Rickmansworth have stepped up to provide greater banking services than those normally available, we cannot expect our constituents to rely on post offices to replace the banks if there is no banking hub in place, as they do not provide the same level of service. Although Rickmansworth is fortunate to have some banking services available via the post office, as well as in the Nationwide branch, since I was elected in 2019 South West Hertfordshire has lost NatWest, Barclays and Santander in Rickmansworth.
Once again, an hon. Member has pre-empted part of my speech. As the hon. Gentleman alludes to, the issue is not specific to the south-east, but occurs across the country. I look forward to reassurance from the Minister in her speech. The situation is worse in other parts of my constituency. Many of my residents do not have access to any banking services on their high street. That is particularly the case in Abbots Langley where, in 2021, the Barclays branch closed, leaving residents in the town and surrounding area with no access to banking services. The issue matters greatly to people in my constituency. I joined forces with our local Conservative councillors, Vicky Edwards and Ian Campbell, to support a campaign to bring a banking hub to the post office on the high street. I met with the local postmaster and Vicky and Ian recently to discuss the value that would bring to constituents.
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituents. Part of my remarks today, and I am sure of others’ later in the debate, concerns that exact point about increasing flexibility. We must not create criteria for banking hubs that do not necessarily solve the problem; we are trying to solve access to cash and banking services for all our constituents, irrespective of where they live. More than 1,300 residents have already signed a petition in support of our campaign in Abbots Langley for a banking hub. I continue to push hard for that to be achieved, as that area in my community would greatly benefit from a banking hub as an obvious solution to the current lack of access those residents have. Returning to the importance of access to cash, it is essential that the key service provided by banks continues to be available to people. I appreciate that we are moving increasingly towards a cashless society. It is rare now to find a shop that does not accept card payments, or indeed accepts cash at all. The idea of carrying emergency cash may, for many of us, seem less common. As someone with a background in small business, I understand the importance of cash for small and medium-sized businesses. Although ATMs make cash available to the wider population, it is not the same as the face-to-face interaction that a banking hub provides. I am glad that the major banks have recently signed a five-year access to cash deal with the Post Office to allow free withdrawals and deposit of cash, but that is a small step compared with the need for the services that banking hubs provide. Of small businesses, 28% use cash at least weekly, and with more than 5,500 small businesses in South West Hertfordshire, banking facilities are not a service they can go without. Ahead of the debate, I thought it was important to speak to local businesses in my area. I contacted businesses across Abbots Langley, Rickmansworth and Kings Langley for their views on banking services and the role that cash plays in their everyday business. Many of the businesses I engaged with supported banking hubs, because they regularly need to deposit cash. Business owners in Abbots Langley told me that because they have no access to banking services, they often have to travel long distances to Watford to deposit large amounts of cash, which is time-consuming and potentially unsafe. That would be solved if Abbots Langley had a banking hub. Small business owners are not the only group affected by the digital exclusion that comes with the loss of high street banks. Nearly a third of people over the age of 65 across the UK say that they feel uncomfortable using online banking, particularly for large or delicate transactions. Some 19% of people in my constituency are over 65. Having a banking hub allows the elderly and vulnerable to feel more comfortable, because they can access and deal with their finances in person. It is great that people often feel that they can trust their postmaster. Again, this may be some of the only social interaction that many people have, and it benefits their mental health and wellbeing. It is not just the elderly who are affected by the move towards a cashless society. I have long advocated ensuring that the infrastructure in South West Hertfordshire, including essential services such as banking, is accessible for everyone. Those with a disability or impairment are also being impacted by the move away from high street banks. In a recent survey of a group of 2,700 people who had a disability or impairment, more than half said they had been negatively impacted by bank closures. They struggle with security features, authentication checks and speaking to their bank over the phone. They are simply left with no other alternative, and should not be forced to travel to other towns, often on unreliable, infrequent public transport, simply to access their money. More than 1 million people in the UK rely wholly on cash, and 8 million adults report that they would struggle in a completely cashless society. For the elderly and the vulnerable, the opening of local banking hubs reduces the risk of their becoming victims of financial abuse and allows them to remain independent. As I have said, post offices and the postmasters who run them are often more than just a post service. They see their regulars frequently, and will notice if someone has not been seen or does not look well. They are not healthcare professionals, but they are another set of eyes and ears that can tell how customers are doing. The process of opening a banking hub is currently undertaken by Cash Access UK, Link and supporting banks, and I look forward to meeting with Link shortly to begin discussions about getting a banking hub in Abbots Langley. I previously discussed the process with other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who expressed concerns about the parameters that are used to determine whether an area qualifies for a banking hub.
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which I think will be echoed in later contributions. The criteria feel too stringent. With the Minister’s support, I hope that conversations with Link and others will mean that the criteria are a bit more flexible, so that banking hubs are accessible to all, rather than just fitting an arbitrary parameter. I have already expressed my concerns about the parameters used to determine whether an area qualifies for a banking hub, and I will emphasise in my meeting the importance of ensuring that the proximity of Abbots Langley to Watford should not prevent it from getting a banking hub, for the reasons that I have already outlined. The problem with semi-rural areas such as mine—and Reading, by the sound of it—is that the criteria established by Link for determining the need to set up a new banking hub are likely to miss areas such as Abbots Langley, because they focus on when the last bank branch in a town closed. Abbots Langley is a village that has not had a bank for a very long time. I will raise this with Link in my meeting, especially because villages and smaller communities have been disproportionately affected by bank closures, losing 70% of their banking network since 2015 compared with less than 50% in urban areas.
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his community, and his point about access to cash outside of office hours is really important. One of my community’s frustrations is that while they may have access to an ATM, the money runs out very quickly on, say, a Saturday morning, so if someone needed cash on a Sunday, they would have to travel further, because that cash machine would not be restocked until the following Monday. I agree with my hon. Friend and hope the Minister will take on board his point that it is about not just having a banking hub, but making sure that ATMs are available and stocked with cash at all times. Link has deviated from its standard framework for approving banking hubs in around 32 locations so far, and I hope that that could be the case in my area. I am sure that the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and others will encourage it to consider the exceptional circumstances in their own areas. The alternative to the establishment of a banking hub is for Abbots Langley post office to get enhanced banking services, such as a deposit service, similar to the one that was set up in Rickmansworth following the closures there. The Government should be doing more to ensure that all UK residents have access to adequate banking facilities. I will continue to work with local post offices, banks such as NatWest and Barclays, and Link to bring more banking hubs to my constituency, and I know that others in the Chamber are doing the same. We cannot allow our high streets and residents to be without access to financial services, and I hope to see the Government do more to support this endeavour.
I thank the Minister for her summing up. In terms of Abbots Langley, she is correct that the post office has not yet put in an application. It was first establishing the criteria and trying to learn lessons from others. The postmaster is now in a position to actively pursue that, and part of my local campaign is to support that. I hope the Minister will give her blessing and potentially a letter of support, if that is within reason, to ensure that Link and others think that is practical. In terms of the Rickmansworth one, she is correct. It is an enhanced banking hub rather than a full banking hub, as the debate suggests.
I thank the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for that response. She will have heard the sentiment around the Chamber that all of us want to see more banking hubs throughout the country. Although the target of 350 may once have been ambitious, that does not mean we should not have more, especially if we already have 230 in place. I thank hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions and for making my first Westminster Hall debate so enjoyable. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered access to banking hubs in Hertfordshire.
Q5. Given that the right hon. Lady appears to be enjoying spending yet another week practising to be Prime Minister, maybe she can give us her view on who she would get rid of in the coming reshuffle. Would it be the Chancellor for killing economic growth? Would it be the Work and Pensions Secretary for the botched handling of the welfare Bill and the winter fuel cuts? Would it be the Environment Secretary for trying to destroy British family farms? Would it be the Foreign Secretary for giving away British sovereign territory and paying billions to rent it back? Or given that the Prime Minister is now polling as having had the most unpopular first year in modern British political history, would the right hon. Lady do herself and the country a favour and tell him to show himself the door?
On 6 January, I raised with the Minister in this Chamber the fact that refurbishing Typhoons will not touch the sides of maintaining the 6,000-strong workforce at Warton, in my constituency, and that relying on export orders that have not been secured will not keep the workforce in work for now, before the GCAP comes online. When I asked the Minister whether she would give a delayed Christmas present of an order for 25 Typhoons, she replied: “It might not be a Christmas present—I do not know when his birthday is—but a present some time later.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 586.] We were awaiting an order of Typhoons for the Warton site in the strategic defence review, but it turned out to contain an empty box instead of a present. If the Minister was not simply buying time and giving false hope to the workforce then, when will we see the order of 25 Typhoon jets for the RAF?
It is an absolute joy to serve under your very professional and diligent leadership and chairmanship of this Committee, Mr Stuart. I also congratulate the Minister on his debut in a Delegated Legislation Committee. He does it masterfully. These buy now, pay later measures, as colleagues will recall and as pointed out by the Minister, were consulted on extensively by the previous Government. As the Minister also pointed out, there was an unfortunate general election, which got in the way of us actually—
That rather depends on one’s point of view. I think it was fortunate for everyone in this room apart from Conservative Members. Moving on, we are absolutely supportive of bringing these products within the scope of financial regulation. As we have heard, the sector has seen rapid growth. Because the products are now used by millions of people, the last Government rightly acted to protect consumers from harm—or wanted to act. The proposed regulations require FCA authorisation, affordability checks and clearer information for consumers, which are all measures that we absolutely support. An ability to access the Financial Ombudsman Service will also give consumers an avenue to escalate any issues. However, as these regulations have been developed, several concerns have been raised by businesses operating in the BNPL market, and I hope that the Minister may be able to address those issues today. First, the exemption for merchants offering their own BNPL products could create inconsistencies and consumer risks. I appreciate the sentiment for keeping an exemption, and Conservative Members do not want to expose small businesses to burdensome regulation. For example, the local gym should not be required to undertake the FCA approval process to provide a 12-month membership; I am sure that many people would agree with that. However, a potential loophole still exists. A large e-commerce website, such as Amazon, could offer BNPL directly and not come under these regulations. That is because there is no way in the Consumer Credit Act to distinguish between a large e-commerce site and a small or medium-sized enterprise. Currently, no online retailer is operating its own version of BNPL, as opposed to using a third party provider. However, I am sure that the industry would welcome reassurance from the Minister today that the Government will be looking at any knock-on effects that these regulations might cause. Opposition Members also welcome the Treasury’s saying that work is under way to review and reform the Consumer Credit Act, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that the review will specifically address the issue of definitions, ensuring that there is a way to distinguish between the largest retailers and small businesses. Will the Government also provide further details on how they will go about monitoring the prevalence of retailer-provided BNPL services, and at what point they will intervene once they see evidence of such activity taking place? Secondly, short-term lenders have highlighted the fact that although interest-free agreements under 12 months will fall under a new regime, longer or interest-bearing agreements remain subject to older rules. A 10-month interest-free instalment agreement and a 14-month low-interest agreement may be economically and structurally similar, but one will benefit from modern disclosure rules while the other will not. I hope that the Minister can address whether that has the potential also to be reviewed as part of the review of the CCA. Finally, the regulations do not address late fees, which can disproportionately impact vulnerable consumers, so again I would welcome the Minister’s setting out today whether the Government will also keep that under constant review. The Opposition support the intent of these regulations, but call for the Government to address some of the outstanding points raised by the industry in order to ensure robust consumer protection and a level playing field for everybody participating in this market.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your talented leadership, Sir Desmond. It is very good to be here. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). This may be his debut debate in Westminster Hall, but I am sure that it is the first of many. He has always been a champion for his constituency and I am surprised that he has not been here a thousand times before. As he eloquently put it in his opening remarks, banking hubs show why banking must remain at the heart of all our communities, and we should cherish the role of banks in our society. I have long been a huge fan of the banks, having been on the banking commission, which was a great opportunity to see just how important they are. We all talk about their importance for banking local businesses and local communities, but banks perform two extraordinarily complicated functions. The first is taking money from where it has accumulated and delivering it to where it is needed—for loans for businesses and all the rest. But they also do something else—they are almost like Doctor Who in their ability to transform time. They take money that has been put on deposit overnight and turn it into a 25-year mortgage that pays for all our constituents to buy their homes and bring up their families. We must never forget how incredibly important banks are. The previous Government recognised the importance of maintaining essential banking services as a foundation for public confidence in the sector. We provided a system of free and convenient access to banking through Post Office’s branch network. The banking framework partnership between Post Office and more than 30 of the UK’s banks and building societies means that consumers and businesses can access banking services through the Post Office network where there is not an alternative bank. Post Office now has more branches than all the banks and building societies combined. I hope the Minister agrees that the banking framework was a real success story—one of many success stories, by the way—of the previous Government. However, we in the previous Government also recognised that post offices do not completely fill the hole left by the loss of the high street bank. That is why we also introduced banking hubs, as we have heard today, which have been a successful concept where they have been delivered. I welcome the fact that the new Government have now embraced the idea and set an ambition to deliver hubs across the country by 2030—I understood it to be 500, although the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), said that it was 350, so it would be helpful if the Minister clarified exactly how many the Government are hoping to have. The new hubs, whether there are 350 or 500, are a new solution to meet wider banking needs, particularly in communities where the last bank branch has closed. Members have made many eloquent points about the decline of banking services in their constituencies. In my constituency, adjacent to that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), Stourport-on-Severn, my second biggest town, has just one bank left—a TSB—and Bewdley, the third biggest town, now has no banks at all. I hope the Minister will address how Members could be more involved in deciding where new banking hubs will be located—that is an important point. I am sure that all Members would like to have input and make representations to get these services in every constituency. Local knowledge and community engagement must be at the heart of these decisions. That is why Members of Parliament, as the elected representatives of these communities, must be part of that process. Banking is rightly a commercial sector, so I would also like to hear how the Minister can encourage banks to deliver their own innovations. For instance, the multi-bank kiosk proposed by the Building Societies Association has already been piloted. With a cost of just one third of a traditional banking hub, the kiosks offer a cost-effective, building society-led solution that could work alongside banking hubs in areas that have a strong mutual presence but lack a high street bank. Will the Government support the expansion of the kiosks and encourage more private sector innovation alongside banking hubs? I do not want to hold the room for too long, so I will draw my words to a close. Today’s debate and the recent Backbench Business debate on high street banks have shown just how much Members support high street banking services. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will support our high street banking services. Once more, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire for the extraordinary hard work he does for his constituents.
I join Conservative Front Benchers in welcoming the answer to the urgent question, although maybe it should have been a statement. May I ask about autonomy and national sovereignty over the weapons system that will be deployed from this aircraft? There is considerable press reporting that it will be dual key, meaning that the Brits cannot use it without American say-so. Is that true? If so, why has the Ministry of Defence elected to take that option, rather than having full national sovereignty?
My hon. Friend mentioned the equipment plan; does he share the Defence Committee’s frustration that the last time anyone was able to scrutinise that spending was in 2022? Is he aware that when Lord Robertson came to the Defence Committee to discuss the strategic defence review last week, he was surprised that the Defence Committee was being denied access to the equipment programme—as indeed are the Public Accounts Committee—meaning that the Government simply cannot be held to account for what they are spending money on?
When I gave my maiden speech just under a year ago, I took the opportunity to express my frustration that the Government had announced a spending review that would essentially buy the political cover to get to a defence spend of 2.5% of GDP. The frustration I expressed was that the dogs in the streets knew that we needed 2.5%, and that we essentially wasted the best part of a year. The evidence for that is clear to us all. Lord Robertson and General Barrons appeared in front of the Defence Committee when the Government kicked off the strategic defence review, and I said that when Lord Robertson had done his prior defence review, it was very clearly threat-based and foreign policy-led, whereas this one seemed to be saying, “2.5% is the answer, but now what is the question?”. It proved to be the case, because part way through the strategic defence review the Government asked, “What can you get for 3% by the next Parliament?”, and then they asked, “What can you get for 3% by 2034?”, and then, “What can you get for 3.5%?”. As the Prime Minister turned up at the NATO summit, we got the mystery bump up to 5% for defence and security. My suspicion, maybe slightly cynically, is that that 1.5% is made up of 0.75% smoke and 0.75% mirrors, but we shall see. It would be churlish of me, while defence expenditure is going up, to question it. I therefore think it is important to concentrate on how the money will be spent. I remind the House of an exchange that took place at the Defence Committee the other day with the Chief of the Defence Staff after the publication of the strategic defence review. He said that we come from a position of strength and that this additional expenditure will simply make us stronger and more secure. I said, “I obviously did not expect you to know the answer to this question, but if I were to ask you, how many working tanks have we got?” He batted away the question in the following way: “I suppose my caution on that would be that, while we are charged with the nation’s security and safety, it may be that having 50 tanks or 100 tanks is not necessarily going to be the defining factor as to whether the country remains safe. To me, that is the problem with those questions. I come back to this: is our readiness at a level that we are playing our part, with our NATO partners, and achieving deterrence with Russia?” Clearly not. He continued: “Are we really confident about that? The problem with a micro example is that it skips over what is fundamentally our security construct. We are a beneficiary of a collective group of nations in Europe. Never mind our 50 tanks or our modest increase in the Army; they are increasing their armies by tens of thousands and they are increasing their tanks by hundreds.” If that is the attitude the Minister is getting to our having very few working tanks, she should be wary of the voices she might be getting from certain parts of the Ministry of Defence. I think that she and the Prime Minister would like some options beyond simply reaching for the nuclear button; there needs to be something in between. I hope that she will take that forward in her conversations with the national armaments director on their priorities. I asked the Minister when we were discussing the national armaments director whether the director would have free range to tear up the book on defence procurement. The book certainly needs tearing up. I speak as someone who, as well as serving on the frontline on four tours of Northern Ireland, the first Gulf war, the second Gulf war, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, managed to squeeze in about five years in the Ministry of Defence. I am sure the Minister is aware of the conspiracy of optimism in equipment planning, where people in uniform will tell part-truths about how much things will cost to get them into the programme—it is called entryism, and it has been going on for years—and then, all of a sudden, those same people will come back and say, “Minister, I am afraid our aircraft carriers won’t cost the £2 billion we told you; they will cost £6 billion. But what are you going to do? You’ve already announced them, and anything else will cause you huge amounts of political pain.” I urged the Minister to tear up the rulebook, and she gave me a positive response: the national armaments director will indeed be earning their salary. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said it was £400,000—I think that he or she will be on a potential £600,000 with bonuses—but they have got to be worth that. They must have free range to tear up the book. As a member of the Defence Committee, I do not want them giving us evidence a year after their initial appointment and saying, “I wanted to change things, but they just would not let me.” This is my final point. Alongside the appointment of the national armaments director, we have defence reform going through. It was telling that when Lord Robertson and General Barrons came back to the Defence Committee having published their SDR and I asked them about the culture change required in the whole of defence reform, Lord Robertson told an interesting story. When Colin Powell moved from uniform to politics and was asked, “How do you bring about a culture change in an organisation which has gone in the wrong direction?” General Powell said, “Well, how do you stop a column of ants? You stamp on the first 10.” The Minister needs to prepare herself for some seriously robust conversations with the Ministry of Defence if money is to be spent wisely and honestly on things that go bang and bring about the effect—not just the input—that we all desire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for securing this very important debate. In recent years, banking services have been withdrawing from my constituency. Every single high street has seen bank branches close, and we now have fewer of them, but Cheshunt has borne the brunt. Cheshunt is a busy town of 40,000 people, right in the heart of my constituency, but not a single bank branch remains. That simply cannot be right. The lack of in-person banking facilities is depriving individuals and businesses of access to vital services and, for so many older and vulnerable people, causing huge difficulty and frustration as they are forced to use digital services and smartphone apps. My own nan is one of them, and she is not happy about it. Across Broxbourne, more than 3,000 people are living with sight loss, and that group is particularly reliant on in-person banking services. Many cannot use online banking at all, and they feel the pressure that not being digitally connected puts on them. That is why they like going into a bank branch, to get help from a real person to access their cash. They might specifically pick a bank with a branch on the high street, but if it closes, some banks now require customers to use an app to get a code in order to speak to the bank over the phone. That does not solve the issue. It is the sensible view of me and my constituents that Broxbourne needs a banking hub and, in particular, that the town of Cheshunt would be the perfect place for one, as it is right in the middle of my constituency. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire mentioned, the process for securing a banking hub is far from sensible. Link has told me that Cheshunt does not meet the criteria for a hub because “there are already cash access services and facilities within a 1-mile radius which are suitable for the needs of the local area” and “the deficiency does not” affect my constituents enough. Well, not having a bank really does affect my constituents. This is typical civil service protocol on where policies should be implemented and where they should not be. The rules simply need to change. Link points out that my constituents can take a 15-minute bus journey to Waltham Cross, where a handful of banks remain for now, but do not get me started on the state of the bus services in Broxbourne. It is true that there are bus stops in the precise centre of Cheshunt and a few of my constituents will be able to get a bus—if it turns up and it is on time. In most cases, buses simply do not turn up on time or do not turn up at all. However, the vast majority of the people of Cheshunt do not live on top of a bus stop. Link has told me that journey times of less than 15 minutes are deemed acceptable, but many of my constituents living in residential areas off the high street, in neighbourhoods of Cheshunt such as Flamstead End, Rosedale or Bury Green, or in the village of Goffs Oak have much longer journeys even to board a bus, let alone to travel to a bank. That is not acknowledged at all in the assessment process, which uses only an “approximation of the centre of the high street”. That is not acceptable; it does not reflect the wider catchment area of towns such as Cheshunt and the role that Cheshunt serves for my constituents. The criteria need to change to ensure that any town that wants a banking hub can have one. Surely that is within the Minister’s gift. I thank her for meeting me recently to discuss my campaign to get a banking hub in Cheshunt, but every time that I have asked for one, I have been told that we do not meet the access to cash criteria and that there is nothing the Government can do about it—they simply wash their hands of it. I was told in a written answer that it is all down to Link, or the financial services sector, or the Financial Conduct Authority. Well, I have met Link and it tells that it cannot help; I have met the Financial Conduct Authority and it says that it is up to the Government to change the law. Will it really take the closure of every bank in my constituency before we are even considered for a banking hub? It looks inevitable that that day will come.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I completely agree. Now is the time to change the rules and it is up to the Government to step up, be accountable to the electorate they serve and change the rules, rather than hiding behind unaccountable bodies such as Link, which do not determine the rules but just sit in their ivory towers and say, “This looks good on paper,” when it does not work in reality. I hope that the Minister will commit to go away and change the rules so that we can get more banking hubs open, not just in Hertfordshire but across the United Kingdom as a whole.
I beg to move, That this House has considered English wine production. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring forward this debate at a timely moment: the middle of English Wine Week. The theme this year is creating new traditions, and I cannot think of a more fitting description for the English wine industry as it stands today. It is a sector that combines modern ambition with rural heritage, and world-class expertise with local entrepreneurial spirit. It is a sector that is growing, not only in economic potential but in the public imagination. As one of my local winemakers puts it, English wines tend to have a steely, citrus backbone. I like to think that this is an apt description of our nation’s character too: resilient, bright and quietly distinctive. English wine is increasingly a source of national pride, and we should be doing everything we can to support and protect it. The industry is growing fast, and the Government should be helping rather than hindering. In 2023, UK vineyards produced over 21 million bottles of wine—a new record—and it is exciting that sales of English wine continue to buck wider market trends. Domestic wine sales were up 10% in 2023. Sales of UK sparkling wine have nearly trebled since 2018, from roughly 2 million bottles to over 6 million. Similarly, sales of still wine have more than doubled over the same period. We should all be toasting that success.
The hon. Gentleman is a fantastic champion of our Unionist and one nation principles. The best thing that our friends, brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland can do is to purchase English wine and drink it. That is a win for all concerned. British wines are now exported to 45 different countries. There are healthy markets in Norway, Japan, America, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Hong Kong and South Korea, to name but a few. We now have over 1,100 registered vineyards and more than 240 wineries.
I will discuss later in my speech what support I think would be appropriate, so my hon. Friend will hear my thoughts on that in due course. I am incredibly proud that the Weald of Kent boasts some of the best vineyards and wineries in the country. Across the nation, 4,200 hectares of land are under vine—more than double the area just a decade ago. It is no coincidence that even French producers are quickly buying up land in southern England. They recognise the opportunity here, and so should we. Our English vineyards are not centuries-old family estates, handed down through the generations, like on the continent. They are new businesses, built on entrepreneurial risk, with eyewatering start-up costs, and land that is among the most expensive in Europe. The vineyards springing up in Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and beyond are often founded by families who have risked everything: buying land at a premium, planting vines in an uncertain climate—that we all experience—and investing in years of training, equipment and marketing before even a single bottle is sold. Many vineyards are warning that rising national insurance contributions, and the recent increase to minimum wage payments, have left them unable to reinvest in their businesses.
That is a similar point to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). It is not uncommon for vineyards and wineries to produce both types of drinks, and so have to operate under two different duty systems, which is also additional bureaucracy. I think that change would make a substantial difference. Our producers represent the future of winemaking. They certainly should not be hindered by rising costs. We need long-term policies that will support their continued growth. WineGB estimates that there are 16 million potential visitors to the UK wine tourism sector: a huge untapped market. In my constituency, the excellent Chapel Down welcomes over 60,000 visitors a year for winery tours. It continues to be a major contributor to our local economy, and that is just the beginning. Producers such as Gusbourne, Westwell, Biddenden, Balfour, Dingleden, Ham Street, Warehorne, Woodchurch, and Domaine Evremond all play a part. We are so fortunate in the Weald that I could not even attempt to name them all in the time I have in this debate. It is, of course, a tremendous chore to visit them all, but my commitment to public service remains unwavering. Many vineyards now make up to 50% of their sales directly to consumers, in so-called “cellar door sales”. That is often the only way for small producers to avoid the razor-thin margins created by intermediaries, excise duties and distributor fees. The potential is enormous. Wine tourism helps to create skilled jobs in rural constituencies like mine. It supports regional identity and allows producers to build a direct relationship with their customers. A targeted duty relief on direct-to-consumer or tourist cellar door sales would help wine producers, in the way that beer and cider receive help from draught relief and small producer relief, as we have heard from hon. Members in this debate. Will the Government consider implementing a wine tourism relief, to recognise this youthful industry’s potential and give small producers the boost they need to truly thrive? More broadly, visits to UK vineyards and wineries were up more than half in just two years. That is extraordinary growth by any measure. What plans does the Minister have to support one of the few industries in the UK that is demonstrably expanding, creating rural jobs, driving tourism and building our export potential from the ground up? If we are serious about backing British agriculture and business, this is exactly the kind of sector that deserves targeted support. Yet, as is too often the case in the UK today, the more businesses grow, the more they seem to be penalised by heavy-handed regulation. Take the extended producer responsibility—EPR—scheme, which affects businesses, including winemakers with a turnover of £1 million or more—a threshold that many of our leading vineyards are proudly surpassing. That success comes at a cost. EPR imposes disproportionately high fees on glass packaging, but glass is the only viable material for sparkling wine. On top of all that, winemakers now face hours of additional paperwork collecting data on the type and weight of materials used, simply to remain compliant with opaque packaging rules. That is not the only example of over-regulation choking the industry. The previously flat wine duty has now been replaced by 30 different rates based on tiny, 0.1% increments of alcohol content. In the context of wine, that makes no practical sense. As has already been pointed out in the House by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), ABV varies naturally by vintage and by vat. It is hugely difficult to predict and the system causes confusion, not clarity. Although I accept that the Minister did not create that system, will he take the opportunity to outline what steps the Government might take to ensure that our wine producers can spend more of their time tending their vines, rather than filling out forms? While the previous Government may have implemented some regulations that caused challenges to wine producers, they recognised the need for active investment in the UK wine industry. I was pleased to see them establish the future winemakers’ scheme, with £1.5 million set aside for training opportunities for the next generation of viticulturists. Will the Minister recommit to the scheme today, ensuring that the UK wine industry secures the future talent it needs to reach its full potential? Though welcome, deregulation and training schemes alone are not enough. If we allow the definition of English wine to be blurred or co-opted, the industry risks dying on the vine. There is serious concern among winemakers that third-country producers could ship foreign-made still wine in bulk to the UK, carbonate or transform the product here, and market it in a way that implies it was locally made. That would be misleading to consumers, would undermine the integrity of the English wine label, and would make a mockery of the investment our producers have made in their land, climate and local communities. I want to press the Minister on a simple point: will he commit to ensuring, particularly as the Government restart their third round of post-Brexit wine industry reforms, that wines sold as British or English must be made exclusively from British-grown grapes? He knows as well as I do that the majority of UK wine is sparkling. I am sure he would agree that English wine deserves the same protected designation of origin—PDO status—that champagne and prosecco receive in their respective markets. There are few products that bring together so many public goods: rural jobs, tourism, export potential, environmental stewardship and national pride. English wine is not a nostalgia project or a romantic curiosity; it is a viable, growing industry—one that sits at the intersection of agriculture, manufacturing, hospitality and culture. To support this fantastic product is to invest in our countryside and our brand as a country. We have the chance, as English Wine Week says, to “Create new traditions.” I ask the Minister to seize that opportunity: let us support wine tourism and, above all, ensure that the label “English wine” means what it says—wine made from English grapes on English soil.