School Standards
What has caused the system, which was once the benchmark for all others, to become such a disappointment?
5,804 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Studied ambiguity of what and when has had no impact on Israeli policy. We want to know, and Israel needs to know, precisely what the Government mean by “further steps”.
- Hansard source
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this important debate. Our high street shops and pubs are at the heart of our communities, yet many are threatened by big increases in business rates. Our high street businesses are already contending with Labour’s new tax on jobs. The hike in national insurance makes it more expensive to employ someone who works in a shop or a pub on our high street. The Employment Rights Bill will further increase costs, hitting small businesses with new regulations that make it harder and more expensive to operate. In that context, the decision to cut the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75% to 40% is wrong. I met recently with Mr Paul Davis of Styles Menswear in Bridgwater. His business rates have gone up from £3,000 a year to £9,000 a year. That new cost, before we can even consider Labour’s new jobs tax, puts his livelihood at risk. He will not be alone. Paul’s business has the double misfortune of being based in Eastover, where he has had to contend with extensive and lengthy roadworks. In Liberal Democrat-controlled Somerset, we have had a particular problem with various roadworks being scheduled at the same time and harming local businesses. It seems that the Liberal Democrats know little and care less about the damage that they are causing. The roadworks in Eastover started in October with a partial road closure. As if that were not bad enough, the council then decided to impose a full road closure in January, which is now set to continue until at least September. Ironically, it is on the council’s “celebration mile” project, although to date there has been very little for local businesses to celebrate. The project has proved a hammer blow to many local businesses, which have seen footfall collapse: footfall in Bridgwater is down 400,000 in the past 12 months, mostly caused by the incompetent way in which Somerset council has handled the project. I believe that those businesses deserve our support. Businesses disproportionately affected by council actions should have the right to claim rates relief. Will the Minister consider that proposal? The situation in Eastover is now desperate, and I fear that in the coming months we will see more shops and businesses closing their doors for good. It seems that this Labour Government, with the able assistance of Liberal Democrat councillors in Somerset, are set on destroying those businesses. The truth is that, despite the Government’s claim to be going for growth, everything that they are doing appears designed to achieve the opposite. I say to the Minister, “Businesses in Bridgwater are suffering. They need your help now.”
- Hansard source
Regional Growth
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement and for early sight of it. I will start with an area of agreement: it is a shared ambition to enable all parts of this country to participate in our growth and our future. Potential in the United Kingdom is everywhere, and it is right that the Government seek to unlock it with every means they have. Indeed, that was one of the guiding principles of the 2019-24 Conservative Administration’s levelling-up policy. They always say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now, we know that this Chancellor has a reputation for copying, so I thought I would have a look at the statement made in 2023 on Network North allocations, which I am sure the Chief Secretary has seen. I thought I would compare those allocations with the Government’s announcement today. I have the Conservative announcements in one hand and the Labour announcements in the other. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shout all they want. Here we go. In 2023, the Conservatives promised the west midlands £2.64 billion—[Interruption.] I say to Labour Members that the Chief Secretary is also only making a promise. In 2023, we promised £2.64 billion for the west midlands, and the Government have announced £2.4 billion for the west midlands today. We promised £2.1 billion for West Yorkshire; today, the Government have announced £2.1 billion. We promised £2.5 billion for Greater Manchester; they have announced £2.5 billion today. We promised £1.45 billion for South Yorkshire; they have announced £1.5 billion today. We promised £1.581 billion for Liverpool; they have announced £1.6 billion today. We promised £1.84 billion for the north-east; they have announced £1.8 billion today. We promised £0.752 billion for the west of England; they have announced £0.8 billion today. We promised £978 million for Tees Valley in 2023, and Labour has announced £1 billion today. I know the Chief Secretary is occasionally good with numbers, but does he not agree that what he is announcing today is essentially nothing more than a rounding error on the Conservatives’ plans from 2023? The only difference between the 2023 and 2025 announcements is that we would have spelt Rotherham correctly in our announcement. The truth is, the Chancellor will go around the country rewriting history as frequently as she writes her CV, but nobody believes in her £22 billion black hole. What people do believe is that this Chancellor is open to change. She is going to roll back the issues on the winter fuel allowance, her botched welfare reform and changes to the two-child policy. Look at those on the Treasury Bench—they have not got a spine. If Labour Back Benchers have an issue in their constituency and want to stand up for their constituents, they should make a bid to this Chief Secretary, because he will back down and give them the money. That is what we know from Labour. We also know that in the Government’s analysis of the Green Book, they are looking to change the assessments of the cost-benefit analysis. My question to the Chief Secretary therefore is—[Interruption.] I do have a number of questions. First, will he publish the cost-benefit ratios for each of the projects he has announced today? Will he state whether they have been evaluated on the existing Green Book rules or on new rules? Will he give an indication today of what those rules might be? Secondly, as the Labour Government try to decide whether their commitment on defence is for 2%, 2.5%, 3% or 3.5% of GDP, with both those numbers and today’s investments stretching into the next period of government—whoever is in government—can the Chief Secretary confirm that it is this Government’s intention that the investments made today will be secure, whatever the changes made on defence expenditure? The Chief Secretary said that he is able to make this announcement because the Government changed the rules, which has enabled £113 billion more of investment. But that is not quite right, is it? The Government can afford the additional investment only if people are prepared to fund it, and there are two sources for funding: taxpayers or the bond market. Can the Chief Secretary therefore advise whether he is going to look for additional funding from taxes or additional borrowing, if there is a shortfall? The truth is, despite what the Back Benchers say, this Labour Treasury team are out of their depth. They are addicted to tax increases and to more borrowing. The Chief Secretary can republish as many press releases as he likes, but we know that because of their reckless mismanagement of the economy, come the autumn, this Labour Government will be back for more.
- Hansard source
Swimming Facilities
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is spelling out the challenges that local councils face. Does he agree that we have a particularly big challenge coming down the road—albeit one that is already in front of us—in new towns? In Sherford in my constituency, a swimming pool and a leisure facility were part of the plans. People have bought into living in those new towns based on that promise, but given the lack of funding and the increased costs of running leisure facilities, there is a battle over who will deliver them. This means the facilities are kicked into the long grass, and residents like my constituents are left waiting and hoping for the facility to come. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to ensure that, as they pursue their housing plans, they are minded to fund leisure facilities so that new towns have them as required?
- Hansard source
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The scenes emanating from Gaza are harrowing and the suffering is intolerable. The current situation that we are all witnessing simply cannot continue. The level of humanitarian suffering and desperation continues to be unacceptable, as children, women and their families continue to suffer while desperately trying to secure food and humanitarian aid. The deaths and casualties near aid distribution centres should never have happened. Will the Minister inform the House what discussions have taken place with Israel about those appalling events, the status of any investigations and what action will follow? Britain must use its influences at every level and bring all allies together. We want peace and stability in the region, including in neighbouring countries, as the current conflict is hurting civilians and a sustainable end to the conflict appears to have moved even further away. Are we working with our Abraham accords partners and regional allies who also want peace, such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Britain must leverage its considerable influence in the region to help stop the endless suffering that we are seeing, to get more aid in, to see the hostages released and to end the terminal situation with Hamas to achieve a proper, sustainable end to the conflict and, importantly, work towards a better future for the Palestinian and Israeli people. To that end, will the Minister explain how the Government plan to use the upcoming summit in New York to further those ends? On humanitarian aid, the Government say that they continue to call for broader aid access. Of course, we support that, but are there practical and specific proposals for the opening of individual crossings and entry points? Have those been presented directly to the Government of Israel? The Minister will know that my noble friend Lord Cameron, working with our allies, previously secured commitments from the Government of Israel to open up the Erez crossing and the port of Ashdod to get aid into Gaza. He will also know that at that time Israel agreed to extend the opening hours of the Kerem Shalom crossing point, and we were able to achieve commitments to increase the number of trucks entering Gaza, which naturally led to an increase in vital aid supplies, including food and medical aid, for innocent Palestinians. On British aid sitting in the region, the Minister has said in a written answer to me on Monday: “Quantifying how much is awaiting entry into Gaza is difficult, due to the complex operating environment and limited real-time data.” We appreciate that, but what more can he do to secure practical information about where UK aid is located, who we can work with to move aid to key locations and what more Britain can do to ensure that UK aid gets to those who are desperately in need of our support? We know that multilateral institutions, including the World Bank and others, are working on serious plans to deal with immediate, as well as long-term, issues to support the recovery and reconstruction of the economy in Gaza and the west bank. What are the Government doing to support that work and what engagement has the Minister had with those organisations? Some 58 remaining hostages have now been in cruel captivity for 607 days at the hands of Hamas. They must be released. We are aware of initiatives put forward by the United States and that the latest proposals have been rejected by Hamas. What pressure are the Government exerting on Hamas to get them to reverse their opposition to those plans? On the west bank, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority on 28 April, which we debated in the House. Will the Minister update the House on the PA’s progress since that signing on reform and governance, because credible governance is required for long-term stability? On settlements, the Conservative position is as it was in government and is well understood. Settlements are not helpful for achieving long-term peace and we urge Israel for its part not to take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult, and to use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence. We support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and Palestinian people. Finally, we all want to lift people’s lives to a better future, for the Israeli and Palestinian people. To do so, Britain must actively bring our long-standing perspective and influence to bear in the region, with all our allies.
- Hansard source
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing the debate. I agree with nearly everything he said, with one notable exception: the constituency with the finest high streets is, of course, Bromley and Biggin Hill. High streets matter. They are the economic heart of our cities, towns and villages, supporting local jobs and serving as a social hub for communities, as my right hon. Friend said. When they are in decline or struggling, communities feel it: not only are there fewer jobs and less cohesion locally, but there is a deep sense of loss. Shuttered shops and empty streets shatter civic pride. While too many communities have seen their local high streets decline, we avoided mass closure during the pandemic, thanks to generous public support. Retail, hospitality and leisure relief, under which firms were initially offered 100% relief on business rates with a cap of up to £110,000, was one such pivotal measure. It was a lifeline for many businesses, and it remained a lifeline through the energy crisis and the subsequent inflation. Although it was intended as a temporary measure, that tax break remains crucial to the recovery of high streets and to local growth. It is not yet time to rapidly reduce it. That is why the Government’s decision to reduce the relief from 75% to 40% is a huge blow. The change effectively doubles the business rates bill for retail, hospitality and leisure firms, and it comes on top of the high energy costs and above-target inflation that are squeezing businesses. In my constituency we are fortunate to have successful high streets, from Bromley town centre, which is home to more than 700 businesses and supports 20,000 jobs, to the smaller parades in Hayes, Biggin Hill, Coney Hall, Bickley and Keston. However, they remain under pressure from rising costs, inflation and high energy prices, and the same challenges are squeezing consumer spending. It is precisely the wrong time to rapidly reduce the business rates relief. For an independent pub in my constituency with a rateable value of £98,000, the changes to the relief and the increase in the standard multiplier will mean an increase of nearly £20,000 in its tax bill. It is especially reckless because this is not the only Government policy with an impact on our high streets. In one swoop, Ministers have also hiked the minimum wage, created swathes of new employment red tape and introduced a substantial increase in national insurance contributions. The Government have mixed an expensive, anti-business cocktail for our high streets that few businesses can afford. It will mean fewer jobs, less investment and closures, at a time when we want to grow our local economies. The Government’s boast at last year’s tax-hiking Budget was “a penny off the pint”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 820.] But behind that lacklustre announcement, they have not been honest about the collective impact of their policies, which are costing high street businesses an absolute fortune. If the Government are serious about securing investment and growing the economy, they need to rethink their decision to rapidly reduce this critical relief, before they hollow out Britain’s high streets and pull down the shutters for good.
- Hansard source
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
That is the end of the statement, which has been going on for about 90 minutes.
- Hansard source
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
The hon. Member has most definitely put her point on the record and those on the Treasury Bench will have been listening. It is not a matter for the Chair, but there are many opportunities that she can take up to put pressure on the Government; the Table Office can advise on that.
- Hansard source
Gaza (Independent Public Inquiry)
The Question is, That the right hon. Member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. [Hon. Members: “Aye!”] And of the contrary, No.
- Hansard source
Gaza (Independent Public Inquiry)
Order. I remind Members that vote must follow voice. A Member who opposes a motion by shouting “No” may not then vote in favour of it if there is a Division. I will give it one more go. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Jeremy Corbyn, Ayoub Khan, Mr Adnan Hussain, Shockat Adam, Zarah Sultana, Apsana Begum, Brian Leishman, Richard Burgon, Kim Johnson, Ellie Chowns, Ann Davies and Brendan O’Hara present the Bill. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 254).
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Requirement to inform customers about changes to prepackaged products— “(1) A supermarket must inform customers if— (a) there has been an increase in price per unit of measurement in any prepackaged product sold by the supermarket; and (b) this increase has resulted from a decrease in the quantity of the goods included within the package. (2) The requirement to inform customers must include a statement attached to the product, or placed alongside the product. (3) The statement must— (a) include the amount the quantity has decreased by and the amount the price per unit of measure has increased by; (b) be the same font size as the unit price of the product and must be visible and legible; and (c) be in place from the date of the change in unit quantity and remain in place for the following 60 days. (4) In this section— ‘prepackaged product’ is a product that has been wrapped or placed in a container before being made available for retail; ‘quantity of goods’ includes, but is not limited to— (a) weight of goods; (b) volume of goods; (c) number of units; ‘supermarket’ is a store with a sales area greater than 400m² of which 50% or more of the products sold are food products.” This new clause would place a requirement on supermarkets to inform customers when the quantity of goods within the product had decreased resulting in a price increase per unit of measurement. New clause 3—Reviews of potential country of origin labelling for meat products— “(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin of beef products sourced from the United States on menus. (2) The review must consider— (a) the potential public health, environmental, and animal welfare concerns related to beef production standards in the United States compared to those in the United Kingdom; (b) the practicality of creating regulations for the labelling of beef for food service businesses equivalent to the Beef and Veal Labelling (England) Regulations 2010; (c) consumer demand for country of origin information in relation to beef products; and (d) the practicality and cost implications for the hospitality sector. (3) The Secretary of State must, in undertaking the review, consult with representatives of the food and hospitality sectors, the National Farmers Union, food safety bodies, animal welfare groups, and any other stakeholders deemed relevant. (4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before Parliament within 6 months of the passing of this Act. (5) Within 6 months of laying the report under subsection (5) the Government must undertake a further review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin labelling for any meat product from any country with reference to the outcomes of the report under subsection (5). (6) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review under subsection (6) before Parliament within 6 months of the launch of that review.” This new clause requires the Government to undertake reviews into the feasibility of requiring food businesses to disclose the country of origin of meat products on menus. New clause 4—Labelling for UK-produced or manufactured products— “(1) The Secretary of State must establish a voluntary labelling system to indicate when a product has been produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom. (2) The label must be— (a) displayed clearly on the front-facing packaging of applicable goods; (b) standardised in appearance, including a nationally recognised symbol or wording indicating UK origin; and (c) legible, visible and no smaller in font size than the unit price display or equivalent information on the product. (3) A product qualifies for the label if— (a) it is wholly or substantially produced, manufactured, grown or reared in the United Kingdom; and (b) it meets any additional criteria as set out by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (4) The Secretary of State must consult food producers, retailers, consumer groups and relevant trade associations before setting the criteria for qualifying products and the design of the label. (5) The Secretary of State must undertake a promotional campaign to ensure consumers are aware of the new labelling system. (6) Regulations under this section must be made within 2 months of the passing of this Act. (7) In this section— ‘product’ includes food, drink and manufactured goods available for retail sale; ‘produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom’ includes goods where the final significant production process occurred in the UK.” This new clause would require the Government to introduce a voluntary labelling system, clearly marking goods produced or manufactured in the UK, helping consumers make informed choices and supporting domestic producers. New clause 5—Support and Guidance for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises— “(1) The Secretary of State must produce and maintain guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to comply with any provisions made by regulations under this Act. (2) The guidance must include— (a) a summary of the key provisions of the Act relevant to SMEs; (b) practical advice on compliance requirements; (c) information on any available financial, technical, or advisory support; and (d) contact details for further enquiries or assistance. (3) The first version of the guidance must be published on the day this Act is passed. (4) Each time regulations are made under this Act, a revised version of the guidance must be published on the day the regulations are made.” This new clause would ensure that guidance and support for SMEs on the impact of the Bill should be available 60 days before implementation. New clause 6—Review of access to testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)— (1) The relevant Minister must undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act. (2) The review must include consideration of— (a) the typical costs incurred by SMEs in meeting relevant testing and certification requirements; (b) the availability and capacity of accredited testing providers serving SMEs; (c) any barriers to market access arising from testing and certification obligations; and (d) potential non-financial measures to support SMEs in meeting compliance requirements. (3) The Minister must publish a report on the findings of the review, including any recommendations, within 12 months of the commencement of this section.” This new clause would require the Government to undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act. New clause 7—Liability and redress for unsafe or defective products— “The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for— (a) the extension of liability for unsafe or defective products to online marketplaces and any other persons within the scope of section 2(3); (b) the disclosure of evidence in relation to claims for compensation or other rights of action in law for harm caused by unsafe or defective products and presumptions of liability that may arise accordingly; (c) proceedings, including collective proceedings, to ensure redress for consumers or other individuals suffering harm as a result of unsafe or defective products made available in breach of requirements imposed under powers given by this Act.” This new clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for liability of online marketplaces for defective and unsafe products, and to ensure that those suffering harm from unsafe or defective products can obtain redress. New clause 8—Alignment with EU law— “(1) Where equivalent or similar EU law exists in relation to relevant product regulations, the Secretary of State must, when making provision under section 1, update Parliament on whether the Government proposes to vary the regulations from alignment with EU law. (2) If the Secretary of State believes divergence from relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this divergence, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament. (3) If the Secretary of State believes alignment with the relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this alignment, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament. (4) The statement under subsection (2) or (3) must include the date by which any such regulations will be reviewed, which can be no later than 36 months after implementation.” This new clause provides greater regulatory certainty for UK businesses by requiring scrutiny of all decisions to diverge or align with EU regulations and a process for Parliamentary scrutiny and review, whether Ministers determine that divergence or alignment from such regulations would be in the best interests of the UK. New clause 9—Inclusion of lithium-ion batteries as a priority product category— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make regulations under this Act to include lithium-ion batteries as a specified product category subject to relevant safety, performance, labelling, environmental, and end-of-life requirements. (2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must include— (a) provisions for minimum safety and performance standards for lithium-ion batteries placed on the UK market; (b) requirements for clear labelling, including information on capacity, cycle life, and safe handling; (c) obligations for manufacturers and importers relating to fire safety, product recalls, and end-of-life disposal or recycling; (d) powers for market surveillance authorities to take enforcement action in relation to non-compliant lithium-ion batteries. (3) In this section, a ‘lithium-ion battery’ means any rechargeable battery containing lithium compounds as a primary component of the electrochemical cell.[KM1] (4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the following stakeholders— (a) representatives of the battery industry, (b) environmental groups, (c) consumer safety organisations, (d) fire services, and (e) any other person whom the Secretary of State considers to be relevant.” This new clause would ensure that Lithium-ion batteries are included in the Bill. New clause 10—Duties of online marketplaces— “(1) Without prejudice to the generality of any other powers or duties conferred by this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about requirements that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e), including regarding duties— (a) to operate an online marketplace using effective systems and processes designed to monitor for, and identify, products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals and prevent such products being made available on or through the online marketplace; (b) to cooperate with relevant authorities, with other persons mentioned in subsection 2(3) or any other relevant persons, to facilitate any action taken to eliminate or, if that is not possible, to mitigate the risks presented by a product that is or was made available on or through their online marketplace; (c) to ensure that information regarding the identity and activities of persons marketing products on or through online marketplaces to consumers or other individuals is obtained and verified; (d) to remove products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals from availability on or through an online marketplace as quickly as possible if alerted to their presence or becomes aware of it in any other way. (2) Within 3 months from the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a statement that sets out how the Secretary of State is exercising, or expects to exercise, the powers under subsection (1) regarding the proposed duties that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e).” This new clause provides a list of duties that must be imposed upon online marketplaces by regulations, and for a statement by the Secretary of State to be made to Parliament within 3 months of Royal Assent regarding the exercise of the duties conferred by this section. New clause 11—Product recall— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make regulations on product recall processes. (2) The regulations must include provision to ensure— (a) the creation and maintenance of a publicly accessible, government-hosted online database of all active product recalls affecting the UK market; (b) clear obligations on manufacturers, importers, and distributors to notify the appropriate enforcement authority and upload recall notices to the database promptly upon identification of a safety risk; (c) that recall notices include details of the affected product, risks identified, corrective action to be taken, and information on how consumers can claim a refund, replacement, or repair; and (d) minimum standards for direct communication to affected consumers, including by email, SMS, or postal notice where reasonably practicable. (3) The regulations must establish consumer rights entitling individuals to— (a) a full refund, suitable replacement, or repair of a recalled product within a reasonable timeframe; (b) access to support and guidance through the recall process, including where a product is no longer in production. (4) The Secretary of State must consult with consumer protection organisations, trading standards bodies, manufacturers, and other relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section.” This new clause would ensure that a centralised Product Recall Mechanism is established to protect consumers. New clause 12—Local weights and measures authorities: review— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the funding and capabilities of local weights and measures authorities to carry out in an effective way their enforcement responsibilities under the regulatory framework provided by this Act and other trading standards and consumer protection laws. (2) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult regulators and other persons likely to be affected by the review, including such representatives of consumer and business organisations as they consider appropriate.” This new clause provides for the Secretary of State to carry out a review of how the funding and capabilities of Trading Standards authorities affects their enforcement activities, to consult appropriate bodies and stakeholders and to lay the review before Parliament. New clause 13—International agreements— “(1) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section (1)(2) or section (2)(7) that will disadvantage the United Kingdom or its trade under— (a) the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, (b) the Japan Economic Comprehensive Partnership Agreement, (c) the UK-Canada Continuity Trade Agreement, (d) The UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement, (e) the UK-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, or (f) any other trade treaties to which the United Kingdom is, or becomes, a signatory, including any free trade agreement with the United States of America and India.” This new clause would prevent the Secretary of State making regulations to align with EU standards which would damage the UK’s current or future trade agreements. New clause 14—Review Panel— “(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review panel (“the Panel”) no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act comes into force. (2) The Panel must— (a) carry out a review of all regulations under this Act corresponding to, similar to, or making references to, the requirements of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), with a view to establishing— (i) their effect on economic growth; (ii) their effect on trade in the product concerned on a global basis; (iii) their effect on the relevant industry or industries within the United Kingdom; (b) prepare a report of the review, and (c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, no later than 12 months from the date of the Panel’s creation. (3) The Panel must consist of— (a) at least one person with expertise in economics; (b) at least one person with expertise in trade policy; (c) at least one person with expertise in domestic regulation of business.” This new clause would ensure a review and report to Parliament of any regulations aligning UK regulations with those of other countries or territories. New clause 15—Consultation on committee to examine changes to product regulations— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission a consultation on the creation of a committee on changes to product regulations. (2) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider the suitability of current scrutiny mechanisms for assessing regulations created through the powers created or amended by the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025. (3) A consultation under subsection (1) must consult— (a) the Chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee, (b) the Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, (c) the Chair of the House of Commons Liaison Committee, (d) the Chair of the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and (e) the House of Commons Commission. (4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after receiving a report of a consultation under subsection (1), lay before both Houses of Parliament— (a) a copy of the report of the consultation, and (b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to that consultation.” The new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on the establishment of a House of Commons committee that would examine all changes to product regulations which are made by the powers granted by this legislation. New clause 16—Regulations: requirement for certification— “When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must certify that their effect is not to undermine the resolve of our constitutional arrangements to honour the choice of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by means of subjecting the United Kingdom to the same law as the European Union so it could subsequently be argued that the United Kingdom should rejoin so it has a voice in making the legislation rather than adopting legislation that has already been made by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers.” New clause 17—Brexit good faith statement— “When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must provide a statement (a “Brexit good faith statement”) setting out how in the development of the regulations it has sought to honour the decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by developing, through the regulations, a legislative framework that intentionally seeks to exploit the opportunities afforded by Brexit to develop competitive and other advantages for the United Kingdom compared with the European Union in the global marketplace.” Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1). This amendment seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under product regulations, when defining and regulating risks and determining what constitutes efficient or effective product operation. Amendment 10, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2). This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations about the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom which corresponds, or is similar to, a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products. Amendment 11, page 1, line 9, leave out “also”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9. Amendment 32, page 1, line 10, leave out “the United Kingdom” and insert “Great Britain”. Amendment 25, page 1, line 11, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”. Amendment 12, page 1, line 13, leave out “(1) or”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9. Amendment 7, page 1, line 14, at end insert— “(3A) Further, the Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsections (1) or (2) if satisfied that making the regulations will not result in reducing the necessary levels of consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products, with reference where applicable to equivalent product regulations or standards in force at the time.” This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from making regulations unless satisfied that the regulations will not reduce consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products. Amendment 8, page 1, line 21, at end insert— “(4A) The Secretary of State must also by regulations make provision aimed at promoting investment, fostering innovation, and encouraging economic growth in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom. (4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) must support— (a) the creation of economic incentives for businesses that contribute to economic growth, and (b) the alignment of product regulations with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation.” This amendment ensures that the regulations in the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion. Amendment 26, page 2, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert— “‘relevant foreign law’ means law of one or more of the United States of America, Canada, Japan, the European Union, Switzerland, Australia, or New Zealand relating to standards, the marketing, or use of products in those markets, which are in force on a specific date and only that date, as specified in regulations;” Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert— “(2A) Product regulations must include requirements in relation to an environmental impact assessment, and provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy.” This amendment guarantees that future regulations under the Act will include provisions which relate to the circular economy and granting consumers the right to repair products. Amendment 3, page 3, line 21, at end insert— “(fa) a person involved on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f), in product marketing or the use of products, including storage, transportation, packaging, labelling or disposal;”. This amendment closes a potential loophole in the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that, whatever their legal status or location, all relevant organisations in the supply chain, including fulfilment houses, can be held accountable by regulations to protect consumers from non-compliant goods. Amendment 16, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8). This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met. Amendment 27, page 3, line 41, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”. Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, at end insert— “(7A) Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.” This amendment prevents the Bill enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and only enables alignment with laws as they stand on a particular defined date. Amendment 15, page 4, line 2, at end insert— “(7A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.” Amendment 28, page 4, line 5, at end insert— “(8A) Before making provision described in subsection (7), the Secretary of State must make a statement in Parliament if the provision relates to relevant foreign law of only one of the markets listed in the definition of ‘relevant foreign law’ in section 1(7).” This amendment, and Amendments 25, 26 and 27, open up the possibility of defining product regulations by relation to the laws of countries other than the European Union, and require the justification of decisions to limit any such reference to the laws of one territory only. Amendment 29, page 4, line 5, at end insert— “(8B) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act shall be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom. (8C) The enforcement of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.” This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to foreign law, notably that of the EU, from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or the CJEU). Amendment 13, page 4, line 6, at end insert— “(10) The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if— (a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and (b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when aligning with EU law, and for Parliament to approve that provision before aligning with EU law. Amendment 17, page 4, line 6, at end insert— “(10) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom. (11) The enforcement of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.” This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to EU law from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or CJEU). Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out subsections (1) and (2). Amendment 22, page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (3). Amendment 23, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4). Amendment 24, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11). Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 11, line 37, at end insert— “‘circular economy’ means that products are manufactured to minimise waste and maximise the use, reuse, and recyclability of products;”. This amendment clarifies the meaning of “circular economy” and is consequential on Amendment 5. Amendment 4, page 12, line 21, at end insert— “(e) provision described in section [Product recall].” Amendment 1, in clause 13, page 13, line 4, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 5. This amendment would make all regulations under this act subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Amendment 2, page 13, line 8, leave out subsections (4) and (5) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1. Amendment 30, page 13, line 8, at end insert— “(za) provision described in section 2(7);” This amendment would ensure that the affirmative parliamentary procedure will apply to regulations under Clause 2(7), that is, any regulations which include referenced to relevant foreign law. Amendment 31, page 13, line 19, at end insert— “(4A) Any regulations made under section 1(1) or (2) which correspond to, are similar to, or make a reference to the requirement of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), expire at the end of four years from the date on which they come into force.” Amendment 18, page 13, line 24, at end insert— “(6A) Regulations that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. (6B) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must— (a) conduct a consultation for a period of no less than six weeks; (b) publish a statement outlining the purpose and necessity of the proposed regulations, the expected impact on businesses, consumers, and enforcement bodies, and the outcome of the consultation. (6C) Within six months of any regulations made under this section which amend or repeal primary legislation, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of that regulation and lay it before Parliament.” This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendment 33, page 13, line 24, at end insert— “(6A) Where the regulations are for the purpose of applying to Great Britain regulations already applied to Northern Ireland by the European Union, Northern Ireland must also be involved in the said consultation on an equal basis with the rest of the United Kingdom.”
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
It gives me huge pleasure to call our resident metrology expert, Adam Thompson.
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
Order. I accept that we have some experts in the Chamber, but I remind Members that speeches and interventions must relate to the business at hand and the amendments.
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
I remind Members that they are speaking to the amendments. There are 33 to choose from, so please keep your contributions appropriate.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Three weeks ago, the winter fuel policy was set in stone. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister U-turned. Today, the Chancellor is rushing her plans because she just realised when winter is. So, on the behalf of the pensioners who want to know, can the Prime Minister be clear with us here and now: how many of the 10 million people who lost their winter fuel payments will get it back?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister clearly has selective amnesia. I asked him three questions about the winter fuel payment two weeks ago and he was floundering. The fact is he has not answered the question I asked him; he cannot tell us who will get the payments. All we see is U-turn after U-turn—his head must be spinning. Will he apologise now, including to his own Back Benchers, for taking the payments away in the first place? Can he tell us how he will pay for this?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Office for Budget Responsibility has said there was no such black hole. The Prime Minister has just given away £30 billion for the Chagos islands—that is his black hole. He has not stabilised the economy. Borrowing prices are higher now than at any time in the last Parliament. He has not stabilised the economy. He has no clear answers on what he is doing. It is just chaos, chaos, chaos. He keeps making announcements with no detail. Let’s move to another area of confusion. Can we get a simple answer: will the Government keep the two-child benefit cap?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I did not ask the Prime Minister about a taskforce. I asked him if he will keep the two-child benefit cap, and he does not know—it is just chaos and uncertainty. He has no details. He is briefing something and causing a lot of confusion to the people out there. On that two-child benefit cap, I tell him this: I believe in family, but I also believe in fairness. On the Conservative side of the House, we believe that people on benefits should have to make the same choices on having children as everyone else. What does the Prime Minister believe?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I asked the Prime Minister what he believes in. He had to look in his folder to find the answer. His MPs behind him know what they believe in—he does not know. He has been in government for nearly a year. It will only get harder and harder. The canned, forced laughter, the planted questions—all that will disappear because at every single point things are getting worse. He has to ask Morgan McSweeney what it is that he believes in, but the fact is that chaos is being felt in the economy. The Chancellor said she would not be coming back with new tax rises, but she will have to pay for all these U-turns she is announcing out there, won’t she?
- Hansard source
Engagements
It was our Government that stood behind Ukraine and led the way in Europe. Everything the Prime Minister has said this afternoon is total nonsense, obfuscation, and avoiding the question. He does not have any answers. It is disgraceful. I asked the Prime Minister about the two-child benefit cap; he is talking about the Kremlin. He is saying everything he can to distract from the mess he is making of our economy. The OECD has downgraded growth for the next two years. He cannot rule out tax rises. Police chiefs are saying that they do not have the money they need to keep the public safe, just as he is releasing more criminals on to the streets. His Cabinet are squabbling with each other, and they said that they have lost control of the borders, but he still managed to find £30 billion to give away the Chagos islands. This is total and utter chaos. Two weeks ago, he was crowing about his historic trade deal and how he got zero per cent tariffs on steel. Now the steel industry will face 25% tariffs unless he does exactly what President Trump tells him to. It is chaos, chaos, chaos—and isn’t the root of the chaos that it is about this Prime Minister, his decisions and his judgment?
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
The hon. and learned Member is making an important point, which is why I will support the Opposition amendments in this vein today. Does he agree that the reports from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords are important in bringing to light just how skeletal the Bill is, and is that not a reason why we should pay attention? We should not always leave it to the House of Lords to do our work for us. We should have those debates about the future on the Floor of this House, rather than having things done by ministerial diktat.
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
The Government have said throughout the passage of this legislation that it is not about the European Union, yet as the hon. and learned Member makes clear, it is only the European Union that we can align with through regulations made under it. Does that not fundamentally undermine the Government’s entire argument, and show why these amendments are so vital to protect this House?
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
The hon. Member and I served on the Bill Committee together. I think he misses a slightly important point that this is not about international alignment, as is put forward in the amendments tabled by the Opposition, but alignment with the EU, and that is why there is such concern from the Opposition parties.
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
As the hon. Lady appreciates, we come at this Bill from different angles. We have tabled some amendments, including amendment 13, which would require the Secretary of State to come to this House and make a statement. As the hon. Lady says, small businesses are seeing regulatory change happen so swiftly that they cannot keep up. One issue with the Bill is the fact that it will be possible for regulations to be changed even more quickly, at the stroke of a Minister’s pen. That could lead to small and medium-sized enterprises being disadvantaged compared with very large businesses, which can align much more quickly.
- Hansard source
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but on the broader issue of dynamic alignment, are there not some issues—for example, animal welfare, which is not covered by the Bill—on which, if we want to maintain higher standards, we will want to go further than our EU allies, not dynamically align with them?
- Hansard source
Swimming Facilities
Thank you, Ms Jardine—excellently chaired, as always. I would like to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing this important debate. We have had some excellent contributions across the Chamber. He spoke passionately about the case for more investment in swimming facilities across England. He also had brilliant contributions from colleagues in Scotland about important safety issues, particularly in open water swimming. I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of the arguments that have been made. I thank Swim England and those in the Swimming Alliance who are here today for their ongoing engagement with us as the official Opposition. Swimming, as we have heard already, is a valuable life skill. Going for a swim can keep people of all ages fit and healthy, both physically and mentally. Knowing how to swim can save your life or someone else’s. That is why it is rightly part of the national curriculum. But, worryingly, we have seen a decline in young people’s swimming capabilities following the pandemic. According to Swim England, nearly a third of children leaving primary school cannot swim confidently, safely and unaided over 25 metres. As the sports body warns, there is a risk that many in this generation will simply not learn to swim. The complex causes of that are often seen in London, where swimming facilities are actually a lot better than other parts of the country.
- Hansard source
Swimming Facilities
Sadly, it does. Parts of the Swimming Alliance are looking very closely at the open swimming element because of the tragic examples where people lose their lives. We have to be conscious of that as we go into the summer months across Great Britain, when people are more likely to swim in open water. We have sadly seen the closure of too many swimming pools in recent years, with the number of new pools opening being only half that of those that have closed. It is a trend that the previous Conservative Government fought hard against. In 2020, we launched the £100 million national leisure recovery fund to keep leisure centres open in more than 260 local authorities. More recently, in 2023, when rising energy prices threatened to close more swimming pools, we launched the £80 million swimming pool support fund. That crucial funding helped 102 local authorities to cover the spiralling costs that threatened to reduce and close even more facilities. Importantly, it funded nearly 550 projects across almost 350 leisure facilities to help them to reduce their energy bills. Those facilities included two in my home borough, the London borough of Bexley, where swimming remains very popular among my constituents. It is also where I learnt to swim, at the Crook Log leisure centre—not very well, I must say, although that is not a comment on their swimming lessons. We invested to protect swimming facilities, but I now fear that, sadly, the trend of closure could accelerate under this new Government without new proposals coming forward. Schools struggling with the cost of the Labour Government’s national insurance increase might not be able to afford travel costs to local swimming pools. I am worried that the school tax will impact the areas of the country where the private pool in a school is the only swimming facility available, and about how that may impact local clubs looking to use it. Councils are also braced for more spending pressures as inflation rises again and will struggle to keep public facilities afloat under Labour. My council has been hit with a £5 million extra cost this year just because of national insurance. Leisure facility costs are still rising, as we have heard, thanks in no small part to similar tax hikes. We have only to look at the letter from a number of providers that was made public yesterday to see their concern about the Government’s inaction. While I appreciate that some of those matters are beyond the brief of the Minister for Sport, they are a consequence of her Government’s decisions. It is against that backdrop that she needs to lay out the Government’s plans to not only prevent more closures but open more swimming facilities, particularly in underserved communities around the country. What representations has the Minister made to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the potential impact of council finances on swimming facilities? Will the Department for Culture, Media and Sport continue to provide capital funding to improve energy efficiency at our leisure centres and pools? What is her plan to reverse the trend of swimming pools closing, and promote open swimming because of the safety aspects that we have discussed, so that every generation has a chance to learn to swim? This is an important issue for not only people’s health and wellbeing, but Britain’s sporting prowess. We all know the amazing British Paralympic and Olympic athletes and the representations they have made at the elite end of the sport. This is something that this Government must address to ensure that everyone can swim safely, and we will hold them to account to ensure that that happens in the years to come.
- Hansard source
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing this really important debate. I have previously spoken in the House about my background as a small business owner—specifically, a furniture retailer—and I know that business rates represent a massive percentage of the cost of running a small business. For many years, I have thought that we should get rid of business rates. It is a very outdated model, preferred by the Treasury because it is an easy model for collection, but it is destroying our high streets. When I was a retailer, we had an online presence. Post pandemic, more and more people are used to buying online, which means the heart and soul of our communities is being hollowed out. What was once a vibrant high street where people came to do their weekly shop and interact with one another is now somewhere to make a quick trip for necessities. I have spoken before about my views on parking charges, which differ from those of the Lib Dem-run councils in my constituency. Parking charges are part of the formula for a successful high street. I will continue to feed in my view that we need to incentivise the best behaviour possible, with free parking for an hour for the high street, so that people can have their coffee or tea, pick up their dry cleaning, speak to their friends and pop into the library to return books. Those are the intangible things that we risk losing from our communities. Taxes have been discussed. I will be a little bit political, because I know the Minister is well versed in politics in support of high streets. When we are discouraging entrepreneurs from creating businesses, we are fundamentally damaging the structure of the tax base. It is all well and good supporting employees, but we are still waiting for the definition of an employee. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge said, business owners are employees as much as employers. We should support them by saying, “We want you to take the risk of setting up a business with your life savings,” to employ people and give someone that first job, and I fear this Government are failing in that. We all look forward to the spending review and future Budgets that will hopefully not U-turn but nudge policy positions in a way that supports wealth creation. I am lucky enough to represent the great constituency of South West Hertfordshire. I have some really amazing high streets, such as Rickmansworth, Kings Langley, Chorleywood, Croxley Green, Leavesden, South Oxhey, Moor Park, Abbots Langley and many more. But what I have seen over the past five years, especially post pandemic, is an increase in vacancies, and it is taking longer for those vacancies to be occupied. That deters shoppers in my community from going to their local high street, and instead they click and buy from online retailers for convenience, which I am as guilty of doing as anyone else. My plea to the Minister is to create the policies that incentivise great and best behaviour. He will have support from across the House for being brave. With the majority that this Government command, they can start the tax system again with a blank sheet of paper and ask, “What is it that we are trying to achieve?” One of the frustrations that I had when I first got elected in 2019 with our 80-seat majority was that we could have carried out a once-in-a-generation reform of our tax system, especially business rates. If the Minister works closely with the Chancellor to do that, he will have my support.
- Hansard source
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
One of the likely consequences of the Minister’s proposals is that tenants will look to change their rateable value. Can he assure the House that the Valuation Office Agency will have sufficient resources to ensure that any appeals are done as quickly as possible to give the certainty that our high street retailers and hospitality deserve?
- Hansard source
Regional Growth
I recognise the importance of assisting the city regions to boost the economy, but my Brigg and Immingham constituency covers the south bank of the Humber, which is home to a cluster of energy businesses that are of particular importance to the renewables sector. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury outline what resources will be made available for that area to support improvements both in rail connections and also to the A180, which provides access to the major port of Immingham?
- Hansard source
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
The Minister says he hears the frustration of the House, but do the Government hear the cries of Gaza’s orphaned children and the cries of the children who have had their loved ones literally blown to bits in front of them, who will be maimed for life? I have been at many of these statements before. I am grateful for what the Minister said, and I also put on the record that I am grateful for what the shadow Foreign Secretary said, but the reality is that aid is not getting through. There were 400 UN stations before, but there are now only a handful. They are in combat zones, and people are unable to access the aid. Every single day, men, women and children are being impacted through a lack of food, access to aid, access to medical supplies, and access to fuel so that they can actually cook some of the food—some very practical issues. I do not support the new way of delivering aid—it should be done by the UN—but if that is going to be the case, what more can the Minister do with the Americans to ensure that there are more aid stations in more places so that more people can access aid, in order to save lives?
- Hansard source
Draft Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Mundell. Congratulations on your tennis match this morning; I am glad it went well. Lawn tennis—you can’t beat it. This SI started its life in the previous Government and has come through more or less untouched. It is almost as if the general election never happened—it is extraordinary; we seem to have swapped sides somehow. On the basis that the SI was started in the previous Government, the Opposition will support the new rules. It is absolutely right that people and businesses have access to bank accounts. While the Farage-NatWest scandal brought the issue of debanking into the national spotlight, the statistics show that the scale of the problem is far wider. Nearly 400,000 bank accounts were closed last year, according to figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph via a freedom of information request. Many of those closures will of course have been for legitimate reasons such as financial crime, fraud or dormant accounts. For people and businesses that are impacted, often unfairly, the new rules will be very helpful. These are sensible steps that will improve transparency and give customers more time to find alternatives if their accounts are closed. However, the deal does not include a statutory review clause, which is possibly a mistake, and there has rightly been feedback. David Hamilton, a partner at Howard Kennedy, warns: “If customer exits are more onerous in terms of disclosures and potential FOS challenges, it may give banks pause to consider whether they want to onboard certain types of customers at all.” In other words, there is a real risk that the banks will simply become more cautious at the account opening stage, and they could make it harder for those perceived as higher risk, such as politically exposed persons—everybody in this room—or certain business sectors, to access basic banking services at all, which brings me on to my next point. The new rules on politically exposed persons have not yet been publicised. The Financial Conduct Authority’s consultation on the issue closed in October 2024. Its initial findings asked banks and financial institutions to do more to ensure that UK lawmakers and their families are not treated unfairly. It is essential that the new rules on debanking and PEPs are aligned and implemented at the same time to give both customers and banks clarity and consistency. Although we support the new rules, I would like the Minister to address the following key questions. First, why has the statutory review clause not been included in this SI, given the risk of unintended consequences for account holders? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the impact on people who may now find it harder to open a bank account in the first place? Thirdly, when will the new rules on politically exposed persons be published? Will the Government commit to aligning their implementation with the debanking reforms? Also, how will the Government monitor the impact of the changes, particularly on small businesses and vulnerable customers, and what steps will be taken if there is evidence that banks are becoming more risk-averse and excluding legitimate customers from the banking system? As I said, access to bank accounts is a basic necessity in modern Britain. Under the previous—might I say brilliant?—Government, we made it a fundamental right to have access to basic banking services. These rules are a step forward, but it is vital that we remain alert to making sure that they do not become another barrier put in place to stop businesses and consumers accessing banking services. The Minister might not have enough time to get an answer to my questions, but if she could perhaps write me a letter, that would be fantastic. As I said, we will support this measure.
- Hansard source
Draft Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
It was to do with the assessment being done of the impact on politically exposed persons. When can we expect that report to come out?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q8. The Prime Minister told us during the general election that he is a socialist. What has been more surprising is to find out in the last couple of weeks that the leader of the Reform party might be one too. As the Chancellor locks down the spending review, will the Prime Minister please remind her of Mrs Thatcher’s all-too-pertinent observation that the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money?
- Hansard source
Environment Agency: East of England
I have an issue in my constituency down White Stubbs Lane, where we have raw sewage going over the road. The Environment Agency is unaccountable, hardly wanting to meet with MPs or engage. It told me during the purdah period, “We can’t meet with you, because there is a local election going on,” which is absolute nonsense. It should engage with MPs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is completely unaccountable and needs fundamental reform and change?
- Hansard source
Environment Agency: East of England
The Minister speaks warmly about having meetings with the Environment Agency. It is all well and good having a meeting, but I do not want to go into a talking shop. I feel like the Environment Agency uses the meetings to say, “We’ve ticked that box and we’ve met that MP; that issue is done,” but it does not action anything. We want to see real action for our constituents because they are really fed up with these issues, which take a terribly long time to solve.
- Hansard source
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing the debate. There are 1,400 small businesses with a rateable value of less than £50,000 across my constituency. Today, we are discussing only the changes in business rates, but a lot of other Government decisions—particularly on employers’ national insurance and on energy costs not coming down—will affect our high streets as well. The cumulative impact of all that is devastating for our high streets. Lots of businesses I speak to in my constituency are horrified that rates relief dropped from 75% to 40%. When I go out and about across Broxbourne and speak to business owners, a lot of them now say, “What’s the point? What’s the point in me coming to work, trying to run a small business in the town centre, creating growth and employing people?” A Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that it is the Government that create growth. Well, let me tell the Government that it is not the Government that create growth; the Government’s job is to create the right environment for entrepreneurs and businesses to create growth. Business owners go to work day in, day out, and work incredibly long hours. The Government should try to derisk that process. If we want people to open shops on our high streets, the Government should cushion them from some of the risks. When someone starts their own business at home—from a desk, garage or whatever—upscaling that business is incredibly difficult, and lots of risks are involved. Given that the Government are changing business rates relief and slapping more taxes on businesses, particularly in our town centres, why would someone do that? A couple of weeks ago, I went to a secondary school in my constituency to speak to A-level students who are doing a business T-level. They all want to become entrepreneurs and create businesses, but we are not creating the right environment for people to become entrepreneurs. In the general election campaign, we heard a lot about how Labour would be the most pro-business Government ever to take power in the United Kingdom, but every decision the Government have made since being in office has slammed down growth and made it harder for businesses. My constituency has the business improvement districts Love Hoddesdon, Love Cheshunt and Love Waltham Cross, and business owners constantly tell me that, whichever way they turn, things are incredibly difficult and the Government are not making them easy. Even when they go through the business rates appeals process, they have to pay the higher bills while the process takes place, and that process takes months. They do not get any response from the Treasury, and it is difficult for them to appeal and submit information. That is simply not good enough. As I said, lots of people are starting to wonder, “What is the point in me doing this?” We should be pro-growth in this country. The best form of welfare is a well-paid job, but we are not allowing entrepreneurs to go out there, invest in their businesses, create job opportunities and keep our high streets afloat. We all want to see successful high streets up and down the United Kingdom, but this Government’s policies are killing the high street. They are absolutely killing it.
- Hansard source
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
The SNP needs to come up with some relief, because things are hard enough in England, even without what the hon. Gentleman has just outlined in Scotland. The OECD has today downgraded its growth predictions for the United Kingdom. The Government need to start acting on their rhetoric from before the general election. They said they would be pro-growth, but no policies have come forward to support our high streets or promote growth. The Government really should stop trying to kill our high streets.
- Hansard source
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
As the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) indicated, we are all frankly getting a bit fed up with the theatrics in this Chamber, and if I am honest with the Minister, it feels like the whole House is being played. He shows up and mouths the words, full of condemnation and saying he is appalled, and very occasionally the Government leak out just enough sanctions in order, frankly—I am afraid to say this, colleagues—to keep the Labour Benches from open revolt. And yet, since the Minister last appeared here, as others have mentioned, 22 new settlements have been announced, and the Israeli Government have replaced the United Nations Relief and Works Agency distribution system with a shooting gallery—an abattoir, where starving people are lured out through combat zones to be shot at. If the situation were reversed, we would now, quite rightly, be mobilising the British armed forces as part of an international protection force, so here is my question: what is the difference?