Jack Rankin
MP for Windsor · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is a disgrace that hundreds of prisoners have been released in error under this Government, but more concerning are the thousands it will have been an error to release early. The Secretary of State did not answer the previous question, so let’s try another.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for introducing the debate. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition will support the regulations.”
“Q5. The first duty of His Majesty’s Government, and indeed the Prime Minister’s first duty, is the defence of the realm. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the worsening geopolitical situation, but he is responsible for this country’s reaction to it.”
“Just as we must stop unnecessarily pushing young people into courses that offer minimal face-to-face teaching, in return for huge debt and little prospect of employment at the end, we must ensure that new modular courses and training opportunities deliver the highest-quality provision possible.”
“I would like to press the Minister on the importance of face-to-face teaching time. If we want to tackle low-quality provision and ensure that the lifelong learning entitlement lives up to our hopes, we must ensure that learners receive the highest-quality teaching possible.”
“Secondly, given that providers will occur familiarisation and administrative costs as the changes are implemented, and in the light of the wider financial pressures facing the higher education sector, what support will be available to help minimise those burdens? The Opposition support the regulations.”
The complete record
Every one of 539 lines we hold for Jack Rankin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“It is a disgrace that hundreds of prisoners have been released in error under this Government, but more concerning are the thousands it will have been an error to release early. The Secretary of State did not answer the previous question, so let’s try another. As we heard in this House yesterday, child groomers and rapists are due to be let out years early, with their victims being informed by letter, so will he tell my constituents exactly why, under this Government, dangerous criminals will be in their communities rather than in prison?”
“Secondly, given that providers will occur familiarisation and administrative costs as the changes are implemented, and in the light of the wider financial pressures facing the higher education sector, what support will be available to help minimise those burdens? The Opposition support the regulations. We all hope that introducing tuition fee limits for modular learning will encourage more people to pursue higher-quality training and upskilling opportunities throughout their working lives. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.”
“Just as we must stop unnecessarily pushing young people into courses that offer minimal face-to-face teaching, in return for huge debt and little prospect of employment at the end, we must ensure that new modular courses and training opportunities deliver the highest-quality provision possible. I would therefore be grateful to hear what the Minister is doing to encourage and raise the bar for face-to-face teaching time across the higher education sector, whether for degree courses, modules or training. I have two brief questions for the Minister. First, how does the Department intend to monitor the impact of the new credit-based tuition fee limit system on providers and on learners?”
“I would like to press the Minister on the importance of face-to-face teaching time. If we want to tackle low-quality provision and ensure that the lifelong learning entitlement lives up to our hopes, we must ensure that learners receive the highest-quality teaching possible. Too often, students receive limited face-to-face teaching time, limited supervision and a higher education experience that falls short of what they were promised. Learners who enrol in the modular courses and training that will become available from January next year will reasonably expect to be able to ask their teacher a question, and to interact with their fellow students, in person.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for introducing the debate. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition will support the regulations. Giving people the chance to access education and training flexibly throughout their working lives supports social mobility and personal aspiration, and helps employers to secure the skills that they need. That is why we Conservatives are proud that the previous Government supported the independent Augar review recommendations and introduced the primary legislation necessary to create a single lifelong learning loan allowance that learners can use to upskill and retrain flexibly over their working lives. We therefore support the principle behind the lifelong learning entitlement and the move to a credit-based system for calculating tuition fee limits.”
“Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), resigned over—and in doing so, fulfil his first duty to defend the realm?”
“Q5. The first duty of His Majesty’s Government, and indeed the Prime Minister’s first duty, is the defence of the realm. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the worsening geopolitical situation, but he is responsible for this country’s reaction to it. It is imperative that at the Ankara NATO summit early next month, we can outline to our allies how we will meet that situation. There were reports yesterday that the Prime Minister was being pushed to delay the defence investment plan again by the outriders of the new right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham). Will he confirm to this House that he will push ahead with its publication and that it is fully funded to the level the Chief of the Defence Staff said is required—not to the level his former Defence Secretary, the right hon.”
“Will the Government introduce meaningful sanctions, including funding consequences, for universities that repeatedly fail to protect them?”
“My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) rightly highlights the scourge of antisemitism on our campuses. Against that backdrop, is it not extraordinary that the Government have chosen to deny students access to the Office for Students free speech complaint scheme while extending it to everybody but students, which I raised with the ministerial team on 20 April? The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education—the body to which students are directed instead—is nothing but a legal dead-end for students who are subject to discrimination because of their beliefs. What message does it send to Jewish students facing intimidation and harassment that their complaints are treated differently from those of academics and visiting speakers?”
“Whether that is someone taking on a new qualification to advance their career or pursuing a high-quality university degree as an adult, the empowerment and opportunity that comes from learning is truly life changing. The Open University has played an important role in opening up opportunities for millions of adults. The Government must be prepared to address the serious issues that exist with both the current welfare system and low-value university courses to ensure that those who invest in education at whatever stage in their life are rewarded with the opportunities they deserve.”
“Since the announcement last year, what engagement has the Minister had with institutions, including the Open University, about the impact of axing level 7 apprenticeships? For much of the last 30 years, our approach to higher education has hinged on the underlying assumption that successfully completing a traditional university degree is one of the best ways to boost a person’s opportunities in life. Young people and adults who pay tens of thousands of pounds to complete their degree, whether up front or through repayments, rightly and reasonably expect that it will boost their job prospects and income. If we really want to encourage lifelong learning, we must ensure that issues with low-quality and dead-end traditional degrees are addressed. A more flexible option may be part of the solution. Lifelong learning should be for everyone.”
“As has been discussed, the Opposition are concerned by the Government’s decision to withdraw public funding for level 7 apprenticeships, cutting support for the highest-level apprenticeships that provide vital routes for adult learners into skilled careers such as nursing. It is a major blow to social mobility for adult learners, shutting out talent from disadvantaged backgrounds and taking opportunities away from adult learners. Not only will culling level 7 apprenticeships hurt employers, but it is destabilising for university providers. It will hit institutions that have tried to open up opportunities for those who traditionally do not go to university, including, of course, the Open University.”
“Some courses will draw people in with the promise of a stable and fulfilling career but deliver nothing but mounting debt and a dead end. That is why, if we really want to support lifelong learning, we must be honest about the real issue of funnelling young people and adults into courses that do not get them the jobs that they are seeking and do not allow them to repay their loans. It is also why we must ensure that quality apprenticeships are a real choice at age 18 and beyond, and a viable, equally esteemed alternative to university. We have a serious skills shortage. Nearly half of vacancies in the construction sector and skilled trades are the result of skills shortages.”
“However, since entering office, they have instead cut the adult skills budget by 6%. Industry was rightly shocked, calling it a “shortsighted” move that will undermine economic growth, set back organisations and learners, and undermine trust in the Government’s vision for the country. Key sectors in our economy are calling for growth in adult education, not cutbacks. I turn to lifelong learning in other forms, including apprenticeships. Although, as demonstrated today, we all know that a high-quality university degree can set someone on the path to success and that higher education plays an important role in lifelong learning, it would be wrong not to acknowledge that it is not the case for every course. It is frankly a scandal that too many traditional university courses do not deliver jobs in the industry that they claim to serve.”
“Crucially, the previous Government envisaged the LLE for a whole range of adult education, including full courses at higher technical and degree level, and new modular funding. I am glad that the first of the new modular courses will be launching next year. Raising awareness of the new overhaul of post-18 education funding will be crucial if we are to ensure that it can help unlock learning for as many adults as possible. I therefore ask the Minister how his Department is raising awareness of the new funding options that will soon be available for post-18 education. How does he plan to attract learners who might not have traditionally sought out lifelong learning and training opportunities? The current Government say that they are committed to increasing funding for adult education.”
“I am proud of the Conservatives’ record, which included introducing the apprenticeship levy, skills bootcamps and free courses for jobs. Together, those initiatives have helped to give adults opportunities to learn the skills that employers are looking for, which will lead them to better jobs, better wellbeing and better opportunities for the future. The Conservatives also welcome the upcoming launch of the lifelong learning entitlement, which I understand will be available for courses from January 2027. Although the Minister may wish to take some credit for it, the LLE was put forward by the previous Government to give adults a loan entitlement of up to four years of post-18 education to use over their lifetime.”
“Many others accessing the Open University, whether they be working parents, people with caring responsibilities or simply adults looking to grasp the opportunities that, for whatever reason, were not available or accessible to them when they left school, have benefited from the empowerment that comes from being able to take their education and their future into their own hands. I also want to recognise just how hard-working and motivated many adult learners are, and the courage it must take to return to education later in life. As we heard during the debate, the ways in which learning can change lives, and the things that many people who have sought out training or upskilling go on to achieve, are truly extraordinary. The previous Government were clear about the value of adult education.”
“More than just statistics, we can see the real impact of the Open University and lifelong learning in the individual stories of those whose lives it has transformed. I know how transformative lifelong learning can be from my own early childhood memories. My first memories were of my parents going to night school—in their instance, further education—on alternate evenings; my father got his electrical qualifications, and my mother got her accountancy qualifications. They set up a small business that was transformational for mine and my brother’s life.”
“Those ideas formed the basis of what we know today as the Open University. Like the hon. Member for Southport, I pay tribute to the late Baroness Lee of Asheridge, Jennie Lee, who was instrumental in setting up the Open University, for all her work to promote lifelong learning. When it first opened to students in 1971, the Open University offered 25,000 places. Today, it has provided courses to more than 2.3 million people. It is clear that the Open University’s flexibility helps make adult education and lifelong learning a reality for thousands who might not otherwise be able to access traditional campus-based study. Last academic year, 67% of Open University students worked full or part-time during their studies. That speaks to a culture of ambition and opportunity that lifelong learning helps to cultivate.”
“This year marks 60 years since Harold Wilson’s Government published the “University of the Air” White Paper, which, seeking to capitalise on the advances in television and radio programme learning, set out plans for an Open University to provide higher and further education for those unable to take advantage of courses in existing colleges and universities. Envisioned as a way to tackle pressure on university and college places following the post-second world war baby boom by providing home study to university and higher technical standards, the plan for the “University of the Air” was to provide high-quality education to more adults through television and radio lectures, correspondence courses, residential courses and tutorials, and study groups at community centres.”
“They eloquently made points about skills beyond education and the wider personal growth available to people who attend the Open University, and particularly how important the Open University is in Northern Ireland. The two examples of the women’s centres made it clear that the Open University’s accessibility has been transformational to some of those young ladies’ lives. The hon. Member for Strangford also made an interesting point about UCAS, which I was not aware of, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response to that.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for securing this debate, and for sharing with us his personal journey to becoming an Open University graduate and the opportunities that higher education opened up for him. In his remarks, the passion of his political world view shone through, and though the very nature of my sitting on the Conservative Benches might mean we have some differences, I am a Lancashire man from working-class stock, and I agree with him forcibly that education should be available to all and applied with hard work—that is the most powerful action for social mobility. I pay tribute to my honourable Unionist friends from Ulster, the hon. Members for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for their contributions.”
“In January 2025, I urged the Government to act on indefinite leave to remain, to prevent the fiscal calamity of locking in the Boriswave. I thank the Ministers for their movement in that regard. It is important that we are transparent with the public about who is using visas as a route to a life on benefits, so can the Minister provide an estimate of the number and proportion of individuals holding ILR who are currently in receipt of universal credit?”
“The Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport found that travel experience from daily to-and-from school transport could help children to become independent and use public transport. In some cases, helping children gain the tools that they will need is what true support might look like. Rather than launching attacks on individual councils for decisions to align their policies with DFE guidance and address rising, unsustainable financial pressures, we need to look at how we can support all councils to manage those pressures and make home-to-school transport sustainable for the future. That is not just an issue facing a handful of councils. The spiralling cost of home-to-school transport is a nationwide issue, and without urgent action from the Government, those pressures will only continue to grow.”
“The Public Accounts Committee has warned that plans to write off 90% of the historic deficit from overspend on SEND “fail to take into account burgeoning home to school transport costs.” I implore the Minister to urgently clarify what those funding arrangements will actually mean for home-to-school transport cost pressures. It is also worth highlighting that school places nearer to home could go a long way towards supporting young people to build their independence as they move into adulthood. While independent travel is not possible for everyone, it is right that the Government make every effort to support those who could use public transport to start building experiences while they are in school.”
“In some instances, I am afraid to say that we are actually going backwards. In my own constituency, the much-needed Chiltern Way Academy Trust, a 100-place specialist school that was promised for west Windsor, was withdrawn from the Government’s free school programme. Instead, £5.4 million of additional high needs capital funding was offered and accepted by the Liberal Democrat-controlled royal borough. In my view, that is a deeply disappointing short-termist decision. I am sure that is a story replicated across many constituencies across the country. What are the Government are doing now to help local authorities cut the ballooning cost of home-to-school transport in the immediate term? What specific assessment has the Minister’s Department conducted of the longer-term impact of SEND reforms on the cost of home-to-school transport?”
“That is almost triple the average cost of providing mainstream transport, which is just over £3,000 per child. Effective SEND reform is essential if councils are going to be able to sustain school transport services for those who rightly require them. For SEND children, the Education Secretary has said that the Government will “respond to the challenges that local authorities are facing with home-to-school transport…by improving provision closer to home.” —[ Official Report , 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 75.] That is welcome in principle. However, we know that implementing that scale of reform will take a substantial amount of time. The bulk of the reforms will not be introduced until 2029 at the earliest. Local authorities and children who rely on their services need help now, not in three or four more years.”
“Children deserve the right support, and parents want a system that works for them and not against them. As Members have highlighted, the huge increase in the number of children with EHCPs, which went up by 166% between January 2015 and January 2025, has had a knock-on impact on demand for home-to-school transport. The National Audit Office estimates that around a third of pupils with EHCPs attend special schools. As those schools tend to serve broader geographical areas, it is more likely that their pupils will live beyond a statutory walking distance and therefore qualify for transport. A survey conducted by the Local Government Association suggests that the average cost per child of providing SEND transport is now nearly £9,000 per year.”
“If meeting statutory obligations is becoming an increasing challenge, the non-statutory things that make our communities what they are all get squeezed. We also know that local authorities are consistently spending more on home-to-school transport than they have budgeted. In my time in the cabinet of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead in the mid-2010s, the home-to-school transport budget was one that continually popped out with significant pressures. I know that it is many magnitudes different today. We have to look at how we can make home-to-school transport more sustainable for the future. We have had many discussions in this House about the pressure on the SEND system more broadly. While many questions remain, it is right that the Government are talking about reform.”
“Of that money, £1.2 billion was spent on transporting under-16s with special educational needs to school—a figure that has gone up by 106% in real terms since 2015. Home-to-school transport is about more than just getting children to school. The Public Accounts Committee found through its evidence gathering that for many children and young people, home-to-school transport is also about gaining a sense of independence, building their confidence and preparing for life beyond school; I know from speaking to my constituents that it is also relied on by parents so that they can go to work. However, the figures show that the rising cost of home-to-school transport is placing significant financial burdens on councils, which, they warn, is making delivery of their statutory obligations increasingly unsustainable.”
“Members for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) and for Woking (Mr Forster) talked about the necessity of safe walking routes to school. Often, councils mark their own homework in determining that, so I would be interested to hear how the Minister might be able to hold councils to account on upholding their statutory obligation. In this country, legislation is intended to ensure that no child is prevented from accessing education due to lack of transportation, which all hon. Members here support. However, the reality is that growing demand and spiralling costs are causing councils to question the sustainability of their current policies. An estimated 520,000 pupils use local authority-funded home-to-school transport, which cost councils a staggering £2.3 billion in 2023-24—a 70% real-terms increase on the cost in 2015-16.”
“I am not familiar with the geography of his part of Kent, but it is clearly not sensible for councils not to take into account where bodies of water are—obviously, that is utterly ridiculous. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) said that the failure of local authorities to build spaces locally is upstream of this issue, and that building places locally where children and parents want them would help remedy the problem. The speech from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) was one of the more moving contributions to the debate. He articulated the story of Lewis, which is disgraceful. I hope that in the Minister’s response, she will assure the hon. Gentleman that he will get the changes that he is campaigning for. The hon.”
“Friends the Members for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) and for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) highlighted the scale of the challenge in North Yorkshire, which is now the highest spending local authority in the country, at £52.5 million a year. When talking about North Yorkshire specifically, we must consider the context of the council having one of the worst outcomes in the country from the Government’s so-called “fair” funding review, as well as losing the rural services delivery grant. I am afraid to say that this Government have whacked rural areas quite broadly. Honestly, it is felt on the Opposition Benches that that takes a partisan flavour. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) made a fluid and passionate speech.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this important debate, and hon. Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions. When introducing the debate, the hon. Gentleman rightly advocated for his constituents, talking primarily about North Yorkshire. Although he left in some political barbs about his Conservative-controlled local council, he, like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), had the decency to recognise that the problem is not local, but is faced by all counties and councils. My right hon.”
“Where the Government act to strengthen families, support kinship carers, improve foster care and build lasting relationships, they will find us to be willing partners.”
“I would welcome further detail on the new metric to track the quality of the enduring relationships built by children in care. How will the Government measure such relationships? How will that be reflected in Ofsted inspections? Ultimately, the success of these reforms will be judged not by strategies or structures, but by outcomes. Will more children experience stable placements? Will fewer children be moved repeatedly? Will more young people leave care with secure housing, employment opportunities and strong relationships? Will local authorities have the workforce capacity to deliver these aspirations? Children who enter care have often experienced circumstances that most of us would struggle to imagine. They deserve not just safety, but hope; not just protection, but belonging.”
“What will today’s strategy do to improve matching and make the system easier to navigate for carers who are ready to provide a home? Conservatives have long understood the importance of society’s little platoons—the families, communities, faith groups and voluntary organisations that sit between individuals and the state. Many charities and community groups already provide extraordinary support to vulnerable children and care leavers, and their contribution should never be underestimated. We on the Conservative Benches also welcome the Minister’s determination to improve outcomes for care leavers. Too many still face a cliff edge when they leave care, with disproportionately poor outcomes in housing, employment and mental health.”
“How will it interact with today’s announcements? We also welcome the focus on foster care. For too long, we have relied on the dedication of foster carers while asking them to navigate systems that can be fragmented and bureaucratic. If fostering hubs can improve recruitment, strengthen support and increase placement stability, they deserve serious consideration. Perhaps the Minister could comment on how those hubs will be distributed across the country. Likewise, the ambition to reduce the number of children placed far from communities is one that we strongly support. Every unnecessary move risks disrupting education, friendships and family connections. Stability matters. Almost half of foster carers say that they have had an unfilled space for a child in care in the past two years, often because they are waiting for a suitable match.”
“Those are objectives that Members across the House can unite behind. I particularly welcome the focus on kinship care. Having recently met kinship carers in my constituency, I have seen at first hand the remarkable role that they play. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and family friends step forward in difficult circumstances to provide not only a home, but continuity, identity and belonging. I am proud that the last Conservative Government launched England’s first kinship care strategy. Kinship carers make extraordinary sacrifices to ensure that children receive the love and support they need, and they deserve recognition for that contribution. May I ask the Minister about the adoption and special guardianship support fund? Families rely on it and worry about its future. Will we see the results of that consultation?”
“The Government have a duty to protect vulnerable children, but we must recognise a simple truth: the state can never replace the love, commitment and sense of belonging that family provides. One of the most powerful conclusions of the independent review of children’s social care was that every young person should leave care with at least one loving, enduring relationship in their life. That is not a party political aspiration; it is a profoundly human one. It should concern us all that so many care-experienced adults report having felt lonely and isolated during their childhood. Many of the themes in today’s statement build on reforms that have enjoyed cross-party support for some time, such as greater recognition of kinship care, stronger family networks, increased placement stability and better outcomes for care leavers.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is an honour to respond on behalf of His Britannic Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, particularly as we welcome much in the direction that the Minister has outlined in his statement on behalf of the Government today. Too often, children’s social care is discussed only when tragedy strikes, yet for thousands of children, foster carers, kinship carers and care-experienced adults, these issues are daily realities. They deserve serious and sustained attention from those in all parts of the House. As Conservatives, we believe that strong families, strong communities and strong relationships are the foundation of a flourishing society.”
“My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) is absolutely right. Whether it is Zionist views, gender critical perspectives, climate scepticism, or challenging the perceived wisdom that diversity is our strength with the need to put terrorism barriers around Christmas markets, there is a clear two-tier approach to free speech on our campuses, and students are the nub of it, which is exactly why the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act gave students the right to go to the Office for Students. Why can academics and visiting speakers complain under this proposal, but not students? It is called the Office for Students, or is the Minister planning to rename it “the office for everybody on campus except students”?”
“These despicable attacks have been claimed by Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya, a group assessed by analysts to be an Iranian proxy linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah. Emma Schubart of the Henry Jackson Society has warned that this reflects a pattern of co-ordinated attacks on Jews across Europe. Do the Government share that assessment, and if so, when will they finally proscribe the IRGC? The best time to do that was 10 years ago; the second best time is now.”
“There has been a consistent failure to recognise what an important role such products have played in the decline of smoking, and I hold concerns that the tight restrictions in this Bill on flavours and advertising will stop adult smokers from making the switch.”
“However, it quickly became clear that there was little interest from the Government in improving this Bill, which is driven more by puritan ideology than by evidence or practicality. As a result, we have seen it forced through by the Labour Government and their little helpers, the illiberal Democrats in the other place, with no regard to implementation or unintended consequences. Today, we are likely again to wave through 100 Government amendments from the Lords with minimal scrutiny. All parties will welcome the fact that smoking rates in this country have declined from 30% in the early 2000s to 10.4% today. The free market has played a key role in that, with companies creating less harmful, smokefree alternatives such as vapes and nicotine pouches.”
“However, I was willing to look beyond that and engage constructively with the Government to improve the legislation, which is why I tabled a series of common-sense amendments both in Committee and on Report. They would have allowed for the advertisement of smokefree products in venues that are already adult-only; required a consultation on the impact of advertising bans on retailers; and permitted the targeted advertisement of vapes and smokefree alternatives to existing adult smokers. Those proposals had some cross-party support in this House, and two of them were taken up by peers in the other place, notably Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Sharpe for the Opposition. Throughout this process, I have engaged with the Minister and her predecessors through letters and written questions, and I genuinely thank her for her timely responses.”
“I served on the Bill Committee, and the subsequent process of scrutiny of this Bill has been entirely as expected. I was disappointed, though not surprised, by a failure to engage critically with its contents and to listen to the real concerns, in particular those of the high street businesses and the hospitality industry, which it will impact on most. I disagree with this socialist Bill on principle. Although I have a lot of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), I am sorry to see my Front Benchers continuing to support the broad thrust of the Bill. It creates two tiers of adults and, at its core, is fundamentally illiberal.”
“Those businesses are already under immense pressure from high energy costs, increasing national insurance contributions, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and changes to business rates—I will admit that the Government are nothing if not consistent. Corner shops and convenience stores now face losing custom due to the generational ban, alongside further compliance burdens through advertising restrictions and licensing schemes. The ban alone is expected to cause 7,680 store closures, to cost 70,000 jobs and to cost retailers £6.52 billion. Those are not my numbers; they are from the Government’s own impact assessment.”
“The Government know that vapes and nicotine products are an effective quit aid and actively promote them for that purpose, but at the same time they are bringing in measures that will reduce their availability and attractiveness to adult smokers. If Ministers will not listen to Members of this House and peers in the other place, I had hoped that they might at least listen to the hundreds of high street businesses that took the time to write to them. I share those businesses’ concerns about the extra pressures the Bill will place on corner shops, convenience stores and hospitality businesses, and how it will change the face of our high streets. That is where the real impact of the Bill will be felt.”
“I absolutely recognise that. We should make sure that these products are available to adult smokers—children should never start. However, I am afraid that the heavy-handed nature of this Bill risks sending the broad message to the general public that vapes are bad, which is not a message that we want to send to existing adult smokers. That point was ably made earlier by some of the hon. Gentleman’s friends on the Labour Benches. I believe that we would be doing a disservice to, and setting back, the public health aims of the Bill by advancing it as it stands. Lords amendment 72 rightly protects the advertisement of vapes and nicotine products as part of a public health campaign, but this demonstrates the great irony of the Bill.”