Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

What a fascinating afternoon of different speeches. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) has just indicated, there are two very different ways of approaching the Bill. It is very much a personal matter: tonight’s vote is not whipped, and therefore all of us will have our different perceptions, but I start by saying that we are not all here—as one Member said—to try to prevent restrictions on human activity. I do not see that as the reason I was sent to this House, but surely we were all sent here to try to achieve a better future for the children and grandchildren of our constituents. Once we have all agreed on that, we can discuss whether a ban on children smoking now that will, in time, mean a ban on everyone smoking is a wonderful way of preventing what is not a liberty but an addiction, or whether taking away that freedom is just a slippery slope towards taking away all other freedoms.

Of course, although we cannot measure precisely the future damage of allowing people to carry on as they have been—being able to do themselves considerable damage—we know that the NHS calculates that the current financial cost of smoking is £17 billion a year. For those of us who are also concerned about the size of the state, the use of resources, the productivity of the NHS, and the ability of our constituents to have elective surgery when they want it and to see doctors when they wish to, this is surely a huge opportunity to make a massive difference—not just to future generations’ potential to avoid addiction to tobacco, but to their ability to get the health services that they want at a cost that this country can afford. That is the crux of what we have been discussing today.

It is very interesting to me that all the doctors in the House and all the health professionals in our constituencies—as my neighbour and hon. Friend, the wonderful Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), has highlighted in Gloucestershire—are absolutely united that this is one of the single most important and useful interventions that this House could make. It is a huge credit to this Prime Minister that he has set out a vision with clarity and pursued it with determination, and is absolutely clear that were this House to vote this Bill through, it would be part of whatever legacy he leaves in the future, as a politician keen to make a difference.

I believe the idea that, on the contrary, encouraging worse health outcomes should continue because it somehow benefits people’s freedoms would be a valid one only if the whole business of smoking was harmless and largely cost-free, and we know that that simply is not the case. We have heard the data and the calls: 75,000 GP appointments a month, 690 premature deaths in the Gloucester Royal Hospital alone, and every minute of every day a new patient somewhere in a hospital in the UK because of smoking. We cannot argue that the freedom to smoke and to be addicted comes cost-free, and I cannot imagine opposing a Bill that supports better health and better life outcomes. For the libertarians, it will in fact help to reduce the size and cost of the state. Therefore all these things are fundamentally Conservative goals. In fact, they are not even just Conservative goals, but surely human goals that all of us in this House can share.

In all this, we do not need to think too much about a nanny state—none of us is keen on the phrase “nanny state” or the concept—but how many people here would stand up and vote to take away safety belts in cars, or suggest that everyone could drive motorbikes without a helmet? I believe that what may seem like a slight increase in bureaucracy will, in a few years’ time, be seen as so obvious that we will all be astonished there was any opposition at all. I believe strongly that protecting children, just as we banned children from being chimney sweeps in generations gone by, by banning them from smoking for future generations is exactly what a progressive Conservative Government should do. This Bill, if passed, will be one of the most far-reaching laws that this Government and this Parliament have made. I am absolutely convinced—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This is a point of order. It would have been simpler had the hon. Gentleman been facing the Chair in the first place, because while he was addressing the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) I could not see him, and it was therefore difficult for me to hear what he was saying. When I ask Members to face the Chair, it is not out of some kind of vanity; it is because if everyone faces in this direction, everyone can be heard.

[Richard Graham]

This is a very simple point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) just said that I have never accepted the decision of this country to leave the European Union. That is a quite extraordinary and entirely untrue observation, and I would ask him to withdraw it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate the sensitivities. The hon. Gentleman knows that the content of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech is not a matter for the Chair, and not one on which I will comment, but he has made his point.

Ukraine

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. If we have shorter questions and the Secretary of State can therefore give shorter answers, we will be able to get everyone in; if not, I am afraid that some people will be disappointed. As we can see, people are coming in for the next item of business, but this statement is important and I would like to give everybody the chance to speak. Shorter, please.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that sovereignty must be respected and that that includes Ukraine. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that will encourage President Putin to hold back? Should President Putin still invade, what impact will that have on Sino-Russian relationships and how concerned should we be for Taiwan? [Interruption.]

Covid-19: Winter Plan

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Many will be relieved that collective worship, outdoor sports, gyms, shops and personal care will resume business as usual, but can the Prime Minister tell us when the limits for spectators at spectator sports and business events will be set, as this will affect many self-employed contractors? Most importantly, what does my right hon. Friend think the chances are of getting the over-80s and the most vulnerable vaccinated before Christmas so that that great festival can be a lot more stressful for everyone—a lot less stressful for everyone? [Laughter.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

While the Prime Minister computes what that question actually was, I should point out that the hon. Gentleman—I am being kind to him, because he is an hon. Gentleman—had two questions. I am not allowing any more two questions; it is one question, not a speech, or we will be here all day. Of course, some people want to be.

Sexual Offences (Sports Coaches)

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

1st reading & 1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak very briefly and strongly in favour of this 10-minute rule Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the procedure, and I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. He only has locus to speak at this point if he wishes to oppose the Bill.

[Richard Graham]

There is no danger of that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I was giving the hon. Gentleman the chance, in a lawyerly way, to say that he is opposing the Bill in order that he might say what is good about it, but given the time pressure today, I would appreciate it if he did not try to do that, as he cannot now speak in support. I note that he has registered his support for the Bill, and I think the House and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) are grateful for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Tracey Crouch, Richard Graham, Sarah Champion, Jim Shannon, Carol Monaghan, Sir Roger Gale, Bambos Charalambous, Damian Collins, Christina Rees, Jonathan Gullis, Anthony Mangnall and Holly Mumby-Croft present the Bill.

Tracey Crouch accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 140).

Universal Credit

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman does not have a right of reply. He is here and that is the end of it.

[Richard Graham]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was trying to make two crucial points. First, scaremongering is being organised by certain lobbying groups who are sending emails to our constituents that, frankly, they should be ashamed of. I would like the Minister later on to confirm that this sentence is as untrue as the one I read out earlier:

“I’ve read that the Prime Minister has said that people will be protected when they transfer to Universal Credit”.

That is correct as far as it goes, but it goes on to say:

“the draft rules the government have published show that won’t happen if the first attempt to claim isn’t successful.”

I invite the Minister, when he sums up, to confirm that that is simply not true.

The most important point in this important exercise of rolling out universal credit successfully across the country is that the Government continue to look at what is working well and replicate it, and at what is not working so well and take the opportunity to improve it, so that, for example, constituents with learning disabilities get all the help they need with their applications.

The proposal from the shadow Chancellor, the man who would foment the overthrow of capitalism, that the solution is simply to get rid of universal credit and reverse us back into a world where people were better off on benefits than in work and had no incentive to work more than 16 hours a week would be a catastrophic decision that I do not believe Opposition Members agree with or would do if they thought it through carefully. I will not support the motion.

Energy Policy

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The Secretary of State has been very thorough in answering questions but, as the House can see, a great many people wish to ask questions. We have about 20 minutes left for the statement, which will allow everyone to get in if we can have just short questions and short answers.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I have to say that this is a sad day for Swansea, for Gloucester—the home of Tidal Lagoon Power plc—and, indeed, for other innovative sources of marine energy more widely. Since the project was entirely financed by entrepreneurs and institutional investors, not by the Government, the only real point of argument was the price at which the Government were prepared to buy the energy through the grid. Will the Secretary of State tell us at what price he would have approved the Swansea project? Will he also confirm that his Department will lay out a programme of how it will develop a real strategy for taking forward tidal and other forms of marine energy?

Point of Order

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Charles Hendry published his review of the role of tidal lagoons in December 2016 —[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. If hon. Members want to talk about other things, there are other places to go. I call Mr Richard Graham.

[Richard Graham]

Charles Hendry published the Hendry review of the role of tidal lagoons in December 2016, but today’s statement is not an adequate response to a report that included 18 pages of recommendations. In it, Charles Hendry wrote that

“when the wind turbines and solar panels…have long since been decommissioned in a few decades time, the tidal lagoons will still be capable of delivering some of the cheapest, lowest carbon power available.”

Given the difference between what he wrote and what the Secretary of State has said today about the finances of tidal lagoons, how would you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ensure the Government give a proper oral response to the Hendry review?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As I am sure he recognises, it is not a point that I can answer from the Chair, but I understand that he wishes to suggest that the review completed by Charles Hendry needs to be debated properly in the House, and I am sure that the Minister and others on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he said. He asked me how he could make his point, and I can tell him that he has made it very well.



Bill Presented

Football Offences (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Damian Collins, supported by Julie Elliott, Paul Farrelly, Simon Hart, Julian Knight, Ian C. Lucas, Brendan O’Hara, Rebecca Pow, Jo Stevens and Giles Watling, presented a Bill to amend section 3 of the Football Offences Act 1991.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed (Bill 236).

Business of the House

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Chris Grayling relating to National Policy Statement not later than 10.00pm; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.—(Paul Maynard.)

Concentrix

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Today’s debate is primarily about the HMRC contractor, Concentrix, the delivery of its contract, its customer service and the impact of its work on those receiving tax credits who were wrongly suspected of fraud or error. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made some valid points about her constituents who have been affected, and other hon. Members have spoken equally movingly about some of theirs. The debate is about more than that, however. It is about the relative value, efficiency and service of third-party contracts as against the direct delivery of services by the Government or by Government agencies. It is also about how the Government—in this case, HMRC—reacted to the unexpected crisis when mandatory reconsideration appeals rose by 95% in August while the “success” in handling calls dropped off a cliff. It is about how quickly contingency plans were put in place, and what those plans were. It is also about whether the structure of the incentives and the contractor’s commission were appropriate for this type of public service delivery.

It is too early to offer definitive answers today, while the internal investigation is still going on. However, the inquiry by our Work and Pensions Committee and the measured comments from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury today offer some clues. To this, I add my own experience as an MP dealing with constituents who have been affected, and the observations that we made in the Select Committee.

The first point has to be that the goal of reducing HMRC’s estimates of fraud and error was the right goal for the Government to have. The 2014-15 estimates, which are the most recent ones, suggest a net £1.2 billion of fraud and error on tax credits, potentially involving 500,000 people. The Government cannot spend billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on welfare without ensuring that it is spent properly, just as we expect the Department for International Development to ensure that its accounts are correct and its money is spent in the right way. We also expect the European Union to account correctly for the money it receives from its taxpayers, including our own.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) is absolutely right to say that rich people, and every company, should pay the right amount of tax. I would add that this is not a case of either/or. It is a case of both. The Government were absolutely right to increase HMRC’s resources for collecting the right amount of tax from those who have tax to pay and to ensure that the right amounts of welfare benefits are received by the right people. It is worth noting that the £270 million recovered through this programme will make a decent contribution to reducing fraud and we must ensure that it is made available to the people who need it most.

Secondly, there has been a cost during this process to our hard-working, not-well-off constituents. In each of the dozen or so cases that I or my office staff have replied to, there has been a degree of hardship and, in some cases, considerable hardship. HMRC’s response to such cases is therefore important. My sense, from our Select Committee inquiry, is that HMRC’s chief executive, Jon Thompson, is looking at how quickly HMRC has responded. It is true, however, that the moment HMRC took a grip, beefed up resources and put extra staff on to the MPs’ hotline, my office—and, I suspect, those of other MPs—was able to resolve these tax credits cases very fast. I am unsure whether all the cases were resolved within 48 hours, but all were done within three or four days, and some within a few hours. Indeed, the Work and Pensions Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), said that he could not

“recall an experience where, thank goodness, the Executive, whether Government or delegated, has acted so quickly when they have seen a crisis.”

That should be on the record. It is credit to how HMRC responded. In the evidence we took from affected people, there was one particularly gracious “thank you” to HMRC for resolving one individual’s crisis so quickly.

My third point relates to contracts to third parties and the incentive system within them. The National Audit Office recognised this as a complex area, and the jury is still out on how successful the system has been over the past few years. HMRC’s chief executive responded to my question on that with an interesting remark about

“the balance of incentives on third parties in these kinds of contracts”

which

“is essentially based on commission earned.”

He asked:

“Is that the right kind of incentive mechanism for this kind of public service delivery?”

It is a valid question, and other Members have mentioned it. The HMRC chief executive reflected on it. I also have no doubt that the NAO investigation will discuss whether bringing this sort of contract in-house would ensure better quality control, more experience of handling citizens who are on tax credits, and possibly even a reduced cost. From the evidence to the Committee, it broadly looked like Concentrix will have been paid about £27 million by the time its contract comes to an end on £270 million of fraud or error identified, implying a 10% commission. That feels high, but the figures are probably hypothetical at this stage and will need to be confirmed in due course by the investigation.

In all of this, the Government, HMRC and Concentrix have been absolutely right to start with an apology to those who have suffered. When mistakes are made, it is important that they are recognised immediately. HMRC and Concentrix started the Select Committee sessions by making their apologies—the Minister has added hers on more than one occasion—and that was important. There is the issue of compensation for those most affected, and the fact that, as the amendment states, the Government should “ensure that those people”—people on tax credits—

“are treated by HMRC in future with dignity and respect.”

That should happen all the time for everyone with whom the Government deal, particularly where monopolies such as HMRC exist. We all have a duty to treat our constituents with dignity and respect. That is what happens most of the time. My experience is that HMRC is helpful on every occasion with constituent issues.

In conclusion, today’s debate has been measured and the tone has been reflective and thoughtful across the House. Clearly, there are lessons to be learned. It is correct that tax collection is done, that welfare benefits are spent in the right way on the right people, that mistakes are responded to rapidly and that agencies such as HMRC should hold contingency plans. Poor service should be treated and amended as quickly as possible. I therefore welcome this opportunity to discuss some preliminary thoughts on the lessons that can be learned and I look forward to the NAO report in due course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Although the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke for precisely eight minutes, the previous speakers did not, so I must now impose a formal time limit of seven minutes.

Petitions

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I have received information that there are a great many people outside and that it is possible that some people leaving this building—I have been particularly concerned about junior and female members of staff trying to get out of this building this evening—are having difficulty in doing so. I have heard that it could also be difficult to gain access to this building, which is a very great pity. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order because when assiduous Members of Parliament are not in their places when they are expected to be, there is usually a very good reason for it.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask if during your time in this House there has ever been more mention of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and in more glorious a context?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am very happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have never heard quite so much mention of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, and I am sure he has done a sterling piece of work—and it is just as well that the injury to his leg healed so he could run here from far away.

School Funding Model

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I have received information that there are a great many people outside and that it is possible that some people leaving this building—I have been particularly concerned about junior and female members of staff trying to get out of this building this evening—are having difficulty in doing so. I have heard that it could also be difficult to gain access to this building, which is a very great pity. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order because when assiduous Members of Parliament are not in their places when they are expected to be, there is usually a very good reason for it.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)

- Hansard -

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask if during your time in this House there has ever been more mention of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and in more glorious a context?

Madam Deputy Speaker

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I am very happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have never heard quite so much mention of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, and I am sure he has done a sterling piece of work—and it is just as well that the injury to his leg healed so he could run here from far away.

Cyber-security

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The prize for patience goes to Mr Richard Graham.

[Richard Graham]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate the Minister for the Cabinet Office on both his statement and his strong commitment to a quiet revolution on our nation’s understanding of, and support for, the cyber-industry. My right hon. Friend knows the important cluster in Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, which now includes the future training centre rightly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). Does my right hon. Friend agree that places such as the new cyber-centre in Gloucester, led by Raytheon with innovative partners employing between 9,000 and 90,000 employees, should encourage local universities such as the university of Gloucestershire to play an important role in developing appropriate courses for future skills in this sector?

Apprenticeships

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry]

Very briefly, because I know we are pushed for time. On the point of MPs having apprentices—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made many interventions. I am sorry, but we are at the end of this debate.

[Richard Graham]

I think my hon. Friend was going to make the point that it is important that we lead by example and employ our own apprentices wherever possible.

The shadow Business Secretary went on to talk, with an element of derision, about the number of apprentices over 60 who have started since this Government came into power. I hope that my older constituents, Age UK and others will have noted that point carefully. In fact, he offended almost everybody I can imagine, including all the businesses, training colleges, councils and the NHS in Gloucester that have taken on apprenticeships in the past five years and have done so much to give the opportunities to young people that all of us across this House surely agree is incredibly important. In a sense, his final words rather summed up his speech. He finished by saying that he will be voting Labour. Well, I am delighted for the Leader of the Opposition that he has the vote of his shadow Business Secretary, but if that is the summary of his party’s strategy, it is pretty disappointing. We heard nothing about the opportunities to widen apprenticeships into more sectors, including nursing; the opportunities from the pilot scheme the Government have run to let employers take control of their training funds; and the ways in which the guilds can offer apprenticeships. There were many things that could and should have been covered today, and it is a great disappointment that they were not. I will certainly not be voting for this motion, but I do agree wholeheartedly with all the Members of this House who support apprenticeships and want to see more of them.

Cost of Living

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The House cannot hear the Minister. If hon. Members want to argue with him, they must hear what he has to say first.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

rose—

Pensions Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Eleanor Laing

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont]

This is all very curious, because the front cover of the document refers to “40 Policy Ideas from the 40”, and its states:

“The Forty Group consists of the forty most marginal Conservative seats”.

One of the MPs listed is the hon. Gentleman—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Laing)]

Order. We are straying somewhat from the amendments and new clauses before us. If there is a difference of opinion, it will have to remain as such. I urge hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Chamber please to stick to the points before us on private pensions.

[Richard Graham]

I welcome your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Before the shadow Minister intervened, I had been referring to scale. I touched briefly on the fact that size is not everything when it comes to the management of pension funds, as with so much else in life, Madam Deputy Speaker. In order not to delay you further on that point, I will move swiftly on to annuities.

Annuities matter. We are in a new world, as the Minister said, because we are living longer and we need more options. There is more to annuities than simply a need for more competition, choice and help, although that is important and the code of conduct from the Association of British Insurers is a promising start. I agree with the Minister, though, that we should go further. At the heart of the matter is transferability—being able to trade annuities at different periods of life when different circumstances crop up and when there is different pricing in the marketplace. What we certainly do not want is a single product solution. I was lobbied heavily at the Conservative party conference by an annuity provider who was keen to impress on me the importance and relevance of their single product solution, but my instinct—I hope that the Minister is with me on this—is that such solutions are precisely what we do not need in the world of annuities.

Those were the six main points I wanted to cover—auto-enrolment, small pots, aggregators, charges, scale and annuities—and I have done so in about seven minutes. There is no need to go on for much longer, but I will try to bring my speech to some sort of rounded conclusion by asking the Minister to note three queries that constituents have raised with me.

The first query, which I think is important for Members across the House, relates to bereavement support payment. It is clearly an emotional issue, as all families who have had to deal with tragedy will understand, particularly when it comes to bereaved children. Winston’s Wish is a charity headquartered in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), but it has a significant presence in mine. It has made a number of points, not all of which I agree with, but one is that the tax status of bereavement support payment is slightly unclear. I would be grateful if the Minister could say more about that and whether it will be tax-free, because that would be hugely appreciated. Given that the trend of his proposals on bereavement support payment is effectively to increase the amount of money but have it paid for a shorter time, having that payment tax-free would be hugely helpful for families affected. There is a second point from Winston’s Wish that I want to raise with the Minister. I understand that unmarried partners are currently ineligible for BSP, so perhaps he will confirm whether people in civil partnerships are eligible.

The second query from a constituent relates to changes to occupational schemes, which my constituent believes can be done under the Bill without agreement from either members or trustees; currently trustees would have to approve it. My instinct is that long-standing defined benefit schemes, such as that of the major nuclear power operator headquartered in Barnwood in my constituency—formerly British Energy but now EDF Energy—are most unlikely to close without any form of consultation or discussion with members or trustees, but I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.