Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Q14. A small family business in my constituency was recently burgled by a prolific offender serving an eight-month suspended sentence. The man was caught, arrested, charged and appeared in court, where he was given another eight-month suspended sentence and was released. The business was offered £200 in compensation. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that that is justice served, or is this Government now soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime?
I am pleased to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on moving his motion just in time, and on his birthday. He gave an excellent speech, once he got his breath back, and I thought his warning about an overloaded electricity grid was very wise. There was a lot of agreement in the debate. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) joined the hon. Member for Cannock Chase in pointing out the prohibitive cost of heat pumps. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) pointed out the particular challenges for rural communities. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) rightly did his duty representing that part of the country by talking about the jobs that depend on oil and gas. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), from the land of my grandmother’s birth, reminded us of the Northern Ireland experience and the importance of geography when we debate energy. That was reinforced by the hon. Member for Worcester (Tom Collins), who rightly said that we will continue to need a national gas grid, because of the nature of the demand for gas. I thought he was right to criticise the Climate Change Committee for proposing no gas for heating homes. I think the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) put it well when he said that Britain runs on gas. He noted the challenge of reconciling the policy to decarbonise with maintaining fairness for families. We must always be honest about trade-offs when we talk about policy, which is one of the things about which I will try to warn the Minister. The Government may come to regret their failure to do so on several fronts, particularly on net zero. Sadly, that is a lesson, especially on net zero, that my party has drawn from its time in office, including the unhappy end of that time. Many businesses will continue to use gas and do not have the option to go fully electric. Half a million businesses rely on gas, and not all of them will survive the switch to electricity. As the hon. Member for Peterborough mentioned, big industries continue to rely on gas, such as chemicals, ceramics and—we have similar constituency interests—the sugar industry, among many others. Smaller businesses are just as affected. Chip shops, curry houses and many businesses I do not frequent will also face cost increases from electrification because of higher levies on their energy bills. Unfortunately, Ministers have said little to reassure those businesses that there is a plan to help them and to remember them. This is also putting a significant cost on ordinary families. Let us look at gas boilers. I challenged the Minister on that during Energy questions last week, but the Energy Secretary and the ministerial team have refused to rule out new taxes, charges or levies on gas bills to fund lower levies on electricity bills, which means a net tax rise for the 80% of households that rely on gas. This was not even mentioned before the general election, although hon. Members will remember the promise to cut everyone’s energy bills by £300 by the end of this Parliament. Instead, energy bills have risen so far by an average of £111. While Labour sought to take the credit for the recent fall in wholesale gas prices, the policy costs for which they are responsible are rising. Running down gas also denies how important it still is as a reliable source of power. Just this morning, a new National Gas report found an 18% increase in gas for power generation last year compared with the year before. At its peak, 65% of our power came from gas, with a half-hourly peak of 73%. This was caused partly by a major drop in wind power, which meant that we had to import more gas from countries as varied as the US, Norway, Qatar, Peru, Trinidad and other places. NESO might be planning another gas-free 30 minutes for the grid this summer, but the power of gas remains formidable and essential. People do not want to be forced to give up gas. Around 80% of the country relies on gas in some way or another. That is more than 20 million homes put at risk by any policy to force people off gas and on to less reliable and more expensive alternatives. The Chancellor said during her statement on the spending review that “energy security is national security.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 979.] We agree with that, which is why the anti-gas stance of the Energy Secretary is baffling. We continue to rely on gas—in any given year, 40% of the energy used in the UK comes from it. It is a flexible and reliable source of power. It ensures that there is inertia in the grid, preventing blackouts of the kind that we recently saw in Spain and Portugal, where a lack of conventional power generation from sources such as gas contributed to mass power outages. New data centres are connecting to the gas grid to secure on-site power, instead of using wind or solar, and with good reason. But the Government want to reduce gas to below 5% of our electricity supply by 2030, and use it only as a back-up for unreliable renewables. The Energy Secretary is being very ideological and basing decisions on dodgy claims about global fossil fuel markets. There is no single global gas market in the way that he has described on several occasions. Fossil fuel prices are higher in Europe than America, which is more dependent on fossil fuels than we are. The prices are higher here because of policy choices. For example, blocking new oil and gas licences in the North sea only makes us more dependent on expensive, dirtier foreign imports, to the benefit of others. We are importing oil and gas from Norway from the very same seabed that we could exploit, while insisting that we are “too good” and “too green” to do that ourselves. British businesses and jobs could be benefiting from this industry, rather than being cut off. The policy does not even work on its own terms, because liquefied natural gas has four times the emissions of North sea oil and gas. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East mentioned, 120,000 jobs in the North sea are at risk. It does not make sense to shut down our own gas production when Norwegian oil and gas continues to be drilled from the North sea. That is why I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), announced that our party is committed to stopping the punishment of our domestic energy industry with damaging taxation. It is wrong for the energy profits levy to continue until 2030; we believe that it should be removed altogether, along with the ban on oil and gas exports. This change would actually increase revenue in the long run. It is not just the North sea that we should worry about. Britain is the largest gas boiler manufacturer in Europe. Our gas grid is world-leading, but 130,000 gas engineers and 150,000 oil and gas sector jobs are now under threat. Deliberately winding down the gas industry is an extraordinary act of economic self-harm. For all the Government’s talking down of fossil fuels, our gas grid is incredibly stable and resilient. The gas grid depends on over 30 large gas power stations, and the gas comes in through interconnectors, LNG imports, and from Norway and the North sea. Our gas grid is a vital connection point for the European gas supply, especially following the Ukraine invasion. Major public investment has already gone into the gas grid to help modernise and reduce failures and leaks. This makes up 5,000 miles of steel pipes and more than 60 jet engines to move the gas around the country. Our gas grid can also play an important role in reducing carbon emissions through, for example, expanding the use of hydrogen. In contrast, the cost of decommissioning the gas grid has been estimated at between £46 billion and £70 billion. The Government’s plans are causing major uncertainty for investors, businesses and workers when they should be standing squarely behind a critical industry that has an important role to play in our economic prosperity and energy security. Ministers are allowing policy to race ahead of the technology, threatening to destabilise the grid and our economy. It is clear that the gas grid has a crucial role to play in our energy mix if we are to protect families and businesses from rising costs. I do not doubt that the Minister will say that he agrees with that, but the test will be in action and policy, not words.
Q6. The Home Secretary says that we should judge her success in smashing the gangs by whether the number of channel crossings falls, but under this Government the numbers are up by more than 30%. By which date should we judge the Home Secretary, and if she fails, will she be fired?
Before I turn to my new clause, I welcome in particular new clause 7, on non-crime hate incidents, and new clause 150, proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), which would ban sexual relationships between first cousins. This Bill presents an opportunity for the Government to support my new clause 108 to protect freedom of expression. That is urgently needed, because existing legislation has been manipulated to create a blasphemy law for the protection of Islam from criticism and protest. As I said in my speech last week, I am not a Muslim, and I reject any attempt to tell me that I cannot say what I think about any religion. No ideas or beliefs should be above criticism or scrutiny.
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution, but the point is that the courts are interpreting the law as they see it. If we in this place believe that interpretation to be wrong, it is our job to correct it through legislation, and I think the appropriate way to do so would be to extend section 29J of the Act in the way I have described.
I do not know whether the Minister is allowed to intervene, but she would be welcome to do so. [Interruption.] She has been here longer than I have.
No, I think the Minister has misunderstood my point. Actually, I was about to move on to a related issue, which is that hating people and discriminating against them on the basis that they are Muslims, or indeed members of different religious groups, is already a crime. If someone were harassing Jewish people in the way that the Minister has just described, that would be a criminal offence, even if my amendment passed. However, as I was saying, Islamophobia is a made-up and nonsensical concept that elides the protection of individuals from hatred with the protection of ideas and beliefs, and—in my view—is therefore completely unacceptable in principle.
That was obviously an appalling crime —I remember it very well—but I do not think it has anything to do with what I am saying in this debate. In a free and pluralistic society, we have to be free to criticise ideas. There are laws to protect people, but we cannot have laws that protect ideas from scrutiny or criticism. However, the Government are pressing on with their work on Islamophobia. Only this week, on the very day that Baroness Casey said that the rape gangs were often not prosecuted because of the ethnicity of the perpetrators, Ministers launched a consultation on the new Islamophobia definition. That consultation is open only to carefully selected, invited organisations; it will last for only four weeks; and it allows contributors to remain anonymous. In other words, as lots of people have put it to me, it is rigged, and that is completely unacceptable. Parliament repealed blasphemy laws years ago, and trials for blasphemy had stopped many decades back in any case, but they are with us once more. Parliament must act to restore our freedom of expression.
I was inviting the hon. Lady to withdraw what she and her colleague said about my hon. Friend, because it was incorrect.
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Order. I call Rachel Taylor.
Order. I think the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) just ran out of time. I remember that I too raised Banaz’s case as a Back Bencher.
The speaking limit is now reduced to four minutes.
I beg to move, That this House has considered Government policy on marriage between first cousins. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I rise to speak on a topic that many in our country assume is already settled. People assume that the marriage of first cousins is prohibited, as it was for 1,000 years in England. Yet that is not the case today. Despite deep cultural, medical and societal reasons to avoid such unions, our laws have remained unchanged since the era of Henry VIII. To many, that is a source of bewilderment and bafflement—as it was to me, until I dug deeper and realised some of the real dangers that widescale first cousin marriage can bring. The Church banned first cousin marriage in the fifth century. By the 11th century it had prohibited marriage up to sixth cousins. That ban was reversed by a Tudor monarch with a perhaps chequered marital record and we have remained broadly silent on the issue ever since. However, the rights and freedoms of individual citizens, society and our broader understanding have moved on, and our laws must do the same. This is not a call for a legislative knee-jerk reaction. Silence, as Matthew Syed has powerfully written in The Times, does not constitute neutrality. Silence is a fundamental choice with serious consequences, both for children born with preventable disorders, and even more so for men and women denied basic freedoms and for communities fragmented from wider society. I urge the House and the Minister to recognise the scale of the issue and—I hope—the moral imperative to act. My argument rests on three key tenets: freedom, social cohesion and health. During the last Parliament I worked with campaigners to end virginity testing and hymenoplasty. In doing so I stood on the shoulders of giants: brave women from many organisations who support young women trapped in oppressive familial and extended family tribal systems. I pushed for a private Member’s Bill, and then via amendments to the Health and Care Act 2022, with Baroness Sugg in the House of Lords helping as well; the Government accepted the argument by tabling their own amendments. When I picked up that campaign, via a chance encounter with an item on BBC Radio 1’s “Newsbeat”, there was no politician of any party leading the charge in this House. Some of the activists involved might have been a bit miffed that a new, unknown Back-Bench Tory MP was leading their cause—but they got me, and we managed to push through some of the changes that they had been fighting for so bravely and with such strength for such a long time. What was the reason behind women being forced to undergo procedures that are at best pseudo-scientific, and at worst deeply harmful? It was unscientific concepts of virginity linked to gender-oppressive ideas of purity in an oppressive patriarchal culture. Often those were linked to forced marriages. Some of their stories will never leave me: young women who had had their education and ambitions cut short being sent to marry men they had never met—men chosen not for compatibility or affection, but to preserve family alliances, assets or bastardised notions of honour. Such arrangements are not just about culture; they are also about control. The system is upheld by pressure and enforced through silence, and people attempt to justify it through tradition. When marriage is confined within families, the cost of refusal rises astronomically: it is not simply turning down a partner, but rejecting grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts and the entire network of family and friends—and that has a price. Choice under those circumstances is no choice at all. That is why I see the legislation that I put forward in my private Member’s Bill, the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill, and the debate we are having today as an extension of the work I did in the last Parliament. We have heard, rightly, about patriarchal systems that rob women of autonomy, but in cousin marriage those systems are particularly resilient. Why? Because the families are not just connected, but fused—inextricably joined. The pressure is not just external, from legal systems; it is intimate and wholly inescapable, especially when it is generation after generation. Men are trapped too; I have been told of British Pakistani men forced into such arrangements by community and familial obligations, terrified to defy expectations and cut ties with cousins whom they often consider, because of the closeness of their relationship, almost as siblings. There are even cases of gay men and women who have been forced to marry out of familial obligation. That is not hypothetical: since raising this issue, I have been contacted by scores of youth workers, healthcare professionals and ordinary members of the community who have thanked me for raising it and asked me to keep going. They need politicians to speak up, because they feel that they cannot. Beneath the surface and behind closed doors, there is support and a real hunger for change in these communities. Sadly, what is lacking is the political courage to match that quiet majority—and it is a quiet majority in all parts of our community: polls show that support for reform is not linked to the black, white or other populations, and a YouGov poll just a few weeks ago showed that a majority of British Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities back a ban on first cousin marriage. The vain virtue signallers who said that moves in this direction would be racist must take a look at themselves; they are the ones opposing a majority of the communities that they play-act at representing. For people in the communities I am speaking up for—most of the British Pakistani community, where this is a big issue, and to a lesser extent the Traveller community—cousin marriage is entangled with status, tradition and expectations, and speaking out can be very dangerous. As with forced marriage and female genital mutilation, silence only enables the system. Only sunlight breaks the cycle, and that means naming the issue, debating it and legislating against it. Some critics say a ban would infringe upon people’s freedom—but what freedom are we protecting? The reality for so many is a life predetermined by bloodline and birth order. We are not protecting a freedom; we are perpetuating oppression. Whose freedom, if any, are we protecting? Purely the freedom of the oppressor to oppress and keep down—not the freedom of the individual. The state already intervenes where power dynamics distort consent. We rightly outlaw relationships between teachers and pupils or therapists and clients, because of the imbalance. The same must apply here. Let us not forget that most cousin marriages are not one-offs. In some cases, they are multi-generational. With each generation, the chance to choose diminishes further. The net tightens and lives are lost in the gaps. I move now beyond individual freedom to the broader issue of social cohesion. Patrick Nash, an Oxford theologian, argues that cousin marriage undermines trust in public institutions; when communities marry inward, loyalty is channelled inward to extended families and clan structures, rather than to the important shared civic values of the nation state and wider society. At Harvard, Joseph Henrich has documented how the decline of cousin marriage helped to build western liberal democracies. When families are forced to look beyond their kin networks for marriage partners, new alliances form. Societies move beyond tribal loyalty to a broader civic trust. Studies show that, where cousin marriage continues, there is reduced integration, lower social mobility and higher incidence of corruption. Why? Because when job, marriage, dispute resolution and identity all sit within the same extended family structure, wider society fades from relevance. If we want a society that functions on the basis of fairness, where the rule of law prevails and where people engage beyond their own, we cannot allow closed family systems to continue to flourish unchallenged. So-called community leaders—often unelected and unaccountable—who derive their authority from familial networks become gatekeepers for those people and communities. They decide who speaks, who marries whom and who gets heard. This system is self-perpetuating. These are not British values, and those who perpetuate such systems should be exposed. In many cases, those leaders are the ones resisting reform, not because the arguments for change are weak, but because their own power depends on those structures being preserved. Reform threatens their influence. That is why this issue matters so much. We must remember that cousin marriage is not a religious obligation, but a cultural tradition, and traditions can and must change. Other nations have already exhibited powerful leadership in this area; we should look towards countries such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark for a steer. Those countries are liberal democracies with incredibly strong human rights records. They are not reactionary or anachronistic, but fundamentally progressive. Why, then, are we allowing Britain to lag behind? We hear concerns about cultural insensitivity—I have been accused of it myself—but is it not far more insensitive to ignore the pleas of those trapped within those structures? Is it not condescending to assume that communities cannot adapt or reform? We should be empowering individuals, not entrenching power in extended family hierarchies. The state’s job is not to ratify patriarchal bargains, but to protect liberty, health and the chance of every citizen to live a full and independent life. When cousin marriage is prevalent, society and integration suffer, and shared spaces become fewer; school catchments, neighbourhoods and even workplaces can fracture along the lines of extended kin. That is not diversity at its best, but division at its worst. It is not about faith or race. It is about what sort of country we want to live in: one ruled by fear masquerading as family loyalty, or one where each citizen stands equal, with rights and responsibilities to each other deeper than those of family and clan. Those fundamentals are the foundation of a modern nation state and ones I believe this Parliament, this Government and this House should uphold. Finally, I come to science and the health issue, because the best understood point against cousin marriage, though it is not core to my argument, is health. The Born in Bradford study, one of the UK’s most comprehensive birth cohort analyses, has followed 11,000 children.
The hon. Member contributes so often to our debates in such a thoughtful way. He raises an important point about health, which I will develop. The health issues are of fundamental importance but, as I have said in my speech, there are broader societal concerns that mean this issue should be higher up the Government’s agenda more generally as well. For unrelated parents, the Born in Bradford study found that around one in 40 children are born with serious birth defects. Among first cousins, that rises to roughly one in 15, even when controlling for poverty, education and maternal age. That is more than double the risk. It cannot be stressed enough that this is not an isolated issue. In some communities, cousin marriage remains par for the course—the typical, not the atypical. In parts of Bradford, for instance, over half of all mothers of Pakistani heritage are married to first or second cousins. That is hardly new information; as far back as the 19th century, the British Medical Journal documented inherited risks from unions between first cousins. Charles Darwin himself was married to his first cousin, and he suspected a link between his marriage and the poor health of his children, three of whom died young and five of whom suffered from chronic illnesses or disability. The genetic risks run from the well-known Tay-Sachs, thalassaemia and cystic fibrosis to the under-recognised microcephaly, heart defects and intellectual disabilities. Those disorders are often lifelong, and the toll is felt not just by families, but by wider society—by the NHS, by our special educational needs system and across communities. Alison Shaw, professor of social anthropology at Oxford, has written extensively on cousin marriage in British-Pakistani communities. Drawing on public health data, she highlights that children born to first cousins face roughly double the risk of serious genetic disorders compared with those of unrelated parents. Some have suggested that genetic testing could solve the problem but, while certain conditions can be screened for, many cannot. More importantly, testing does nothing to address the broader issues I have already spoken of around coercion and lack of real choice. Moreover, as UK Biobank studies demonstrate, multi-generational first cousin marriages exponentially compound risk. The DNA profiles in such families begin almost to mirror those of siblings, or certainly uncle-niece relationships, which often carry much higher risks of severe birth defects, when first cousin marriage occurs generation after generation. In broader culture, people often think of the Habsburgs as a reference point, but this issue is more than mere historical curiosity; it is sadly representative of a contemporary crisis that continues to affect families today. Behind every statistic lie families, clinicians and patients struggling to manage lifelong consequences. What makes this more painful is that so many of these conditions are entirely preventable. When the science is clear, it beggars belief that we still choose not to do anything. We must stop pretending that this is a marginal issue. The data is clear: it is not anecdotal, but systematic. The status quo is not neutral; it is a form of abandonment, and sustaining it is indefensible. If we were to design a system that throttled personal freedom, threw in major health issues and undermined national cohesion, we could hardly do better than the widespread practice of first cousin marriage. We ban incest for good reasons. We recognise the power imbalances inherent to sexual relationships between teachers and pupils, doctors and patients, uncles and aunts and their nieces and nephews, and parents and their children. We legislate to protect the vulnerable, so why are we silent here? Sadly, I fear that it is because we fear being called intolerant and it is sometimes easier not to look. The truth is that inaction is not neutrality; it is complicity. We must do better. We need only to look at what has happened in recent days with the release of the report on grooming gangs. I think back to the Labour MPs who raised that issue at a much earlier stage, such as Ann Cryer, who spoke passionately about it almost two decades ago. There is a lot to learn from people who have gone before us. My Bill currently sits before the House. I thank the Members who have already put their names to it, including the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), my right hon. Friends the Members for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mr Snowden), for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). I urge the Government to take this matter seriously and to listen to the survivors, to professionals and to the silent majorities in the affected communities. We must stop treating such issues as a taboo. If the so-called community leaders had got their way, we would have kept marriage under 16 and we would not have banned hymenoplasty and virginity testing or people being taken abroad for forced marriage. This should not be a taboo issue; it is a public health issue. It is about liberty and integration. The aim is not to condemn, but to liberate, in order to ensure that our country is one where freedom does not end at the edge of tradition, where cohesion is built on our common citizenship, not inherited constraint, and where children are not born into suffering that we have the power to prevent. We have a chance to take a lead and make a statement that in 21st century Britain, freedom, health and integration matter. I hope the Minister will hear that call.
May I take the Minister back to a point she made about forced marriage? I understand her commitment, and that of the Government, on this issue, but surely she must recognise that when we are looking at a rate of first cousin marriages of between one in 200 and one in 500 in normal society, but a rate of one in two in certain communities, real questions must be asked. How can anybody in those communities really speak out about that issue and the concerns around forced marriage? It is so clear that the family ties are so strong, generation after generation, that they make it almost impossible for people to come forward.
I rise to speak in support of six of the new clauses that go to the heart of our responsibilities as legislators—safeguarding children, restoring public confidence in the law and defending free expression—although due to the lack of time, I will not be able to go into them all in detail. New clause 45, standing in my name, seeks to ensure that where an individual under the age of 18 has been cautioned or convicted of a child sex offence, the police must notify any organisation that that child is involved in, where they are with other children, or an organisation that that person is seeking to join. This new clause stems from a real case in my own constituency and would close a dangerous and demonstrably harmful safeguarding loophole, which I have already discussed privately with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). I hope that the Government will look at this as they take this legislation through the other place. New clause 46, also standing my name, addresses another gap in legislation: a person’s ability to buy a car without providing any form of verifiable ID, or indeed proving that they can actually drive. This is in memory of Andrew Rowlands, with the support of his family, and it would make it harder for criminals and reckless drivers to use untraceable vehicles with impunity and kill people, as happened in Andrew’s case. New clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), seeks to reaffirm the right to speak freely about religion or belief, including criticism, satire and dissent, by restoring clarity to our public order laws. I know he will be speaking to it later, and I wholly support it. It is closely aligned to new clause 7, which is being put forward by the Opposition Front Bench today. We need to start addressing some of these non-crime hate incidents, which I think are becoming a pernicious attack upon freedom in our society. More broadly, it was great to hear the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) speak about pornography and some of the amendments she has put forward. I support new clause 103. In fact, I have been doing some work recently with the British Board of Film Classification because there are clearly major issues between what is allowed to be broadcast and age rated within traditional broadcast settings and what is available online. There is a growing body of evidence linking violent and abusive pornography with increased rates of sexual aggression, especially towards women and girls. I fully support the new clause and hope that the Government pay attention to what the hon. Member proposed. I support new clause 150 relating to cousin marriage. I am glad that the Opposition Front Bench has put it forward, and I spoke at length about the matter earlier in Westminster Hall. This is not a knee-jerk reaction; it represents the next logical step in a serious and ongoing effort to protect the vulnerable and promote social cohesion. I have already introduced a private Member’s Bill in this Session on the marriage element, following the successful challenge banning virginity testing and hymenoplasty in the last Session, because when it comes to protecting women and men from outdated, coercive and harmful practices, this House must not look the other way. This is not about race or religion; it is about freedom, societal cohesion and health. It is about freedom because consent is meaningless when extended families can pressure young men and women into cousin marriages that they do not want. We must stand up for those without a voice and give them the legal backing to say no. It is about cohesion because multigenerational cousin marriage often fosters huge issues around social segregation, locking individuals into closed systems of authority. When countries like Norway and Denmark have acted decisively, there is no excuse for this country to lag behind others with progressive credentials. It is about health because there is a real risk. The Born in Bradford study, which has been going on for many years, has found the real societal implications, and we still do not know the full side effects of multigenerational first cousin marriages. We rightly prohibit relationships where power distorts consent—between teachers and pupils, doctors and patients, and within close family settings. The same logic clearly applies here as well. This new clause is rooted in compassion, not condemnation. It speaks to freedom, especially for women, and the courage to legislate where silence simply causes harm. Each of these amendments addresses a different risk—child safety, public accountability and freedom of expression—but they are united in the common principle that the law should protect the vulnerable, demand responsibility, and preserve the freedoms on which a healthy and confident society depends.
As MPs, we receive a wide range of correspondence from constituents during some of the most difficult times in their lives, but the email that I received from Emma Johnson was perhaps one of the most harrowing that I have ever received. It is because of Emma’s story that I have tabled new clause 51, and I will speak to it today.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I too served on the Public Accounts Committee, so I know that while HS2 is by far the largest civil infrastructure programme in the United Kingdom, the second largest is the lower Thames crossing from Tilbury to Gravesend, for which about £10 billion is currently budgeted. If her tighter approach to HS2 produces savings, is there any way that some of them might be vired to pay for the lower Thames crossing? If not, exactly which private-sector companies will pay for it? So far, I am afraid the Government have been rather vague on that point.
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 130 to strengthen the law on tool theft. In early May this year, I joined police officers from Sidcup and Havering in a raid to uncover stolen tools at a boot sale in east London. Unlicensed boot sales are notorious for selling stolen goods. However, I was still astounded by what officers found. As they arrived in police vans and unmarked cars, there was a flurry of action among some traders: stolen goods were hidden, a van tried to flee and the keys to vehicles crowded with tools were suddenly lost. But the police had struck quickly and in numbers. Stolen tools were uncovered across traders’ stalls, six arrests were made and, eventually, officers struck the mother lode—a van overflowing with stolen tools. The raid took officers to a second site, where even more stolen tools were uncovered. Over 1,650 stolen tools were found, worth around half a million pounds, on just one day. Officers were even able to return some marked tools to their owners. The raid shows why tradespeople must mark their tools properly. If they are marked with the likes of DNA tagging, the police can easily prove they are stolen and lock up the thieves responsible. They can also return the stolen tools to the hard-working tradespeople across the country. But marking tools alone will not stop tool theft. Vans are being broken into in broad daylight and tools sold openly across the country. It is a disgrace. The law must change to punish the thieves responsible and crack down on the boot sales driving the crime wave. That is why I encourage all Members to support new clause 130, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). First, it would increase fines to better match the severity of the crime, reflecting the cost of replacing tools and repairing damage to vans and of lost work.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her vital contribution. We must back the makers, not the law breakers, whether they are “white van men” or rural farmers who are having their tools stolen. The impact on their ability to go to work is significant, but it also has an impact on their families because of their ability to buy food and other goods. We must back the makers and not the law breakers. Secondly, the Bill would impose tougher sentences on thieves by recognising the seriousness of the crime. Finally, it would require councils to create an enforcement plan to stop the sale of stolen tools at boot sales. These are all necessary changes to help stop tool theft across the country. Tradespeople and industry cannot afford parliamentary dither and delay. As campaigners, tradespeople, policing experts and industry have told us, action is needed now. Every 12 minutes, a van is broken into and tools are stolen, costing tradespeople thousands of pounds, hurting their mental health and stopping them from earning a living.
I agree with my hon. Friend’s vital contribution. I will come on to a couple of the larger impacts. We often think about small businesses, but we have found from our roundtable that very large companies also suffer a lot of damage. For example, on average Openreach vans are hit three times a day, which delays the fibre rollout in rural communities. Over £2 million of surveying equipment was stolen from Balfour Beatty’s vans in just three months, impacting HS2, which we have discussed today. If any MPs are unsure about the need to act now, they need to speak to Shoaib Awan, Frankie Williams, Sergeant Dave Catlow, PC Dan Austin and the teams at SelectaDNA, Checkatrade and On The Tools, among many others who have worked tirelessly on this issue. I thank them all, especially the Sidcup police team who are leading a lot of that hard work.
I applaud all the efforts by podcasters and tradespeople who are going online and sharing their experiences. Any hon. Member can look up the likes of Stolen Tools UK or the Gas Expert on Instagram and they will see cases, every single day, of people having their tools stolen and the damage that is doing to their financial and mental health. The impact of this on the wider economy is now so severe that we must act: Parliament must act across party to change the law—today, I hope. I also thank the police and crime commissioners across the country who are getting stuck into the problem. I have highlighted examples from the Met of Sidcup and Havering police forces in particular, but I know that the PCCs in Kent and Sussex are also doing great work tackling this issue. As I have highlighted, this is not a party-political issue and I appreciate the work of the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) in shining a spotlight on it. Today we can work cross-party and get the law changed now, and I hope, in all sincerity, that all MPs get behind this amendment and that the Government can help us change the law today, get on the side of the makers and tackle the lawbreakers.
I point to page 86 of Baroness Casey’s report, which shows a worrying number of live investigations of cases in which there is an overlap between child sexual exploitation and criminal exploitation. The report notes that a “significant proportion” of cases appear to involve suspects who are claiming asylum. Which Minister is directly responsible for safeguarding our communities, including those housed in asylum hotels? If the Government manage to close asylum hotels, as they claim they will, and individuals move into other accommodation, will any dangers transferred from hotels to the wider community be accounted for?
For decades, too many people blocked their ears and turned their backs on towns and individuals asking for help, as well as on the national calls for help. Will the Minister confirm that those in their ivory towers in Whitehall can now be compelled to give evidence under oath on their actions and assumptions—including, vitally, senior civil servants, former Crown Prosecution Service employees, and previous Directors of Public Prosecutions?
I may have said it yesterday, but it cannot be said enough: once again, I pay tribute to the hard work of police officers, PCSOs and police staff across the country. They put themselves in harm’s way every day to keep our streets safe, under immense pressure. I hope that every Member across the House will join me in thanking them for their service. Yesterday I mentioned the Opposition’s support for many of the measures in the Bill, although given that the vast majority are carried over from the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, it is probably no great surprise. Enforcing the Bill will require resources. I have already outlined concerns about funding for our police forces and the devastating impact that will have on frontline police numbers. I asked that question of the Minister yesterday, and I am not quite sure I heard an answer. Will the Minister confirm whether there will be more police officers at the end of this Parliament than the record high levels achieved by the last Government in March 2024? [Interruption.] Yes, the highest number on record. I turn to new clause 130, which relates to tool theft, and I declare an interest as the son of a builder.
He is not a toolmaker, no. Tool theft is completely out of control, and I know the impact it has on people’s lives. Research from Direct Line shows that 45,000 tool thefts were reported to the police in a single year, amounting to one every 12 minutes. This country is built on the back of our tradesmen—they are the small businesses that make a huge contribution to our economy and literally build the world around us. Just imagine getting up at daft o’clock to go to work and earn a living, leaving the house only to find your van has been completely raided and all the tools stolen. The ability to work is stolen as well. The impact is huge: it is not only the cost of replacing the stolen tools, but days of lost work and disappointed customers, many of whom may have taken a day off work themselves. The issue is made worse still when tradesmen go to car boot sales only to see stolen equipment being sold in broad daylight, with no action taken by the authorities. In recent months I have been campaigning alongside tradesmen for real action on this issue. Just last week the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) met tradesmen, businesses and the police to hear at first hand about the impact. We heard from campaigners, including the gas expert Shoaib Awan and Frankie from On The Tools, alongside affected businesses such as Checkatrade, Balfour Beatty and BT Openreach.
One of the things we were doing was putting record funding into policing and putting a record number of police on the streets. The one thing we were not doing was taxing our police forces off the streets. We were making huge progress. I would also like to mention Sergeant Dave Catlow of the Metropolitan police, who joined us last week. He is doing great work on this issue. New clause 130 proposes three key changes. First, fines for perpetrators would equate to the cost of replacing equipment, repairing the damage caused and the loss of work. Secondly, theft of tools would be treated as an aggravated offence, meaning tougher sentences for the crooks who steal tradesmen’s vital equipment. Finally, councils would be required to put in place an enforcement plan to crack down on the sale of stolen tools at car boot sales. I will also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for her campaigning on this issue. I know how much she, too, wants to see action on tool theft. As the Minister knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) brought the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 through the House. It could make a real difference on this issue. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will table a statutory instrument to put it into action? I turn to non-crime hate incidents. New clause 7 would change legislation and guidance to remove the recording and retention of non-crime hate incidents. The use of non-crime hate incidents has spiralled out of all control and well beyond its originally intended purpose. The deal should be simple: if the law is broken, justice must be served. But non-crime hate incidents are a different beast—you did not break the law; you just said something daft and ended up logged on police records like a criminal. We need our police on the streets, not policing hurty words on Twitter. We have all seen the utterly barmy story of a nine-year-old who insulted another pupil in the playground. Is that unkind? Yes, of course it is. But instead of a quiet word with a teacher or a call to the parents, the police were brought in. I appeal to Members across the House—would they want that happening to their child, or would they rather give them a proper telling-off at home? This also has a bigger effect. Our police officers are being tied up documenting playground spats and Twitter comments, treating childish jibes like national security threats, while real crimes such as burglary, robbery and even violent offences are being pushed to the back of the queue. In fact, research from Policy Exchange has found that, nationally, over 60,000 police hours are being spent on non-crime hate incidents. Our police need to get back to keeping our streets safe, not policing silly words or childish playground issues. Before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw the House’s attention to some of the Opposition’s other amendment that could protect our communities and keep our streets safe. We would have been voting today on new clause 144 to secure that national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs—a scandal that is our country’s shame. Child sexual exploitation ruins lives; preying on the most vulnerable in our communities, exploiting them for horrific sexual acts and often coercing them into a life of crime. A national inquiry is what the victims wanted, so I am glad that the Prime Minister has finally U-turned, given into the pressure and joined what he described as the far-right bandwagon of people who wanted a national inquiry. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, we must not have another whitewash. The national inquiry must ask the hard questions and leave no stone unturned. Criminal investigations must run in parallel to the inquiry. It must look at the whole system—Whitehall, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and local authorities—and wherever there is wrongdoing, there should be prosecutions. Foreign perpetrators must be immediately deported, and the inquiry must be fully independent, with statutory powers covering all relevant towns. Local councils simply cannot be left to investigate themselves. New clause 125 aims to reinstate people’s confidence in policing. We have recently seen the perverse anti-racism commitment issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It calls for arrest rates to be artificially engineered to be the same across racial groups. Advice to treat black and white suspects differently is morally indefensible. It is, by definition, two-tier policing. It undermines trust and confidence in our police. This new clause would give the Home Secretary the power to amend or require the withdrawal of any code of practice intended to direct policing practices. New clause 139 makes provisions in relation to off-road bikes. I know many Members across the House know the havoc being caused by them in local communities. The issue has been raised by Members on both sides of the House numerous times in Westminster Hall and in this place, and the tweak in approach that features in this Bill will simply not be enough. Using alternative legislation, the police are already able to seize off-road bikes without notice. The new clause would remove the prohibition on the police entering a private dwelling to confiscate an off-road bike and ensure that police destroyed seized bikes rather than selling them back into the market. I urge the Minister—in fact, I beg her—to look again comprehensively at how we tackle the scourge of off-road bikes. I would also like to draw the House’s attention to new clause 131, which would introduce mandatory deportation for foreign nationals found in possession of child sexual abuse images. These sick paedophiles have no place in our country and they, along with all foreign offenders, should be deported. To conclude, the British people want our police to be able to focus on putting real criminals behind bars—the thieves who nick our hard-working tradesmen’s tools—not spending time policing playground squabbles and treating them like crimes. Our Opposition new clauses are common-sense changes that I hope the whole House will get behind, protecting victims and restoring policing to what it is meant to be: tackling crime on our streets.
2. Whether she plans to take steps with Cabinet colleagues to develop a strategy to improve educational outcomes for boys.
Recent research by the Centre for Social Justice showed that at key stage 1, key stage 2, GCSEs, A-levels and T-levels, boys are underperforming girls. We simply cannot allow half a generation not to be allowed to reach their full potential. As part of her approach, will the Secretary of State consider looking at whether boys might need to be taught somewhat differently from girls?
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about thefts from vans? This is about people’s whole livelihood and ability to work. Businesses can be struck down. Does he agree that this is therefore worthy of its own offence?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, a fellow member of the Select Committee on Defence, for giving way, and I am proud to put my name to new clause 43 in his name. I also pay tribute to him for taking forward Greg Clark’s previous work in a very cross-party way for the benefit of the community. Does he share my frustration and slight bewilderment at the way in which the Government appear to be blocking commencement?
Will the Secretary of State set out the steps she is taking to ensure that infrastructure like the £100 million bat tunnel will not be included in future projects, such as East West Rail?
What commitment can the Minister give that the community diagnostic centres programme, which was started under the Conservative Government—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I’ll start again. What commitment can the Minister give that the community diagnostic centres programme, which was started under the last Government, will be used effectively to treat and diagnose not just endometriosis, but all the conditions listed in the women’s health strategy?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone). We have had many great contributions from across the Chamber. Given the number, I will not seek to name all the Members who spoke; I will just pick three at random who I thought were particularly good: my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). It is a privilege to speak on a subject that is close to the hearts and livelihoods of so many of my own constituents in my rural constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire. I pay tribute to the immense contribution that rural businesses make to the United Kingdom. Whether they be in farming, tourism, food production, forestry, hospitality or manufacturing, or our rural innovators, these enterprises are not simply economic units; they are custodians of heritage, engines of local employment and lifelines for communities that could otherwise be left behind. Some of the challenges have been picked up through the course of the debate. We will start with communications. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the shared rural network in 2020, which was a £1 billion joint programme, at that point, with mobile operators to attempt to eliminate the so-called notspots in rural coverage. Many of those spots were found in my constituency and some still are, such in as the village of Cuddington. The initiative is transforming how farmers, tourism operators and remote workers do business, but it is clear from the debate, and indeed my own experience, that there is still some way to go. As others have said, if we cannot solve the communications challenges in the digital age, that will hold everyone back. A thriving rural economy also depends on a fair tax system, which is why successive Conservative Chancellors took steps to freeze fuel duty—a vital measure for those who live miles from the nearest market, school or supplier. It is why we increased the VAT threshold for small businesses and championed business rates relief for village shops and pubs, demonstrating their community value as well as their commercial one. We also froze alcohol duty, offering a crucial boost to rural pubs, breweries, cider producers and vineyards, which are often vital employers and social hubs in rural areas. These measures reflect a Conservative belief in letting enterprise breathe, rather than smothering it under tax and bureaucracy. We also need to combat rural crime far more harshly—another area in which I speak with some experience from this place. What began as my private Member’s Bill grew into the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023. Once the Government finally introduce the secondary legislation required for it, it will protect farming businesses from agricultural machinery thefts.
I remember my right hon. Friend visiting the farm. It was in my constituency at the time, but the boundary changes actually took it away from me. Preventing the theft of machinery from not just farms but all rural businesses, which suffer so badly when equipment theft takes place, is a critical measure that we have to get right. I take the important point that my right hon. Friend makes around illegal encampments. Any illegal development needs to be clamped down on in whatever form it takes. I pay tribute to Thames Valley police’s rural crime taskforce for some of its work on that. It would be good if the Minister could work with Home Office colleagues to extend that work across the whole country, and push the Minister for Policing, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), to introduce the statutory instruments that would bring the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act into full force. Let us turn to the direction of travel on rural business under this Government, which gives me real concern. First, as others have mentioned, the increase in national insurance contributions and changes to the NICs thresholds place a disproportionate burden on rural employers, many of whom already operate on the tightest of margins. For a rural farm employing five seasonal workers, or a family-run dairy business with a handful of long-serving staff, these extra costs are not abstract; they are the difference between hiring and firing. The sharp rise in the national living wage is hitting rural sectors, with seasonal and low-margin employment—especially farming, food processing and rural tourism—hit particularly hard. These sectors do not have the luxury of passing on costs to consumers in the same way that some of the big urban retail or tech companies do. They face fixed contracts and price pressures from supermarkets, and this change risks hollowing out jobs that were previously viable. Compounding that is the change to business property relief, which will strip tax protections from many family-run rural enterprises such as holiday accommodation and equestrian centres, undermining succession planning and deterring future investment in those rural businesses. Labour has targeted the very dynamism that it claims to support. Labour’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill poses a serious threat to rural enterprise. By relaxing environmental safeguards and expanding compulsory purchase powers—removing hope value protections from prime farmland—the Bill risks allowing developers and central authorities to override local rural businesses and agricultural land. The removal of green belt-like protections from the mythical grey belt areas also paves the way for large-scale development in what were previously safe rural areas. Rural entrepreneurs now face heightened uncertainty over their long-term investments and succession plans. Farmers, holiday let providers and small rural manufacturers alike may wake up to find their economic foundations undermined by top-down planning interventions. The Employment Rights Bill threatens significant administrative, legal and recruitment costs for rural businesses, which are estimated at up to £5 billion across the economy and are disproportionately heavier for small rural businesses, jeopardising their ability to hire flexibly or offer seasonal work. But perhaps the most damaging of all is Labour’s recent change to agricultural property relief: the family farm tax. This is not simply a tweak to inheritance policy; it is a direct assault on the ability of farming families to pass on their land and their livelihoods from one generation to the next. An estimated 40,000 farming jobs will be lost under Labour’s plans to force all farmers to stop farming on up to 20% of their land. The Government’s estimate of 27% of farms being impacted is based on outdated APR claims data from 2021-22 that does not reflect rising land values or the full economic picture of commercial family farms. Nearly 40% of farms rely on a combination of APR and BPR to mitigate inheritance tax liabilities. The £1 million threshold applies to both combined, making it far more restrictive than the Government’s modelling suggests. In my constituency, this is already causing disinvestment. I have spoken with farmers who are now deferring expansion, shelving plans for tourism ventures and, in some cases, considering breaking up long-held estates that have supported jobs and communities for generations. Farm shops have, after years of successful trading, made the difficult decision to close. On rural high streets, costs have risen 15%. At Rumsey’s Handmade Chocolates in Wendover in my constituency, this is already leading to job losses and reduced hours for the staff they have been able to retain. The Pink and Lily pub in Lacey Green shut in February, just seven years after it first opened. Rural Britain does not ask for favours, but it does demand fairness. It wants policies that reflect the unique challenges of doing business across distances, in smaller labour markets and with greater exposure to the weather, the global economy and regulatory interference. That is why the Opposition will continue to champion low tax, light-touch regulation and a level playing field for rural enterprise. The future of the rural economy cannot be sustained on sentiment alone; it must be underpinned by policy that understands the realities of rural life. On that test, thus far, Labour is failing.
My constituency has been devastated by roughly 26 miles of HS2, and I have consistently warned this House—during the previous Parliament and this—through the lens of the miserable experience on the ground in Buckinghamshire, about the reasons for the cost overruns, poor governance and everything else that the Secretary of State has highlighted in her statement today. If she must persist with this wrong project with a new delay, will she give a commitment to my constituents and the rest of the county of Buckinghamshire on how much longer they will have to live in misery as part of a building site? More importantly, will she look urgently at unlocking some of the mitigation funds that we are finding incredibly hard to access and get spent on the ground? That would be of some small, tiny comfort to my constituents who are living in misery.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for updating the House on the initial findings of the HS2 reviews. I also thank her for advance notice and a copy of her statement. On the substance of the Secretary of State’s statement, I believe there is a broad consensus in this House on the central point that mistakes were made in the delivery of HS2. As she noted, costs more than doubled, the project has been repeatedly delayed, and the pandemic completely changed travel patterns. It undercut the assumptions that guided the original plans and caused construction costs to rise sharply across the world—by up to 40% in some cases—as a result of supply chain shortages as the world emerged from the crisis. It has long been apparent that HS2 was not going according to plan. In my first two years as a Member of this House, I sat on the Public Accounts Committee, then chaired by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). In the summer of 2021, we published a report on HS2 that raised serious concerns in a number of areas and contained recommendations for how to improve the project. In 2023, the previous Government conceded that HS2 was not going to plan and made fundamental changes to it. The result was the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2 and the creation of the Network North plan. Under that plan, £36 billion was to be diverted from the northern leg of HS2 to a multitude of transport projects that would benefit more people in more places and more quickly than the then Government believed the delivery of HS2 could. However, we also recognise that the path we took to reach that point was not perfect—far from it. I will not today pretend that the Network North plan was not a product of mistakes we made in the handling of HS2, because it clearly was. As a country, we must learn from those mistakes and we must not repeat them. On that note, and with your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude to Mark Wild, the chief executive officer of HS2, for his continued efforts to support the delivery of the project. Recognising his leadership in rescuing the Crossrail project in London, it was the noble Lord Harper—then Secretary of State for Transport—who appointed him to lead HS2 in May 2024. We are all encouraged to see him playing a leading role in overseeing the correction and completion of the project, because his experience will be invaluable in helping to get it back on track. I also welcome the appointment of Mike Brown as the new chairman of HS2 Ltd. Like the Secretary of State, I know him from my years in London politics, when he was commissioner of Transport for London. He is a very capable man, and I wish him well in his new role. The Secretary of State has informed the House of her intention to accept 89 recommendations of the independent review into HS2. I have not yet seen a copy of that report, which I believe is being released today. Although we will need to study those proposals carefully before confirming our support for them, I can assure the Secretary of State if they offer better value for taxpayers, we will back them. The Secretary of State has also raised very serious concerns that taxpayers may have been defrauded by subcontractors. I assure her that if that proves to be the case, I will share her anger, and will support whatever action is necessary to get to the bottom of those allegations. I would request that she keeps the House informed as the investigations by HS2 and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs progress. Before I close, I would like to press the Secretary of State on a number of matters. In recent weeks the Government have announced several projects that either are funded by Network North or align with its commitments. However, we have yet to see a clear Government commitment to either fully support the Network North plan or scale it back. Can the Secretary of State now provide a definitive update on which elements will proceed and which will be abandoned? It has been reported that officials are considering a plan, backed by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, to build an “HS2-lite” track between Birmingham and Crewe. Will she confirm whether those reports are true? I will conclude by turning to the planning system more generally. The whole House will recall that HS2 grappled with legal challenges, High Court proceedings and judicial reviews, all of which added delay and cost. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the extent to which legal challenges and judicial reviews delayed the delivery of HS2? How can future infrastructure projects be protected from excessive or politically motivated litigation, and does the Secretary of State believe that sufficient action has been taken to prevent some of the more spurious concerns about such things as bats and newts obstructing future vital infrastructure projects?
The previous Government cancelled phase 2 of HS2, and from what the Secretary of State has said today, my understanding is that it remains cancelled and that phase 2 will not be reinstated. That being the case, can she let me know when the HS2’s safeguarding of land, particularly in the mid-Cheshire section, will be lifted?
Oh no!