debates/debates2025-01-07a conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-07)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-07a conversation_22

Richard Quigley:The Isle of Wight does not just have a problem with its ferries, as the House would expect; we also have a huge problem with dentistry. We are a true dental desert. However, the size of our community means that we are an ideal place to try new approaches to dentistry, especially for children. Will the Minister meet me to discuss those approaches and improve dentistry on the island? \p Stephen Kinnock: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to describe the Isle of Wight as a dental desert. That is perhaps one of the reasons why the good people of that island elected a Labour Member for the first time in history. Our ambition is to make sure that everyone who needs a dentist can get one. Sadly, 28% of adults in England—13 million people—have an unmet need for NHS dentistry. I would be glad to meet my hon. Friend to learn more about how the experience of the Isle of Wight can improve services nationally. \p Rishi Sunak: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, yet it has no national screening programme. We worked on this issue in government, and I thank the Secretary of State for taking an interest in this area. Will he join me in commending Prostate Cancer Research’s excellent new report and urge his team to consider the findings, not least on increasing screening of at-risk groups so that we can not just save the NHS money but, more importantly, save thousands of lives? \p Wes Streeting: I welcome the former Prime Minister’s question, and he is right to commend the research. We are actively looking at it. Given that he is here and that we are currently taking through the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, I thank him for his leadership on that issue. \p Deirdre Costigan: The last Government treated mental health as a Cinderella service, with my constituents waiting days in A&E to be admitted to hospital mental health wards. The Solace Centre in Ealing Southall provides help and support in the community for those with mental health problems, at a fraction of the cost of a hospital stay. How does the Minister intend to move more mental health services from hospital to the community, and to create more great services like the Solace Centre? \p Stephen Kinnock: I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question. She is right that it is vital to move services from hospital to community. The Chancellor   made funding available for 380,000 more talking therapies for patients and put in place a £26 million capital investment scheme for mental health crisis centres. A lot of work has been done, but there is a lot more still to do. \p Vikki Slade: Will the Secretary of State confirm what is being done to ensure that patients with rare and complex conditions, such as functional neurologic disorder and achalasia, can access consistent and co-ordinated care, including referrals to the multidisciplinary teams they need for the different symptoms they experience? \p Wes Streeting: The hon. Member is right to raise cases where there are multiple comorbidities or complex conditions requiring a range of care services. That is why we need to design services around the patient, not expect patients to contort themselves around the services. Our approach to neighbourhood health services should make a real difference in that regard, but we have to go further and faster on health and care integration, and we absolutely will. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call Kevin McKenna to ask the final question. \p Kevin McKenna: I strongly welcome yesterday’s announcement about using initiatives such as community diagnostic centres to move services closer to the public. In the Isle of Sheppey, we are particularly exposed as a coastal community, but thankfully a new CDC will really help. Unfortunately, my experience in the NHS over the past few years shows that while the previous Government talked the talk about shifting care to the community, they failed to deliver. Will the Secretary of State set out what steps will be taken, so I can show my constituents that this shift will actually happen? \p Wes Streeting: I am delighted to have my hon. Friend and his experience in the House, standing up for his community and giving us his advice and wisdom as we develop our 10-year plan. We are already walking the talk on the shift to community, not least through the big uplift in funding for general practice announced before Christmas. Many people assume our elective reform plan is just about hospital waiting lists, but a big part of it is about delivering the left shift by asking and funding general practice to do more to manage patients in the community. \p Layla Moran: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in northern Gaza. \p Hamish Falconer: The situation in northern Gaza is dire. The UK condemns Israel’s restrictions on aid in the strongest terms. The scale of human suffering is unimaginable. We have been clear that this is a man-made crisis and Israel must act immediately to address it.

The need for humanitarian assistance to reach Gaza is greater than ever before. Close to 46,000 people have now been killed. All of Gaza’s population is reported to face the risk of famine. Air strikes within the designated humanitarian zone show there are no safe spaces left for civilians. Reports of up to eight children having died from the cold weather conditions are unconscionable.

It is unacceptable that many medical facilities are no longer in use or are inaccessible to humanitarian actors, and we remain deeply concerned by reports of medics being killed or injured. I have raised this, and will continue to raise this, with both the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom. I have also specifically raised the detention of Kamal Adwan Hospital director Dr Hussam Abu Safiya with both the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and Israel’s ambassador to the UK. We urge Israel to urgently clarify the reasons for his detention, as well as for the detention of paediatrician Mohammed Hamouda and all the other health workers detained in Gaza.

The UK is doing all we can to alleviate this suffering. We have provided £112 million for the Occupied Palestinian Territories this financial year, including £41 million for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, providing vital services to civilians in Gaza and the west bank, and to Palestinians across the region, delivered through partner agencies.

The UK is also supporting the provision of essential healthcare to civilians in Gaza, including support to UK-Med for operating its field hospitals, and we have provided £1 million to the Egyptian Ministry of Health to support medically evacuated Palestinians from Gaza.

The Foreign Secretary, working with his French and German counterparts, wrote to the Government of Israel in November to press them to ensure adequate preparations for winter. Make no mistake: in lockstep with our partners, we are continuing to exert pressure to make sure that northern Gaza is not cut off from the south, that Gazans are not forcibly transferred from or within Gaza, and that there is no reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip.

We need a ceasefire, we need hostages to be released, we need much more aid into Gaza, and we need civilians to be protected. \p Layla Moran: Over 450 days on, we all know the statistics—45,000 Palestinians killed, 100 hostages missing, 2.3 million people desperate—but I want to tell a single human story. I have previously spoken about my friend,  consultant surgeon Mohamed, who operated on me when I had sepsis. His family are trapped in the Jabalia refugee camp. They are elderly and sick. One is a three-year-old girl. He has described how there are bodies strewn in the street.

I am sorry to report that death did not come knocking this weekend. Rather, it was dropped by a precision drone as Mohamed’s brother and his son walked 10 metres to get aid. The son died of a brain injury, two 13-year-old girls and their mother have shrapnel wounds, and Mohamed’s elderly father, who was already ill, is in hospital. A three-year-old, her mother and Mohamed’s mother are alone in a house with no one to help them get food.

These were obviously not militants—they were sick. They are not legitimate targets of war. There is no excuse for this. Mohamed told me it feels like they are living in “The Hunger Games,” dodging drones and scavenging for the basics. Even if they wanted to leave, how can they?

What part of international law makes any of this okay? Where is the accountability? Where is the justice? What does the Minister have to say to Mohamed, who spends his days saving lives here in the UK while his family are slaughtered overnight?

And it is not just Mohamed. People in Gaza are trapped in a doom loop of hell—hospitals decimated, and ceasefires promised and never delivered. So I press the Government again: is this really everything the UK has got? Have we deployed everything to make this stop? When will we recognise Palestine? Why have we not stopped the arms trade to Israel? And when will the Government ban trading with illegal settlements?

The frustration is palpable. Our grief is fathomless. People across the UK are looking on in horror, and the horror in Gaza must stop now. \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Member speaks passionately about a situation that so few in this House could even imagine. My thoughts are with Mohamed’s family and the many, many other women, children and civilians who are caught up in this war.

I have seen for myself the injured children across the border in Sinai. They are the lucky ones who have been able to leave the strip to access medical assistance. The whole Foreign Office ministerial team has these people in our minds each and every day. I have been engaged through the break, as many others have, recognising that for most people in Palestine there is no break from a truly dreadful situation.

The hon. Member asks what I have to say to Mohamed, and I am incredibly sorry for the loss that people are suffering in Palestine. I am incredibly sorry that we continue to assess that there is a serious risk of breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza. We are doing everything we can to try to prevent and reduce them in relation to the arms that she mentioned. We have taken decisive action to reduce the sale of weapons being used in the conduct of the hostilities in Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon, and will continue to keep the matters under review. I can only join with the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon in reaching out to those in Palestine in this situation. We have done much; we recognise there is much more to do. My heart goes out to those people. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. \p Emily Thornberry: May I begin by paying tribute to the bravery of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) in continuing to fight for the population in Gaza, even as her own family and friends are suffering?

My Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the Israel-Palestine conflict, and we have heard again and again from witnesses, including both Israeli and Palestinian voices, that the UK could, in fact, be doing more to bring the conflict to an end. We have also heard from witnesses, including the former Member for North East Bedfordshire, who is also the very respected former Minister for the middle east, that where UK action has come, it has been too little and too late. While I know that the Minister is unable to comment on any ongoing negotiations, I would like to know this: what role is the UK playing in convening post-conflict discussions and what does he see as a viable, long-term resolution for Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: This Government have taken a very different approach from the one that came before us. We have taken immediate, rapid action, calling for a ceasefire, making decisions on arms, which have already been mentioned, increasing the amount of aid available to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, being absolutely steadfast in our support to UNWRA and restoring funding that had been cut. Let us not think that there is no difference between the policy position taken by the Ministers here on the Front Bench and those that came before us. My predecessor, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), is a good and wise man who has done much in the service of his country. Yet let us not have any illusion; there is a difference between what a Labour Government have done in relation to the middle east and what our predecessors did.

I reassure my right hon. Friend that we are very engaged in the questions about what must happen next in Gaza. Clearly, Gaza needs a solution that works for its people, where Gaza is governed by the Palestinians under their own legitimate authority, in safety and security. There are a wide range of international views about how we might get to that objective, and we are playing our full part diplomatically to try and ensure that there is consensus. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this urgent question. Innocent civilians in Gaza are suffering and the situation is desperate; everyone in the House recognises that and we all want aid and support to reach them. Does the Minister also recognise that innocent civilians are being used continuously as human shields by Hamas, which has no regard for their safety or welfare? There are no excuses for the current situation. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) can listen to my comments and then he can comment afterwards.

Getting aid over the border is absolutely critical. In the light of the Minister’s words, he will also recognise, notwithstanding his comments about the previous Conservative Government, that that Government actively identified different ways to get aid into Gaza and secure food aid in particular. A special representative for humanitarian affairs was appointed, who was on the ground with a clear remit to address bottlenecks and those issues. There were clear proposals put to the Government of Israel to increase the delivery of aid and support. There was active dialogue and Israel made a number of significant and welcome commitments. Will the Minister give details of the recent engagement on fulfilling those vital commitments, how those responsible are being held to account and whether the Foreign Office, under his Government, has identified and proposed new and alternative routes for aid delivery in recent weeks?

Importantly, the only other way to bring this appalling humanitarian conflict and suffering to a sustainable end in Gaza is for Hamas to release all the hostages. I appreciate that we have debated this difficult matter previously, but may I ask the Minister what discussions are currently taking place? The onus, as we know, is on Hamas, but what steps are the Government taking right now? There are many hostages that we know of, including Emily Damari whom we have spoken about before. All our thoughts are with those hostages and their families. We must know what the UK’s position is, especially in relation to calling out Hamas. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was right to say at the weekend that we have not seen a great deal of condemnation. May I conclude by asking the Minister what points of influence we have with Israel in particular and what his Government are doing to address this conflict? \p Hamish Falconer: The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly raises the important role of the special representative for humanitarian affairs. He remains in post and continues to have dialogue with the Israelis and others about what can be done to ensure that adequate aid gets into Gaza. There has been a great deal of discussion about different routes. I have been to North Sinai to see the routes in through al-Arish, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Development has been in Jordan to see the routes there. The most fundamental of all of these questions is who controls the crossings. In most cases, that is the Israeli Government and the steps that need to be taken sit most acutely with them.

There are, of course, other questions that are important and relevant, not least those to do with law and order in the Gaza strip, where there are serious and concerning reports of looting. None the less, getting the aid in is vital, and that is through the crossings. We have been raising these points forcefully with the Israeli Government, and it has been disappointing to see with my own eyes British aid piling up in al-Arish, despite the good efforts of the special envoy and others to encourage the Israelis to make progress in delivering the flood of aid into Gaza that they promised. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Hamish Falconer: Sorry, I was just taking a breath. On the vital question about hostages, we are continuing to use all of our influence to try to ensure an early resolution to the crisis, which has been going on for far, far too  long. We must work each and every day to try to advance that situation. Clearly, given the degree of tactical leaking to the press about the latest talks, I do not want to comment on press reports. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of International Development Committee. \p Sarah Champion: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this question. I also thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for all the work that she has done trying to highlight the horrors that are going on in the region.

What assessment have the Government made of Israel’s action in the Netzarim corridor, which Israel has cleared of Palestinian civilians in order to construct military roads and positions. One senior Israeli official told Haaretz that the area had been designated as a “kill zone”, with anyone who enters being shot. The same officer told Haaretz that civilians were knowingly killed and later designated as terrorists. With competitions between military units regarding who can cause the most casualties, what assessment has the Minister made of these alleged war crimes, and can he tell me what we are doing to document and to stop them? \p Hamish Falconer: Mr Speaker, as you would expect, my Department takes careful stock of all reports, including those that my hon. Friend mentions, and we include them as part of our regular assessments. We have concluded one of those assessments recently, and I have already updated the House on that. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her powerful and sustained advocacy for Palestinians. Clearly, the situation in northern Gaza is utterly dire. We need to see action from the Government in the face of a dreadful and worsening situation. At the end of December, Israeli forces closed Kamal Adwan, the last functional hospital in northern Gaza, forcibly removed patients and detained its director Dr Abu Safiya. The Minister said that he has raised this matter with the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and the ambassador, but what consequences did he spell out to them if Israel fails to meet its obligations to protect civilians and sustain access to healthcare in northern Gaza?

The Minister also referred to Israeli airstrikes in the allegedly safe zone. I have on previous occasions asked the Foreign Secretary to look again at a full ban on arms sales. Will the Minister now do so? We will only see an end to violence with a ceasefire, so can the Minister update the House on progress towards the release of the Israeli hostages held by Hamas and a lasting ceasefire?

Finally, in the light of deep concerns about the direction that this conflict might take under the second Trump presidency and following remarks made by Israeli Government Ministers about annexation and actions on the ground in the west bank to extend illegal settlements, does the Minister agree that now is the moment to recognise Palestine on the 1967 borders? \p Hamish Falconer: Let me take the hon. Member’s questions in turn. On arms sales, we have been clear, and I am pleased to reiterate that clarity today, that we have taken steps in relation to the weapons at issue in Gaza. We keep that under regular review, but we have taken clear, principled steps. If the question relates to the F-35 programme, I am happy to reiterate that we carved out that provision because there was no other way to meet our obligations in relation to international peace and security, and that remains the position.

On the matter of a ceasefire, efforts are ongoing. We hope to see an early resolution, but I am afraid that we have been here many times before. These are incredibly fraught talks. Flexibility needs to be shown on all sides. The violence has gone on for far too long. We want an immediate ceasefire, which we have called for since we came into Government.

I have raised the situation in Kamal Adwan and the wider matter about the provision of healthcare in northern Gaza. I have been clear with the Israeli Government about their obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure that proper medical assistance is available to Gazan people. They are entitled to that and those obligations are clear in international law. I have made that clear to the Israelis, as well as what the consequences will be internationally if those obligations are not met.

The hon. Member also raised a question about illegal settlements. I am pleased to repeat our position: we do not support the annexation of Gaza; we support the 1967 boundaries; and we deplore illegal settlements, which is why we took sanctions against them late last year. \p Patricia Ferguson: I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this urgent question; it is indeed urgent. At the UN, the UK called for Israel to abide by UNSC resolution 2286 on the protection of civilians and healthcare. It is clear that Israel is not abiding by that resolution, so with the words having been uttered and ignored, what will the Government now do to ensure that Israel is held to account for its actions? \p Hamish Falconer: We could not be clearer, either publicly or privately, about what expectations fall on Israel in relation to health provision. I have raised these issues, the Foreign Secretary has raised these issues, and my ministerial colleagues have raised these issues. It is a source of enormous frustration to the ministerial team that, this far into the conflict, we are still having to raise these issues, and we will continue to do so until there is some resolution. And that resolution must enable greater healthcare for the Palestinians of Gaza and the wider region. \p Kit Malthouse: Mr Speaker, you and I have been through this rigmarole many times over the past 14 months. I was going to ask today about the fate of Dr Abu Safiya, but I think we all know what will happen to him. I was going to ask about the babies who are freezing to death while blankets are being denied entry into Gaza, but I do not think we will be able to do much about that. The same applies to the denial of access for cancer medication, anaesthetic, or crutches or, indeed, the bombing of every single hospital.

The Minister said that he and his team are frustrated, but given the partial application of international law and the Government’s unwillingness to take any significant steps to either compel the imposition of a ceasefire or compliance with international law, rather than being frustrated, is he not ashamed that millions of people in this country and around the world believe that there is an inherent racism at the heart of British foreign policy in this regard that says that Palestinian lives matter much less than any other lives, or indeed than Israeli lives? And if he and the Minister for Development, who has answered these statements before, are ashamed, why are they hanging on to their red folders? Why are they not standing down and compelling the Government actually to do something active and physical to save these lives? \p Hamish Falconer: There are places where I will take lessons about shame, but it is not from the Conservative Benches, and particularly not on this issue. If they want to give me a hard time about what is being done in relation to the people in Gaza, they should turn to their own record, whether that is on aid into Gaza, the ICC or the ICJ. These are sober issues and we deal with them with the sobriety they require, and I would appreciate, particularly from the Conservative Benches, questions of that tone. \p Abtisam Mohamed: In November, the Israel Defence Forces made an official statement that they are getting closer to the complete evacuation of northern Gaza and that Palestinians will not be permitted to return home. In December, Doctors Without Borders reported on the clear signs of ethnic cleansing in the north of Gaza. Only last week, the residents of Beit Hanan were ordered to leave the area. Ethnic cleansing is taking place before our very eyes, and the world remains silent. Will the Minister confirm that Israel must allow Palestinians to return to northern Gaza and that any settlements there would be illegal? \p Hamish Falconer: I can confirm that it is the view of the Government that Palestinians must be able to travel freely between north and south Gaza, that there can be no further illegal settlements, and that we will continue to condemn that in the way we do in the west bank. There must be no annexation of Gaza. \p Alistair Carmichael: Do the Government acknowledge that what is happening in northern Gaza is a campaign of ethnic cleansing? If the Minister does not, what would he call it? \p Hamish Falconer: We have been incredibly clear about the position in northern Gaza and about our deep concerns in relation to healthcare provision, aid going into the area, the targeting of healthcare professionals, the detentions, the importance of transparency where people have been taken, ensuring that they have adequate rights to see their lawyers, and that the ICRC can see people. The situation in northern Gaza is close to our minds. We have commented extensively throughout the winter period, and we will continue to do so. \p Sam Rushworth: Having listened to evidence on Gaza as a member of the International Development Committee, it is clear to me that there have been egregious breaches of international law. While I do not doubt the integrity and sincerity of  my hon. Friend, it is clear that the actions taken so far by the Government have either not shifted the dial an inch or make me question how much worse it would be. Besides rhetorically supporting an international court, what will the Government do to help gather evidence to protect witnesses and ensure that there is justice and accountability? \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, although I take issue with it. This Government have done more than rhetoric, whether it is the £13 million of funding we announced in December; the £112 million of funding for the Occupied Palestinian Territories; the quite different position we have taken on questions of international justice, compared with our predecessors; or the extensive funding we provide to the ICC each year to ensure that it can do its work. I want to be clear that we do not specify that the funding is in relation to Gaza; we give it so that the ICC can pursue its work without fear or favour globally, and we will continue to do so. \p Greg Smith: The aggressors in this situation are the terrorists in Hamas. The ones who took and continue to hold hostages are the terrorists in Hamas. Does the Minister therefore agree that the only concrete way to end this horror is for those terrorists in Hamas to release the remaining hostages, and that talk of an unconditional ceasefire gives those terrorists no incentive to free those innocent people? \p Hamish Falconer: Hamas are terrorists and they should release the hostages immediately. \p Alice Macdonald: There are an estimated 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza, with more than 180 births taking place every day. None of us can imagine the hell of Gaza, let alone being pregnant in it. Ultimately, we need a ceasefire, but the health system is on its knees. Will the Minister expand on whether he has specifically raised the issue of women and girls and how our aid is being targeted to support access to sexual and reproductive health services? \p Hamish Falconer: We have raised those issues specifically, but I want to be straightforward with the House: we are clear that insufficient aid of all kinds is getting into Gaza. On almost any question that the House might put to me, there is insufficient aid, insufficient equipment and insufficient provisions for people to be existing in Gaza under those conditions, and we will continue to raise that with force with the Israelis for as long as that situation remains. \p Brendan O'Hara: Exactly a year ago, Lord Cameron, when talking about the situation in northern Gaza, told the Foreign Affairs Committee that

“the conflict is now effectively over there”.

Unfortunately, no one seems to have told Tel Aviv, because babies are still freezing to death and the last hospital has been destroyed. In that year, while the faces on the Government Benches might have changed, the UK’s complicity in the mass killing of Palestinians remains as it has been. Given that nothing has changed, does the Minister genuinely believe that in another year from now he will be able to say that continuing to arm the IDF was moral and legal? \p Hamish Falconer: If words are to have meaning, clearly our policy is different from that of those on the Opposition Benches, as I think they would accept. I do not want to see this conflict continuing for another year. The Palestinians cannot wait. We are doing everything we can. We have been calling for an immediate ceasefire since we came into government. We will continue to take steps to try to advance that call. \p Rosena Allin-Khan: I was left numb by the words a doctor wrote on a whiteboard in the Al-Awda hospital in Gaza before he was killed by an Israeli air strike, which said:

“Whoever stays until the end will tell the story. We did what we could. Please remember us.”

We need to know that we did all we could. I know the Minister and his Department are pulling every lever available, but please can we have an extra push to get the ceasefire deal over the line? We need to put an end to this horror. \p Hamish Falconer: I remember those words from the whiteboard, and we must and will spare no effort and will strain every sinew to try to do what we can to advance the ceasefire as quickly as possible. It is already far too late. \p Monica Harding: I am pleased that the Prime Minister recently met UNRWA’s Commissioner-General Lazzarini and pledged further funding, but in three weeks legislation to ban UNRWA will come into force. Lazzarini has said that

“dismantling UNRWA will collapse the United Nations’ humanitarian response”

in Gaza and that the

“entire population…fears that their only remaining lifeline will be cut.”

He also commented that:

“Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, Israeli officials have described dismantling UNRWA as a war goal.”

Will the Minister set out what consequential steps the UK will take if that comes into effect? \p Hamish Falconer: The Prime Minister was the first Prime Minister to meet the Commissioner-General of UNRWA. He did so in a week when we had announced further funding for UNRWA. We have raised those vital questions with the Israeli Government. We did so over the course of the break. I myself have met Commissioner-General Lazzarini, and I will be saying more about UNRWA in the coming weeks if we are not in a position to see that the Israelis have taken the action necessary to ensure the sustained and continued support that Palestinians require and which only UNRWA can provide. \p Afzal Khan: Not one single hospital now operates in northern Gaza. Healthcare staff continue to be targeted, resulting in the death of even more innocent civilians. We have heard the Minister, but surely what we are doing is not enough. What can we do to stop the systemic dismantling of the hospitals in Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is right that what we have done is not enough, and we know it is not enough because the provision is so poor in northern Gaza. We are distressed by the scenes in northern Gaza and by the  circumstances that hon. Members have described. We will continue to work as hard as we can, both in relation to UNRWA and directly with the Israeli Government, to try to ensure that the aid provision, including medical provision, is provided with urgency. The current situation is not good enough. \p Mark Pritchard: Of course Israel has the right to defend itself, but surely the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as the life of an Israeli child, and it is a breach of international humanitarian law for fuel, food and energy to be cut off from ordinary Palestinians. Will the Minister confirm to the House that the UK Government have an independent foreign policy on Israel and Gaza, and that it is set in Whitehall, not in Washington? \p Hamish Falconer: Britain has an independent foreign policy set by the Foreign Office Ministers and the Prime Minister—I am happy to confirm that to the House. Of course, for this Government the value of a Palestinian life is exactly the same as that of an Israeli life, and we deplore all the civilian suffering that we have seen in this conflict, which, as I say, has gone on for far too long. \p Paul Waugh: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. One of the most appalling aspects of this conflict has been Israel’s reckless disregard not just for civilian life but for that of medical practitioners and patients. Kamal Adwan hospital, the last major facility in northern Gaza, is now out of service, as Members have said. Patients have been moved to the nearby but non-functional and partially destroyed Indonesian hospital, and are unable to receive care because of a lack of necessary equipment and supplies. Will the Minister confirm that Israel’s actions have clearly breached international law, and that a consequence of that will be the continued suspension of weapons sales to Israel when it comes to Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: We are following the situation closely. I raised the circumstances of those hospitals with the Deputy Foreign Minister on 23 December. I confirm that all the developments in the conflict are considered as part of the regular assessment process and contribute to the assessments that we make. \p Adnan Hussain: Report after report from reputable organisations—the most recent being Amnesty International—have concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza are genocidal in nature. The scale of destruction in northern Gaza has now been described as much worse than that in the aftermath of Hiroshima. Will the Government change their position and identify that Israel’s actions in Gaza are indeed genocidal in nature, and what action will be taken given the grave nature of those facts? \p Hamish Falconer: Determinations of genocide and war crimes are properly matters for international courts and, as the House knows, there is an international court process on that question, so I will not comment further on determination questions. The Member asks about what we are doing, so let me recap again. We have taken action in relation to arms, aid and diplomatic pressure on the Israelis, and we will continue to do so. The situation in Gaza is intolerable, and we will continue to take steps to try to reduce the suffering. \p Debbie Abrahams: I appreciate the difficult position that the Minister is in. He has spoken a number of times in the House about this issue. However, I have significant sympathy for the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and others who have expressed frustration. Now is the time for action. I appreciate that we as a Government have done a lot and are significantly different from the previous Government, but that is a very, very low bar. It is important that this House has its view expressed through Ministers. Have the Government finally accepted the ICJ’s advisory opinion, which is absolutely crucial to the delivery of a two-state solution and a peace process? \p Hamish Falconer: I am always happy to hear the House’s view on these issues, which I have heard and will continue to hear extensively, and I know the strength of feeling across the House. On the ICJ advisory opinion, we are still considering what was a complex and far-reaching judgment with significant horizontal legal implications as well as in relation specifically to the conflict. At the heart of that advisory opinion is a concern about the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I am pleased to confirm that we continue to consider Palestinian territory to be occupied, we continue to take a position consistent with international law, and we continue to condemn illegal settlements. That is why we took tangible—not just rhetorical—steps against violent and illegal settlements in the west bank. \p Desmond Swayne: The Minister must be aware that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who were equally as frustrated with the form of the previous Administration as they are with this one. He says that he has brought pressure to bear on the Israeli authorities. When that pressure manifestly fails to deliver, is there a plan? \p Hamish Falconer: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who was also a Foreign Office Minister. I once hosted him in Afghanistan, which I am sure he will not remember. [Interruption.] I am sure that he remembers Afghanistan and has vivid memories of Kabul at that time—I meant that he might not remember me. We raise those issues with force. There are consequences for sustained breaches of international humanitarian law, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment in too much detail on how we conduct diplomatic relations on those questions. \p Polly Billington: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank my hon. Friend for all his hard work in these difficult situations. Eight members of the Knesset have penned a letter to the Israeli Defence Minister demanding that Israel destroy all sources of water, food and energy for Palestinians in Gaza. They argue that Israel should do to the rest of Gaza what it has been doing to the north. Will the Government ban entry of those eight Knesset members, who are openly calling for the extermination of Palestinians in Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her kind words. The House will be bored of hearing me say it, but we do not comment on sanctions measures in advance of taking them, as doing so would reduce their impact, but I welcome the opportunity to make a brief comment on the proceedings of the Knesset.  There is much said in other Parliaments with which we do not agree. We are clear that obligations under international humanitarian law, and diplomatic obligations, fall on the Israeli Government. We are clear with the Israeli Government on their obligations under international humanitarian law, and we are clear about our policy position. I will refrain from providing detailed commentary on the proceedings of another Parliament. \p Jeremy Corbyn: It is quite clear that Israel’s ability to destroy life in Gaza—killing 45,000 people—and to destroy medical facilities is possible only because of the supply of weapons, principally from the United States. I ask the Minister to be very clear. Will Britain continue supplying weapons, including parts for jet planes, and allowing the use of RAF Akrotiri as a route for weapons to go to Israel to be used to destroy life in Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. Gentleman asks about fighter jets. In relation to the F-35 supply chain, where it is not possible to disentangle components that might eventually end up in Israel, we have made a carve-out for the arms suspension. Where we have been directly selling fighter jet parts to Israel—whether for F-35s or other fighter jets—those licences have been suspended. We will continue to have the same position on the F-35 supply chain—we have discussed that at length in this House since it was announced in September—but in relation to other fighter jets we will take steps in accordance with wider policy. \p Yasmin Qureshi: Aid access is non-existent for Palestinians in north Gaza. Over the past two months, the UN has made over 160 attempts to reach the civilians in north Gaza, with almost zero access, and we have heard that babies have frozen to death. In October, the Prime Minister said that

“the world will not tolerate any more excuses on humanitarian assistance”,

so what further action have we taken to ensure that the assistance gets to the people who need it? \p Hamish Falconer: As I have set out this afternoon, we have taken further action, including further funding in December for UNRWA. However, to be straightforward with my hon. Friend and with the House, the further action we have taken has not had the effect we would wish, which is clearly that greater aid reaches the Palestinians. Until we see greater aid going into the Gaza strip, we will continue to make those efforts, however frustrating it may be. \p Wera Hobhouse: Many of my constituents are deeply worried about the intolerable suffering of the people in Gaza, but at this moment they are particularly worried about the ban on UNRWA, which will come into force at the end of the month. The Minister’s previous answer on UNRWA was simply not good enough. Where is the urgency to do something about this, making an assessment of what it means if no more humanitarian aid is being delivered through UNRWA? \p Hamish Falconer: I am sorry that my answers were not to the hon. Member’s taste. To repeat, this Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister ever to meet the commissioner-general of UNRWA, and in December we announced  further aid. We have repeatedly been clear with the Israelis, UNRWA and the wider UN system, privately and publicly, about the vital role of UNRWA. We are doing everything that could be hoped for to try and ensure that aid continues. Clearly, there is no alternative to UNRWA at the scale at which it operates—it is not possible to substitute for its function quickly or easily, and indeed, it is mandated by the UN to perform that function. This is not a welcome situation, and if we find ourselves this month in a situation where UNRWA cannot function, I will say more to this House at that point. However, I can reassure you, Mr Speaker, and the rest of the House that we are treating this issue with the full seriousness it deserves. \p John Martin McDonnell: The Minister has expressed his frustration and distress. I think he shares the depth of anger that most of us in this House feel. Over the Christmas period, while we have been celebrating with our families, we have witnessed scenes of children starving and freezing to death as a result of Israeli actions. The actions that have been taken up until now clearly have not had the effect we have wanted. The only solution we have seen in the past is a total isolation of a country, economically and militarily, to prevent it from performing war crimes in the way that Israel has. This Government could take a leading role in that isolation of Israel to bring it to some form of negotiated settlement, but one thing that grates with me in particular is that we have an Israeli ambassador who is an advocate of a greater Israel, refuses to recognise the Palestinian state and defies all the UN resolutions that have been passed about how we can secure peace, and who still remains in this country. Why are we not expelling the Israeli ambassador? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and recognise the anguish in his voice about the scenes coming out of Gaza over the winter period. He is right that I feel that anguish as well—I think this whole House feels it when we see pictures of civilians in terrible distress.

My right hon. Friend asks me about the Israeli ambassador. It is tempting to think that, if only we had representatives who were more to our taste politically, things would be easier. There is a clear disagreement between the British and Israeli Governments about the conduct of the war in Gaza and the humanitarian implications that flow from it. We will continue to make that disagreement clear through all channels, both through the Israeli ambassador and directly to the Israeli Government through the Foreign Minister, the Minister of Strategic Affairs and the deputy Foreign Minister. We will continue to talk to the Israeli Government about these issues—indeed, that is the only direct route to secure the changes in the situation that we want to see. \p Ellie Chowns: The UN says that the healthcare system in Gaza is on the brink of collapse, and the International Committee of the Red Cross says that it is being obliterated in besieged northern Gaza. The World Health Organisation says that hospitals have become battlegrounds, and we have all seen the terrible scenes of patients and medics being  forcibly removed from Kamal Adwan, the only remaining functioning health facility at that time. What further evidence does the Minister need to conclude that war crimes are being committed in Gaza and that a genocide is taking place, and how can he continue to justify the export of any arms to Israel, given that it risks making us complicit in the systematic destruction of healthcare in Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer on the question of legal determinations about genocide. That is a question for international courts, and international courts are considering it.

In relation to arms, I want once again to reassure the House that the measures we have taken regarding arms licences are far-reaching. I have already discussed this afternoon the carve-out for F-35 parts, which will remain the position. As for the remaining arms licences, it is important to say that many of them are not in fact for arms, but for dual-use equipment that requires licensing even if it is not for military use. Even where they are military components, very few of the remaining licences are going to the IDF; for example, they are for body armour and helmets that non-governmental organisations use when they visit Gaza. We have taken far-reaching action in relation to the concerns we have about the breaching of international humanitarian law in Gaza, and we keep that under regular review. \p Sarah Owen: UNICEF reports that at least 17,000 children in Gaza are unaccompanied, some so young that they do not even know their names. Continual bombardment from Israeli forces makes family reunification impossible. The brutal reality of injured children in Gaza is that thousands of child amputees have been operated on without any pain relief or any chance of recovery, including a 10-year-old left for four hours with rocket shrapnel in his leg in an overcrowded hospital that is now running out of fuel. Will the Minister commit to insisting that the Israeli Government honour a ceasefire and allow full access to aid and supplies? If not, why are we not considering an arms ban and further sanctions to end this violence before there are no more vulnerable people left to protect? \p Hamish Falconer: We are pressing the Israeli Government on a ceasefire, to show the flexibility and take the urgent action required in order to ensure that hostages are released, violence stops and Palestinians can return to some form of dignity and security.

My hon. Friend raises the vital question of injured children in Gaza. There is not enough medical provision—it is of neither the sophistication nor the scale required to deal with the very many children who have been affected by this war, some of whom I met in north Sinai. As I said earlier, those children are the lucky ones: they were able to get to what is admittedly an overstretched medical system, but it is a functional one. As we have heard movingly from the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and from many other colleagues this afternoon, that is not the case elsewhere. The Government are keeping these issues under review, and when I visited Egypt and north Sinai, I was pleased to announce £1 million of UK aid to try to ensure that the Egyptian healthcare system can help Palestinian children under those circumstances.

Regrettably, since that period, too few people with medical emergencies—both children and adults—have been able to leave Gaza. We continue to raise these issues, and my Department was working on them through the Christmas break. I do not want to talk about specific cases; we have had some success, but limited success, in ensuring that children and adults who either require urgent medical assistance or family reunification are able to leave the Gaza strip. I hope to say a little more about that in the coming weeks. \p Martin Vickers: Last Saturday morning, a constituent came to my surgery to discuss the situation in Gaza. She reminded me that she had previously visited my surgery exactly a year ago to discuss the situation. I recognise that the Minister was critical of the previous Administration; to some extent, that is justified, but the reality is that the situation remains the same. We can all agree that Hamas should release the hostages immediately, but does the Minister agree that the continued bombardment of Gaza by the Israelis is not of itself going to deliver that? If he agrees, has he made that very clear to the Israelis? \p Hamish Falconer: I regret that the situation does not remain the same a year on. As we have heard, the situation in Gaza, northern Gaza, Lebanon and the west bank is far, far worse. There have been material changes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the wider region, and with the suffering of the Palestinians, the Israeli hostage families and Lebanese civilians, there has been considerable further suffering over the course of the past year. It is clear that the only way to get a lasting, safer, more secure region for Palestinians, Israelis, Lebanese, Yemenis and many others is a proper diplomatic solution, with a resolution in the immediate term through a ceasefire and the release of hostages, but also moving back towards a two-state solution that provides dignity and sovereignty for the Palestinian people. We make that point with force to the Israelis regularly. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I will try to get everybody in, but I am aiming to finish this urgent question at about 2 o’clock and a lot of Members are on their feet. You would really help each other if you made your questions and answers succinct. \p Tan Dhesi: Reportedly, six babies have so far frozen to death in Gaza, largely as a result of a denial of fuel, heating, shelter and medical care. People’s tents are being flooded in the winter rains, diseases are spreading, aid access is virtually non-existent and there is not one single operational hospital in northern Gaza, with healthcare staff continually being targeted. What are the UK Government doing to ensure that Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately stops such atrocities and allows proper aid access into Gaza, and that we finally get an end to the bloodshed in Palestine? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have spoken a little bit about some of the direct advocacy with the Israeli Government conducted by Ministers. That advocacy is also conducted by the special envoy, to whom the shadow Foreign Secretary referred. We are clear at every level of the urgency of the situation in northern Gaza, and we will continue to have it in our  minds each and every day until the situation stabilises. It must stabilise both with adequate aid and medical assistance, and with dignity and sovereignty for the Palestinians. \p Mike Martin: The case for further British action to protect Gazan civilians is unanswerable. Is the Government’s moral integrity being damaged by their inaction? \p Hamish Falconer: Perhaps the hon. Member could be a bit clearer about what further action this Government could be taking to try to protect Palestinian civilians. We are raising these issues— \p Mike Martin: Sanctions, arms sales, recognition of a Palestinian state— \p Judith Cummins: Order. You do not get two bites of the cherry. \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Member mentioned sanctions, and we put in place extensive sanctions at the end of last year. I will not comment on further sanctions—to do so might undermine their impact—but we keep these issues under close review. I have discussed the recognition of a Palestinian state and arms. I recognise the strength of feeling in the House, I recognise how desperately people in this Chamber and across the world want to see an urgent ceasefire in Gaza, and that is the zeal with which the Foreign Office ministerial team approach this. \p Apsana Begum: Recently, a surgeon broke down as he told the International Development Committee of drones descending after a bomb strike to shoot children, with wounds that he believed reflected some form of artificial intelligence. I understand that the Government are saying that, since September 2024, UK-made arms are currently suspended where they may be used against civilians. Notwithstanding what exactly that entails—the various details, caveats and definitions—can the Minister confirm and clarify today whether UK-made drones that were exported to Israel before September 2024 are being used to shoot civilians, including children, in the manner described by the surgeon? \p Hamish Falconer: I am familiar with the testimony of Professor Nizam Mamode, and I saw his videos from when he was in Gaza. He is an impressive surgeon and a friend to many in this Chamber, and his testimony is harrowing. On the drones, I want to be clear that the suspension of arms licences would cover exactly that activity. \p Ben Lake: It has been estimated that over 650 attacks have been launched on healthcare facilities in Gaza and more than 1,000 healthcare workers have been killed, injured or detained since October 2023. I recognise that the Minister has raised his concerns with his Israeli counterpart, but could he perhaps explain what the consequences will be if the Israeli Government fail to listen? \p Hamish Falconer: Ensuring adequate provision of medical assistance is an obligation that falls on the Israeli Government. We are clear about the status of these facilities under international humanitarian law, and we continue to raise these issues with force. \p Stella Creasy: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) is no longer here because he is right that Hamas are terrorists, but we need to be clear in this House that this is not being done in the name of the hostage families. The hostages’ families do not want to see babies freezing to death in Gaza, and they know this will not bring their loved ones home.

The Minister was clear with us earlier that he had seen aid piling up at the borders and that Israel controls the borders. Impeding access to humanitarian aid is a direct breach of international humanitarian law, so for the avoidance of doubt, is it his testimony that Israel is impeding access at the borders by the way in which it is controlling them? I think he needs to be clear on this point, because it does have ramifications for us. \p Hamish Falconer: I know many others in this House have done so as well, but I saw the hostage families in December, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. They are desperate for the safe return of their loved ones, and we hold them in our hearts as their agony continues yet further.

On aid access, my hon. Friend is of course right that these questions are relevant to determinations of international humanitarian law. When we set out the assessment that underlined our action on the arms suspensions, we made particular reference to the provision of aid into the occupied territories in Gaza, and I refer her to that statement. We tried to provide as much detail in it as possible, and it remains the clearest articulation of our view about international humanitarian law and aid provision into Gaza. \p Vikki Slade: It is quite clear that the Minister is frustrated, but thoughts and prayers are just not enough. What is the Minister doing to progress the Palestinian statehood that Norway, Spain, Ireland and more than 100 other countries have all confirmed? The Foreign Secretary confirmed it would happen. What is stopping that happening now? \p Hamish Falconer: I am a Foreign Office Minister and I do not treat in thoughts and prayers—this House of course feels united in our anguish about what we are seeing in Gaza—but what we do in the Foreign Office is seek diplomatically to advance a political solution, with an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages and, of course, a two-state solution. That two-state solution must include a sovereign, viable Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel, and the routes to get there will be diplomatic. It is on those questions that we base our assessment of when would be the moment to recognise a Palestinian state. I recognise that close allies have made different judgments than the UK about when to recognise a Palestinian state. This is not just a question of recognition; it is about a viable state that exists and functions next to a safe and secure Israel, and that is the objective of this Government. \p Jonathan Pearce: In recent weeks we have seen the distressing footage of Israeli hostage Liri Albag, who has been held captive by Hamas for over 14 months. The hostage families, including Mandy Damari, the mother of British national Emily Damari, are campaigning day and night for the ICRC and other humanitarian organisations to have access to the remaining hostages, but Hamas are refusing. Will the Minister  condemn Hamas’s refusal to secure humanitarian access to the remaining hostages and set out what steps he is taking to return those hostages to their families? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I know how much time he has spent with hostage families over recent months. I do condemn both Hamas’s refusal to release the hostages, with British nationals and UK-linked persons among them, and the lack of access for the ICRC and other medical agencies. I am consistent on this point: whether it is Israeli hostages or Palestinians in Israeli detention, the ICRC provides vital work and a lifesaving function, and access should be provided to it in times of conflict on both sides. That is an essential humanitarian step. It has long been a principle of international law, and I am deeply distressed to see that norm being undermined by Hamas and others. \p Stephen Gethins: The Minister’s statement about this man-made humanitarian disaster is one of the bleakest I have heard. It is a man-made humanitarian disaster and the Minister was good enough to set that out. In the short term, it is a humanitarian catastrophe. In the medium to long term, a brutalised population makes us all less secure and disrespect for international law makes us all less secure.

The Minister asked what else can be done and talked about disagreements. It is not a disagreement if someone advocates for the breaking of international law. Will he look at other measures such as targeted sanctions in order to bring this forward? When I was first elected, I got in touch with the Government straightaway about a Fire Brigades Union donation, and I got many of the same words then as I do now. It is months on. Targeted sanctions, stopping arms sales—the Minster wants to know what else can be done; plenty more can be done. \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Member mentions a fire engine that the FBU has generously donated to try to contribute to relief efforts in Palestine. That issue had been raised by my own colleagues in advance of his doing so. I am frustrated that I have not been able to secure that fire engine for use in Gaza, alongside the many other pieces of aid and vital equipment that so many in this House know is not going to the Palestinian people. I would not want the hon. Member to think that I ignored his entreaties in relation to the FBU donation, just as I would not want any Member who has asked me to try and secure aid access into Gaza, and where I have been unable to do so, to think that these issues are not raised regularly. I am a Labour politician and am particularly responsive to the requests of our trade union partners. I wish that I had been able to secure that fire engine into Palestine, just as I wish I had been able to secure the neonatal support we have discussed, the medical support that has been raised or the many other items of international aid which I have seen with my own eyes in al-Arish that have not crossed through the Rafah crossing or anywhere else into Gaza. These are frustrating issues. I will continue, as will the rest of the ministerial team, to press for more aid to go into Gaza. Insufficient aid is going in and we will continue to raise these issues. \p Clive Betts: I want to return to the issue of the recognition of an independent Palestinian state. As I understand it, the Government’s  position is that Israel has no veto on the creation of a Palestinian state. The Minister just said in response to a previous question that recognition has to come through diplomatic efforts. Do those diplomatic efforts have to involve Israel? If so, and Israel refuses to co-operate in them, does that not effectively give Israel a veto over the creation of a Palestinian state? \p Hamish Falconer: We have to be straightforward about the situation in Israel and Palestine at the moment. There are Occupied Palestinian Territories that have illegal settlements and an IDF presence. To get to a viable two-state solution, we are going to need agreement on both sides. The two states would need to live side by side with arrangements in place to ensure that both were safe, secure and sovereign, so I cannot see a route to a two-state solution that does not involve serious negotiations with the Israeli Government in order to reach a lasting settlement. That is a statement of the diplomatically essential. That is not to say that the Israelis can veto whether or not the Palestinians are entitled to a state, but it is a fact of reality that both states would need to work side by side to ensure each other’s safety and security. \p Andrew George: The Netanyahu regime continues to seek to justify its cold-blooded slaughter of Palestinian people behind the dishonest façade of self-defence. While the Minister asserts that the Government are taking an even-handed approach in this regard, he will remember that only two months ago the UK military intervened to protect innocent life in Israel by intercepting bombs. Taking on board the passions in the Chamber, the question is about equivalence. What actions have the Government taken to do the same for Palestinian people in Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Member refers to missiles sent by the Iranians to strike Israel, and we will act in Israel’s legitimate self-defence in accordance with international humanitarian law. We do not want to see Iranian missiles rain down on Israeli civilians. The military scenario here is totally different: Israeli troops are inside Gaza. This is not a question of missiles crossing international borders, or going overseas. On a number of occasions, there have been risks of direct exchange between Iran and Israel. As many in the House will know, the military questions about whether the UK could act to take down missiles would be dependent on the circumstances. At the heart of the question the hon. Member poses is whether we are even-handed on issues of international humanitarian law, and we are. It is a great regret that our close partner Israel is acting in a way that causes us concern about serious risks to international humanitarian law, and we have said so as clearly and explicitly as we can. \p Harpreet Uppal: May I return to the issue of UNRWA? Philippe Lazzarini, its head, visited Parliament just before Christmas and was very clear about the consequences if its operations are banned. There will be an impact on the provision of schools and primary healthcare, as well as on a number of municipal services that it delivers in Gaza. May I urge the Minister to continue to take action on this matter, and to be clear that there will be consequences for the Israeli Government if they carry out this ban? \p Hamish Falconer: I, too, have met with commissioner-general Lazzarini and discussed the implications of the Knesset votes. We are clear with the Israelis about the role that UNRWA plays, both practically at the volume that it operates and also its role as mandated by the UN, and we will continue to be so. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: Women who can get access to hospital provision in northern Gaza are undergoing C-sections without any anaesthetic, and new mothers—180 every day—are struggling to find clean water to provide formula for their new babies or continue to breastfeed, but Israel continues to restrict aid. The United Nations has made three attempts in the last three days to reach Gaza, and has been refused every time. The Minister has mentioned political solutions but seems to be avoiding consequences so I will ask the question again: what consequences can Israel expect from this Government if it continues to ignore international law and the urgent requirement to get the care that is needed for women and children in Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: As I said earlier, the situation for new mothers, for expectant mothers and, indeed, for the majority of vulnerable Palestinians is appalling and needs to change urgently. The obligations on the Israeli state under international humanitarian law are clear. We raise these points with Israel publicly and privately, and we will continue to do so directly and in multilateral forums until the situation is resolved to the satisfaction of international bodies. \p Toby Perkins: Israel’s conduct in this war is not just an attack on the people of Palestine; it is an attack on the international rules-based approach, the international community and the United Nations. Although I accept that the Minister is right to say that this Government are doing more than their predecessor, can he specify why the UK Government’s current policy is not to have sanctions, even against occupied territory products? Even if that is under review, why is that the Government’s policy at this moment? Does he agree that it is an attack on all those institutions, and not just the people of Palestine? \p Hamish Falconer: First, on the question of international law, this Government have been clear that we stand for a rules-based international order. Where anyone, whatever our relationship with them, takes steps that undermine that order, they undermine the safety and security of British nationals and many others. We are clear, with the Israelis and others, where we are concerned that there are breaches of international humanitarian law. I reiterate our position on the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which is consistent with UN Security Council resolutions. We have put sanctions on those operating in those territories, both where they are conducting illegal settlements and where they are perpetuating horrific violence against Palestinians in the OPTs. We will continue to keep these measures under review. \p Richard Foord: The Minister said at the outset,

“The UK is doing all we can to alleviate this suffering”

in Gaza. Does the Minister really think that? The Government are not even tracking British components for F-35 fighter jets, which are being used in northern Gaza. \p Hamish Falconer: On F-35s, where we are in a position to track components directly, we have suspended those arms licences. Where our components are part of a global supply chain and where measures to restrict their onward sale would bring down the overall F-35 function, we have done a carve-out. That carve-out is done clearly on the basis of concerns about international peace and security. The F-35 programme is an important contributor to British national security and the national security of many of our allies. If we were to bring down the F-35 programme, that would have relevance to allies not just here in Europe, but elsewhere. We have taken proportionate measures to ensure that we are clear in our position on international humanitarian law and that we abide by our obligations to international peace and security and our allies. \p Andrew Slaughter: The new year has seen an intensification of attacks on civilians, including medical staff, in northern Gaza. The UK Government’s response does not appear to have changed. The Minister is frustrated, because he is saying the same things to the same people and getting stonewalled every time. Do we not need to raise our game, and should recognition not be the first step in that? Will he clarify what he said a few moments ago about Israelis not having a veto over whether we recognise Palestine or when we recognise Palestine, which should be now? \p Hamish Falconer: In relation to recognition, I am happy to clarify the position. The Israeli Government have no veto over whether we recognise a Palestinian state, or when we recognise a Palestinian state. The point I was making in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is that talks with Israel about a two-state solution will be a necessary part of a sustainable solution in the region. We therefore need to be clear that it is not possible to reach the outcomes we want in the middle east without diplomatic talks, including with the Israeli Government. That does not mean they have a veto on British Government decisions— \p Kit Malthouse: It does. \p Hamish Falconer: Perhaps the right hon. Member has a solution for ensuring a Palestinian state without talking to the Israeli Government, but I think he would be outwith the view of most international scholars on that question. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his patient answers to everyone in the Chamber. Does he agree that the only way to preserve peace and stability in north Gaza is to ensure the complete dismantling and destruction of the Hamas terrorist network, which is a threat to Israeli and Palestinian civilians. The principal way to achieve that is through robust international co-operation and targeted action. Furthermore, what measures will the UK Government put in place to support a sustainable peace framework that prioritises security for Israel while addressing the urgent humanitarian needs of the Gaza civilian population? \p Hamish Falconer: Hamas are a terrorist group, and I hope they will have no future role in Gaza or any of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They are a threat not just to Israel, and they hold British nationals and UK-linked people in horrific conditions. We have heard little from them in months and months. We have no access. I know the hon. Member will share the Government’s outrage about that situation. We are in talks with our counterparts about how we might reach a future Gaza that provides for the safety and security of Israel, but also, vitally, the questions of humanitarian access, dignity and sovereignty that have been discussed this afternoon. \p Richard Burgon: Israel is ignoring international law, ignoring the world’s top court’s rulings and ignoring the United Nations. Let us be totally frank: Israel is ignoring everything that the Government say. If the Minister is serious about getting Israel to stop its genocidal war, the Government must act and that must mean widespread sanctions. That means ending all arms exports, including the parts for the jets bombing Gaza, and it means sanctions on trade with Israel. The Minister says that we are even-handed when it comes to international humanitarian law and international law. I ask the Minister a specific question: the Government have imposed widespread sanctions on Russia for its war crimes, so why will they not do the same for Israel’s war crimes? \p Hamish Falconer: I will not comment on forthcoming sanctions, but I confirm that this Government remain opposed to war crimes anywhere that they occur. Where we feel in a position to put in sanctions to prevent war crimes, we will do so. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: I am aware of the time, and I am aware of the number of Members who want to ask a question, so I will run things slightly longer, but I ask Members to keep their questions and answers as short as possible. \p Rachael Maskell: I listened to what the Minister said about the recognition of a viable Palestine, as opposed to the recognition of Palestine. As that could happen in a number of steps, will he take the first step in recognising the state of Palestine, before moving to a full viable Palestine, as he describes? \p Hamish Falconer: Any state needs to be viable. We would want to create the conditions for a sovereign Palestinian state that could perform the basic functions of a state, so it would need to be viable. As I am sure the House can tell, I am keen to remain focused on the necessary diplomatic steps to make that happen. \p Andy McDonald: The Minister is a good and knowledgeable man, and his frustration with the process is palpable. For many of us, although we see the steps taken by the UK Government—which should be acknowledged, as they have been different from those under their predecessor—they have been completely and utterly ineffective. The continued repetition of the call for a review and keeping matters under review does not move the dial one jot. Israel is just laughing at the UK. It has no regard for the  position here. While we have been home at Christmas celebrating with our children and grandchildren, in Gaza children are being burnt to death as bombs rain down upon them, buildings crush their little bones and six babies die of hypothermia. I am afraid that the Government’s position just does not cut it. I say to my hon. Friend with all sincerity that this continued dancing around and avoiding of clear legal definitions of genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes of extermination is just prevarication. We need to make the position clear. More important than anything, what is now required, and what the British people are asking the Government to do, is to visit sanctions and consequences on the Israeli Government for their flagrant disregard of basic humanitarian law. If we do not, the entire world system will collapse. \p Hamish Falconer: I know how diligent, attentive and moved by these issues my hon. Friend has been over a long period. The force of his question is obviously right. We have taken far-reaching steps, yet we are all still seeing images on our televisions and hearing about them on our radio; they remain deeply distressing. We will continue to do everything that we can about a situation that is distressing for the civilians affected and for the region, and in which there are questions about adherence to international humanitarian law.

I say to my hon. Friend that there are a number of other places in my ministerial portfolio where the situation has also remained stuck for a long time, with terrible consequences for civilians, and they need to continue to have our focus as well. The situation in Palestine is appalling, as it has been for a long time in Yemen, Syria and a range of other places. We will continue to make serious efforts. That our efforts do not secure the progress that we want does not mean that we are not making them. We will remain committed to a more safe, more secure middle east and wider region in which the horrific imagery that he described is not burnishing our minds as it is at the moment. We will continue to act.

The fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said, I am answering so many hon. Members’ questions with similar answers over a course of weeks and months is of huge frustration to me. I would want to be making more progress on some of these questions, whether they are on aid access—[Interruption.]. The fact that I have not been able to make progress does not mean that the UK Government are not taking every action we can to try to bring about the ceasefire that we have been calling for since July. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: The situation in northern Gaza is grave, with no functioning hospitals, medical centres destroyed and more than 1,000 medical personnel killed, injured or detained. The UK representative to the UN made it clear that that is unacceptable. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that Israel abides by its responsibility under international law to protect medical staff and access to healthcare? \p Hamish Falconer: I reiterate, to reassure the House about some of the steps that we are taking, that I have raised with the Israeli Government the hospitals and the people mentioned in many of the questions this afternoon, and I will continue to do so. \p Jacob Collier: Only 16 of the region’s 36 hospitals remain partially operational, with a collective capacity of barely 1,800 beds to serve a population of millions in dire need. Kamal Adwan hospital in northern Gaza should be a crucial lifeline for countless civilians, but the IDF have forcibly evacuated the hospital, detained its medical staff and disrupted its vital services. What consequences on Israel will there be for that action to safeguard those medical institutions and ensure the uninterrupted flow of medical aid? \p Hamish Falconer: As I have said over the course of the afternoon, we are raising those hospitals and the overall question of medical provision with the Israelis, and we will continue to do so. \p Andrew Pakes: May I put on record my thanks to the Minister for the care and concern about the situation that he shows Members? Yet every time we meet, the situation seems to have become more desperate, even in recent weeks, with babies freezing, the continued bombing of hospitals and real concerns about the annexation of Gaza. Over Christmas, I met constituents with friends and family in Gaza. Those people are increasingly despondent about whether the killing will ever stop, whether hostages will ever get to see their loved ones again and whether international law matters at all. With the change in world leadership in the coming weeks, what reassurances can the Minister give the House that the UK will continue to lead the world community for peace, an immediate ceasefire and, most importantly, getting aid in where it is needed now? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues. I confirm that the UK will continue to press with our allies for proper aid access and for an immediate ceasefire, and we will take that position regardless of the views of others. This is an important question for my constituents in Lincoln, for constituents in Peterborough and for constituents of hon. Members right across the House. I know the force of feeling from Lincoln and from the whole United Kingdom on these questions. They will remain important to the UK, and we will continue to show the leadership that we have sought to since July. \p Yuan Yang: I recently met medics from the Royal Berkshire hospital as well as other constituents from Earley and Woodley who described the atrocious conditions in which their Palestinian colleagues and relatives continue to operate in the medical facilities that remain in Gaza. I am thankful that the Minister has raised detained medical professionals with the Israeli authorities, and I thank him for all the work that he has done to ensure that our Government are leading on international humanitarian law. However, as I am sure he has heard from many Labour Members, we would like more action; we do not think that the current action is enough. I remind him of the comments made by the Prime Minister on looking into sanctions against Minister Ben-Gvir and Minister Smotrich for their comments supporting the illegal resettlement of northern Gaza. When may he be able to give us an update on that? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for the question but will not provide a further update on the individuals that she raised. As I have said, we try not to trail  sanctions decisions before they are taken. I recognise the strength of feeling and reassure her and the whole House that we want to see no further illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; that includes both the west bank and, of course, the Gaza strip, north and south. \p Chris Murray: I recognise the work that the Minister is doing on this intractable issue and the frustration that we all share at the lack of progress, but the fact remains that not one hospital operates in northern Gaza, healthcare workers have been detained and targeted, and medical aid is blocked. So many of my constituents have written to me expressing their outrage about that. The systematic destruction of a healthcare system is a crime against international humanitarian law. What steps can the Government take to try to protect what remains of Gaza’s healthcare system? \p Hamish Falconer: I know the concern that is felt in Edinburgh, as it is elsewhere. We have to be honest about the medical system in Gaza, which is insufficient on almost any of the points raised this afternoon. Of course, there is still provision—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) mentioned the Indonesian hospital, where we believe patients are sheltering in facilities that are not properly functional and unable to provide the quality of care that anyone should reasonably expect at a hospital. I fear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) already knows, there is not a sufficient medical system in Gaza to protect, but we will continue to raise these issues and do all that we can to ensure that that situation changes rapidly. \p Helena Dollimore: Today we have rightly heard a lot from Members in all parts of the House about the desperate need to get more aid into Gaza—an issue that many of our constituents are concerned about and that the Government are rightly working very hard to address.

One of the most disturbing trends in this conflict is the huge number of aid workers who have lost their lives—over 300 humanitarian workers to date. As the Minister knows, one of the most basic fundamentals of international humanitarian law is that aid workers must be protected. In the recess, we saw an air strike on Sana’a airport, when a plane operated by UNHAS—the UN Humanitarian Air service, which our Government proudly contribute to—was on the runway. The head of the UN World Food Programme was also in the airport at that time. I have travelled to that airport as an aid worker, and I took that UN house flight. I can only imagine the impact on aid operations in the region when such incidents occur and UN colleagues are on the runway.

Will the Minister join me in reiterating our call as a country that aid workers must never be targets? Will he outline what is being done to ensure accountability in instances where aid workers are killed? What steps is the UK is taking to ensure the protection of aid workers and humanitarians? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is right to flag the more than 300 aid workers killed since 7 October. We have many former aid workers on the Government Benches; they perform a vital function for the provision of international humanitarian assistance. British nationals are among those killed since 7 October. Particularly close to my heart are the families of the British aid workers who were part of the World Central Kitchen convoy killed on 1 April. Most particularly in relation to the death of British nationals, but also in relation to all such incidents, we continue to press for a proper legal process in Israel to ensure that where aid workers are killed, there are proper investigations and full legal consequences where that is appropriate. \p Judith Cummins: I call Dr Scott Arthur—sorry, Brian Leishman. \p Brian Leishman: Thank you very much for that upgrade, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In my opinion, there is no grey area to be had here: to sell arms is to be complicit. How can the Government realistically and honestly say that Britain is doing everything it can for a ceasefire and for peace when we continue to sell any arms to Israel? \p Hamish Falconer: I have been clear about the position in relation to F-35s. I have a responsibility, as do the rest of the Government, to try to ensure Britain’s national security. That includes, where we have entered into multi-nation, complex programmes such as the F-35, not bringing those programmes down where that would undermine international peace and security. That is our judgment in relation to the F-35 components, which I have discussed already.

On other arms that are not suspended, I think that this House would be much reassured to see the detail of those licences. I am sure that everybody wants body armour and helmets on aid workers going into dangerous areas. I am sure that everybody would want us to focus on the arms that could be used in breaches of international humanitarian law, not other arms. \p Douglas McAllister: This year has started with a horrific intensification of Israeli air strikes raining down on civilians and children. Israel has intensified its assault on the already decimated healthcare services in Gaza, to the extent that there are no fully functioning hospitals remaining in Gaza. It is a humanitarian crisis, so I am afraid I have to ask the Minister the question that he has been asked repeatedly this afternoon: have we not reached the stage where the UK should immediately end all arms trade and exports with Israel? \p Hamish Falconer: As I set out in my previous answer, we have sought to focus on those weapons that could be used for a serious breach of international humanitarian law. We have taken far-reaching action. We have sought to safeguard Britain’s national security in relation to the F-35 programme and exclude licenses that we judge do not contribute to a risk of breach of international humanitarian law. This is far-reaching action focused on weapons that could be used in breaches. I remain of the view that it is the correct judgment. \p Priti Patel: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Hong Kong police offering rewards for the arrest of pro-democracy campaigners, including British nationals overseas resident in the United Kingdom. \p Catherine West: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question on this most important matter. I am glad to reassure her that the Foreign Secretary issued a statement on Christmas eve, immediately following the Hong Kong police’s issuing of arrest warrants for the six pro-democracy campaigners. As the Foreign Secretary said, those targeted on Christmas eve were merely exercising their right to freedom of expression. We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially here in the UK.

We call on Beijing to repeal the national security law, including its extraterritorial reach, and on the Hong Kong authorities to end their targeting of individuals in the UK and elsewhere for seeking to exercise their basic rights. Let me reassure the right hon. Member that senior British diplomats immediately went out to reiterate the Foreign Secretary’s deep concerns directly in Hong Kong and Beijing over the Christmas period. Officials here in London immediately raised concerns with the Chinese embassy and the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office here in London.

China’s imposition of the national security law has clearly eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. I raised these concerns with the authorities during my visit to Hong Kong, as did the Foreign Secretary during his visit to Beijing. Following the latest arrest warrants issued by Hong Kong police, ensuring the continued safety of the pro-democracy campaigners remains a top priority for the Government. Let me assure hon. Members that the UK will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong. The Government are deeply committed to supporting all members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK, making such valuable contributions to life here. \p Priti Patel: I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. This is an incredibly serious matter. As the Minister and the House know, on Christmas eve we saw the Hong Kong police once again trying to give the national security law extraterritorial reach and threatening people on British soil. We unequivocally reject any attempt to apply the national security law in the UK. In government, the Conservative party were consistent and clear that it should be repealed.

Today, I want to press the Government on how they will respond to this latest attempt to clamp down on freedoms and dismantle the essence of what made Hong Kong such a special and successful place. Will the Minister explain what practical steps are being taken across the Government to protect those in the UK with bounties placed on their heads, and assess the security of the Hong Kong community in the UK? They have come to the UK under the BNO route established by  the last Government when I was Home Secretary, to live in the UK free from fear of intimidation. We must have a zero-tolerance approach to such behaviours.

Has the Foreign Secretary raised this outrageous attempt to suffocate fundamental freedoms with his counterpart, Wang Yi? Once again, does this not show that this Government’s supposed reset with China is just one way? Before meeting President Xi, the Prime Minister said that he wanted a relationship that is consistent, durable and respectful, and stated that the pair agreed that there would be no more surprises. Does the Minister believe that trying to arrest BNOs in the UK is compatible with any of those comments? Did the Hong Kong or Chinese authorities notify Ministers in advance, or was this a surprise?

Will the Minister confirm, with a simple yes or no, whether the Chancellor will raise these bounties at the highest level when she jets off to China next week to beg for a quick investment to bail out her failing economic strategy? She cannot ignore human rights issues, whether in Hong Kong or Xinjiang, on her visit. Will the Government take this incident into account when considering the planning application for the new Chinese super-embassy in London? \p Catherine West: I thank the right hon. Lady for raising a number of concerns. We are as one on the outrageous attempts to reach across the water to try to impose any intimidation on people based here in the UK. She mentions other human rights concerns, such as those in Xinjiang, and says that long-standing policies, such as the national health service not purchasing cotton equipment from the Xinjiang region, are the right policies. Of course, those policies were brought in following pressure from Members from her own party over previous Parliaments. She is also right to emphasise the importance of the welcome programme for BNO passport holders, which she brought in as Home Secretary, which provides an enormous contrast between a repressive regime and one that welcomes people newly arrived in the UK. Indeed, it is across our regions that the 12 hubs, which were created under her leadership of the Home Office, are going from strength to strength. They are giving people based in the UK the confidence to raise their voice, become active in their local communities, take English classes and all the rest.

The right hon. Lady mentions the Chancellor’s trip; I knew this would be one of her themes, so I have come prepared. As she is well aware, we are in a position where our economy is quite fragile. While we have clear national security concerns—today is a good example of those—we have to balance those concerns with being an outwardly facing and globally trading nation, where we need to sometimes be involved with countries whose values may not align completely with ours. I make no apologies for trying to support British business abroad—including in Hong Kong, where British businesses have said how lovely it is to see MPs visit them. I was able not only to be robust in my condemnation of these sorts of actions, but to support British business, our friends who are based in difficult places and undertaking hardship postings, and our diplomatic staff, who live our values day by day to uphold the strong framework of human rights abroad. \p John Martin McDonnell: I will use this opportunity to ask the Minister whether she and the Chancellor on next week’s visit will raise the  case of my Unite colleague Carol Ng, who became the general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, and who became involved in the democracy movement and has been imprisoned for four years now. During the last statement, I appealed to ensure she had family access. Could her case be raised again, both to secure her release and to at least secure her the opportunity of meeting her family? \p Catherine West: I will, of course. Would my right hon. Friend write to me with the exact details and his most recent update? I have had the privilege of meeting trade union colleagues from Hong Kong, Taiwan and a number of other areas that are very exposed to the People’s Republic of China and some of the tactics we have seen there. I have been pleased that there has been great collaboration across not only the trade union movement here in the UK, but defenders of human rights—be they environmental, relating to freedom of religion or belief or across the great range of freedoms that we enjoy here, and which we want other countries to share, too. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Lib Dem spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: The extraterritorial arrest warrants issued against Hong Kong pro-democracy activists are disgraceful. We must be clear: Hong Kong democracy campaigners such as Carmen Lau, a former district councillor in Hong Kong, are welcome and free to express their views here in the UK. This attempt by Beijing to interfere in our democracy is unacceptable. The previous Government did not do enough to counter this interference, and we urge this Government to go further than words with actions. Will the Minister meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and his constituent Carmen Lau to assure her of the Government’s support? Will the Government clarify that it is illegal to bounty hunt in the UK, and that anyone who does so can expect to be prosecuted? Will she use our Magnitsky sanctions regime against those in Hong Kong and Beijing responsible for the unacceptable targeting of Hong Kong pro-democracy activists? Finally, in the light of the continued detention of Jimmy Lai and these warrants, will the Government reconsider the Chancellor’s planned trip to Beijing? \p Catherine West: I would be delighted to meet Ms Lau again; I believe I met her at an event with Dame Helena Kennedy in the previous Parliament, but it would be lovely to refresh that acquaintance and to hear from her following the traumatic experience she has had. I would be very happy to provide an update in writing, but I will also provide one here—as much as you will let me get away with, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have personally promised Mr Lai’s son, Sebastien, that whenever I have the opportunity, I will raise the case of his father, who remains on trial; in fact, the trial was due to restart on 6 January. I have as many briefings as possible from the consul general to Hong Kong and his team, who are very conscientious and diligent in attending all the trials they can get tickets for and who give me regular updates. I have promised the Lai family that I will continue to do that; I believe I have a meeting with them in the diary in the coming weeks.

On the Chancellor’s visit, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer about balance. Unfortunately, because of our rather exposed position post Brexit, our economy has to be outward looking. If we want our constituents to get away from food banks, we need to have more import-export and to be pragmatic on the matter of having an economic relationship with our fourth biggest trading partner. It is hard to tell the House that, because I want to just talk about the other elements of the relationship. However, when I go to my constituency, and people tell me how hard their lives are and how, over the past 14 years, our economy has gone into decline, I know I have to stand up for our economic relationships as well. \p Blair McDougall: I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the contribution that Hongkongers have made to the UK, which is particularly true in East Renfrewshire. The Hongkongers in my constituency will welcome the strong comments from the Minister and the Foreign Secretary. However, we have heard those comments many times from the Front Bench, and the response from Beijing has been to imprison dozens more people, put more bounties on the heads of British people, escalate transnational repression and keep people like Jimmy Lai in prison. At what point do the consequences come for these actions? As other Members have asked, I ask not just when our senior Ministers will stop going there, but when we will stop welcoming Hong Kong officials here. I also ask whether the Government can and will meet the British nationals who have had bounties put on their heads, and whether they are being given specific security advice. \p Catherine West: Perhaps I could encourage my hon. Friend to join the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, which I know is very active in the House—I was a member before I became a Minister. It provides really regular updates, as does the Hong Kong committee on human rights, which writes a regular email newsletter to update us on the situation of the likes of Ms Lau, who was mentioned earlier in this debate, as well as what is happening across the globe, in the US, Canada, Australia and other places.

My hon. Friend asks how we can manage this most difficult of relationships, and I say that the opportunity we have with an exchange does not in any way take away from our position—in fact, I think it strengthens my arm. If I am in Hong Kong, I can eyeball the Beijing representative and tell him exactly what my views are, with the support of the consul general, who is an excellent representative of the UK, reinforcing that regularly. That is the element of engagement that we have, which we are looking through the audit to increase in order to give us the opportunity to lay our concerns at the door of those with whom we seek to have a dialogue. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing this urgent question. The Minister should not take what I am about to say personally: no matter who is in government, I have been in opposition on this issue, and I continue to be so. I remind her that these seven pro-democracy campaigners, who now have a bounty on their heads, are just the latest act of a Chinese Communist party that does not care what countries like the UK say. Let  us run through the examples: the freezing of all pension savings of those in the UK who fled Hong Kong, which was, outrageously, done by HSBC; Confucius Institutes continuing to spy on Chinese students in universities; illegal Chinese police stations; the bullying back in China of families of those who have fled for human rights reasons; and the brutal assault in Manchester by the consul general himself and others.

I say to the hon. Lady who speaks for the Government that I was at odds with the Foreign Secretary in the previous Government when he said he would do exactly what she says she will do: engage with the Chinese. It was after that that they continued the case against Jimmy Lai. America has sanctioned a large number of Chinese officials at the highest level in Hong Kong. No British Government have so far sanctioned a single person for any of the abuses that have taken place. Will she now say to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that we must sanction people for what they do to abuse British citizens and those we welcome here? Until we do that, we will not be taken seriously. \p Catherine West: I fully accept that, as a sanctioned MP, the right hon. Gentleman is very concerned. I respect and admire his doggedness in raising these issues in the House. I hope he will reply to my invitation, from me and the Foreign Secretary, to visit me in the Foreign Office to discuss his ongoing concerns, including those he has raised today.

Specifically on the Mandatory Provident Fund, this is an ongoing dialogue. Both my predecessor, the former Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and I raised the documentary requirements for withdrawing funds early. Basically, the Hong Kong authorities have a particular approach, but we are quite right to keep campaigning on that. Why should BNO passport holders not receive the funds to which they are entitled? He mentions HSBC. We will continue with any financial institution that is not being fair to its own investors. We will continue, with his support, to campaign for that. On sanctions, he is well aware that there are many sanctions against Chinese entities. I will write to him with the detail of where we are at with sanctions, but he is also aware of the Government’s long-standing position on sanctions, which is that we do not talk about them in the House because that could take away from their efficacy in future. \p Neil Coyle: What representations have been made to the Chinese Communist party’s ambassador here in London on the consequences of a third round of bounties targeting democracy activists, including British nationals and BNOs, here on British shores? \p Catherine West: My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that issue. He will be aware, from the Foreign Secretary’s statement, that it is being taken extremely seriously. We have raised through officials—this happened only on Christmas eve—the concerning example of transnational repression. That is an ongoing discussion. We have a high-profile visit next week. Our officials are in regular contact with Chinese officials who have their embassy here in the UK. In Hong Kong, our excellent consul general meets regularly not just with Hong Kong Ministers but with the Beijing official office in Hong Kong, to put on the record our concern, anger and ongoing human rights concerns wherever they may come from. \p Julian Lewis: No one should be surprised, as I have said before, when a communist totalitarian state behaves like a communist totalitarian state. Does the Minister agree that there is a little pattern emerging here? Every time a senior British politician—be it the Prime Minister or the Chancellor—is going on a visit to the Chinese, something particularly egregious is done. That suggests to me that they are trying to rub our noses in it, and that they are not interested or concerned about anything we say on human rights abuses. \p Catherine West: The right hon. Gentleman can obviously read his coffee cup granules or tea leaves better than I can. I do not know, but I am concerned about the increasing regularity of these sorts of issues. I share his view that we need to understand more. We need to be as robust as possible with representatives here in London and through our excellent diplomatic representation abroad, and join together with the like-minded—an area he has worked on through Congress and other Members. In the case of the US, which is always very robust in its response, I note that its export-import trade flows have increased rather than decreased. \p Sarah Owen: I welcome the Minister’s statement and her robust words, and her outstanding disagreement when it comes to China’s approach to protecting UK people on our soil, in particular those with a bounty on their head or those subject to China’s national security laws. I also welcome her words on HSBC’s disgraceful behaviour in withholding pensions from people who have worked and saved all their lives. What can we do to protect people here on UK soil further? What discussions has she had with her Home Office counterparts to ensure that UK police forces fully understand the seriousness of the threats to Hongkongers’ safety on UK soil? How can we be assured that UK police forces are being adequately trained to understand the pressure from China? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for her thoughtful comments and her support for the cross-party campaign for financial freedom for BNO passport holders here in the UK. If I may, I will pick up on her point about training. On transnational repression, whether from the People’s Republic of China, Iran or other countries with whom we have such a significant disparity in values, it is very important that we continue to deepen our understanding of, and improve our training on, how cyber-crime works and the influence of social media. I am sure she agrees that another area is our learning institutes, including universities, where students report feelings of being watched and being under surveillance. We are wise to all those things. My hon. Friend the Minister for Security and I are working together closely on the challenge of transnational repression. It is much more difficult in this day of social media, but we will redouble our efforts to train law enforcement officers, local government and teachers, so that we can pick up on any fears that victims of transnational repression might be experiencing. \p Mark Pritchard: I agree with the Minister that the UK-China relationship is necessary, but she will know that it is complicated and often conflicted. Russia has attacked political dissidents and refugees in this country, even to the point of murder.  Iran is seeking to track down political dissidents in this country. Now the Chinese state—let us be honest about it—is making direct threats against people living in this country who have sought political asylum. I have two simple questions for the Minister. First, are the security services resourced enough to counter the increased threat? Secondly, are Hongkonger political dissidents safe on the streets of Britain? \p Catherine West: The right hon. Member asks two excellent questions. The first concerns training and capabilities, which feature in our audit of Government Departments and the extent of their preparedness for these increasingly different challenges and threats—they are part of what we are looking at. In response to the second question, I can tell the right hon. Member that BNO passport holders are safe because we keep them safe, and we ensure that there is adequate training and up-to-date knowledge on an ongoing basis. I think that we have the best intelligence services going, particularly when it comes to questions of this sort, but we can never be complacent. Instances such as those raised by the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and others give us an opportunity to underline from Parliament the important and cross-party nature of cracking down on transnational repression. \p Mark Sewards: Chloe Cheung, a resident of Leeds, has been subject to a £100,000 bounty simply for telling the truth about Jimmy Lai. At 19 years old, she is the youngest person to be subject to Hong Kong’s national security law. What reassurances can the Minister give Chloe and other Hongkongers that they will be protected from transnational repression while they reside within our borders? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent constituency work, and for knowing his constituents so well such a short time after being elected. I can reassure him that if he feels that the advice that his constituent has been given is in any way lacking, he can write to me so that I can secure a specially designed package of safety for that vulnerable 19-year-old. \p Jim Shannon: How far are the Government prepared to go before the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland decides to push back in relation to this issue? I have heard many reports, in my constituency and across Northern Ireland, of the targeting of families and friends of mine by Chinese authorities. They feel vulnerable in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, all of which is now on the frontline. The Government must step up and protect our citizens. \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Member for relentlessly raising in the House the issue of human rights and the concerns of his constituents. May I refer them to the excellent welcome programme, which is run through local authorities? It was introduced by the last Government and is being continued by this Government. Its purpose is to provide a warm welcome and help people with employability and some of the softer skills—English language courses, for instance—but it has a hard edge to it as well: it is linked with community policing, so  that we can be absolutely sure that no one here in the UK is afraid for their safety owing to intimidation from a Government many miles away. \p Emily Darlington: I thank the Minister for coming here to give reassurance. Many thousands of people from Hong Kong have decided to settle in Milton Keynes, and we are very pleased that they are adding to our wonderful diversity. Some of those who contacted me over Christmas are quite concerned, and not just for themselves but for their families who remain in Hong Kong and are fervent believers in democracy and in their nation of Hong Kong, and who want to ensure that that is protected through their ability to campaign for it. The rise of transnational aggression continues. Also over Christmas, one of my constituents, Hazar Denli, who is a whistleblower, was issued with an arrest warrant from Vietnam. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can deal with something that is happening increasingly across the world? \p Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for being such an involved constituency Member and for being so responsive over the Christmas period. A number of every active MPs are sitting behind me. Let me make a more serious point. These are the sort of constituency concerns that we want to jump to immediately. In the first place, could my hon. Friend approach her constituent and check that he has the required safety package and that the police in that wonderful city of Milton Keynes are aware of the case? Could she also send me some details about the other case that she mentioned, which I am happy to look at, so that I can write back to her with an informed answer? \p Sarah Olney: I am fortunate enough to have a large community of Hongkongers in my constituency, who are extremely welcome, but they often speak to me about the limitations imposed on them by the conditions of the BNO visa under which they have arrived in this country. They cannot gain full access to healthcare, education or employment opportunities. Does the Minister agree that addressing some of the concerns felt by Hongkongers in Britain will send the Chinese Government a strong message about how much we value our Hong Kong citizens, and how hard this Government work to support their freedoms and their right to live in this country? \p Catherine West: I have the pleasure of walking in Richmond Park, which is a lovely thing to do, and I thank the hon. Member for her concern for her constituents.

The scheme was designed by the last Government. There are now 293,000 BNO passport holders in the UK, and on the whole I think it is a success story, given the 12 hubs, the welcome programme, the English courses and so on, but there are always improvements to be made. Perhaps the hon. Member would direct her question to my colleagues in the Home Office in the first instance, but also copy me in. I am keen to know how we can be even more welcoming, so that we can provide the contrast of a society that values difference and values newcomers and what they bring, but that also makes everyone feel safe. \p Peter Swallow: The British Hong Kong community, including those who have made their homes in my constituency, will welcome the Minister’s robust answers today. Will she confirm that Beijing’s actions against BNOs will be scrutinised as part of the Government’s China audit? \p Catherine West: Yes, of course, but it is a fairly broad audit, so if there is anything specific that my hon. Friend would like our officials to look at, will he send me just a couple of paragraphs so that I can wind that into our response? We want an up-to-date audit and we are hoping to publish it in the coming months, so perhaps he could do that soonish.

We want to be robust on human rights and security, and we are concerned about cyber-security and other aspects of the transnational repression that appears to be growing, but this also has an edge to it, in that we are looking at our own national interest and at where we are exposed economically. This is a difficult thing that we have to do in foreign policy: to look to our own interests, as well as defending our broader human values and human rights. \p Stephen Gethins: The Minister was right to point out that Brexit has made us more vulnerable. I wonder whether the UK is fit for the increased challenges to democracy, be they from the Russian Federation, Iran or China; the Intelligence and Security Committee highlighted that some years ago. I also note that a foreign oligarch called for the unelected Head of State to get rid of the democratically elected Government, using his own social media channel.

On a serious note, will Ministers introduce updated measures showing how they see themselves defending democracy in the UK, including the rights of those who are already here, while also protecting us all from outside interference? \p Catherine West: I will not be tempted down the particular track that the hon. Member has invited me to go down, involving oligarchs and so forth, but what I will say is that we live in a very uncertain time. There is a sense of “safety first” in foreign policy: we would like to close everything down and just operate within the UK, but that option is not available to us. What we therefore seek to do is bring ourselves into line with other interlocutors. Janet Yellen, a very robust interlocutor, has visited Beijing a number of times. The Australians, the Singaporeans and a number of others do not have to leave their values at the door if they want to have a discussion about a particular economic opportunity, or if they are worried about something; they say what they want to say in an engagement. I can promise the hon. Member that there will be no return to the golden era and a pint with Xi Jinping, but there will be a heightened awareness of our national security, and human rights will be paramount. \p Desmond Swayne: The Chinese Government respect one thing: strength. So long as they continue to perceive that we are cringing, they will treat us with the contempt they believe we deserve, so how many Hong Kong officials have we sanctioned? \p Catherine West: As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office is still functioning here in the UK. We are keeping a close watch on the situation, and we keep all these things under review. My visit to Hong Kong in November was instructive, and I can assure him that nobody was cringing when I met the representative from Beijing. If you think this Minister cringes, then you don’t know her. \p David Chadwick: If human rights are paramount, why should we allow our trade balance to determine how we respond to abuses of human rights? \p Catherine West: The hon. Member asks a very important question. There is a three-legged approach in good foreign policy, with national security first, human rights as our duty, and an eye to our economy, because I do not think any of us wants the continuation of a situation where our economy is at the bottom of the league table, which is how it feels now. \p Andrew Murrison: The malign extraterritorial reach of the Chinese Communist party is being played out in very human terms, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on bringing an example of that to the Floor of the House today. Why, then, are this Government potentially facilitating that reach by handing over the Chagos islands? \p Catherine West: This urgent question is about Hong Kong, but I think it is very important that when international courts make decisions—be that on the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, or other international court judgments—we comply with them. \p Blake Stephenson: Does the Minister agree that the national security law for Hong Kong is in direct conflict with article 23 of the Basic Law for Hong Kong and a clear breach of the Sino-British joint declaration? \p Catherine West: We have been relentless in pushing back on the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong. When meeting civil society organisations in Hong Kong in November, I reassured people there of the values of this House. For those of us who were founding members of Hong Kong Watch, when the Prime Minister of the time was having a pint with Xi Jinping, we will never turn away from underlining the importance of those fundamental rights and what Hongkongers enjoyed in the past. It is terribly sad to see the erosion of those rights, but we cannot just give up and walk away. We have to have a dialogue, we have to keep pointing out our point of view, and we have to keep pushing back. \p Luke Taylor: Hongkonger residents I represent in Sutton and Cheam are regularly in touch with me to outline their fears and uncertainty, living under the threat of the transnational repression operated by China. The news that China is now issuing arrest warrants and bounties for the identification of pro-democracy campaigners in the UK is another step in that fear and repression. They often wonder, will they  be next? May I ask the Minister again to make it clear to China that these bounties are illegal and that any individuals who engage in the practice will be prosecuted? More broadly, will she start to stand up to China and its unacceptable persecution of British residents by applying Magnitsky sanctions to the Hong Kong officials responsible? \p Catherine West: We will always maintain our flexibility on Magnitsky sanctions; that is the benefit of them, post Brexit, as we have our own sanctions programme now. The hon. Member will be aware of the important work we are doing to sanction certain Chinese companies that are facilitating Russia in the Ukrainian conflict. We will continue to look at what we can do within that regime, to ensure that we use any tools we have to strengthen international processes and procedures and to stand up again and again for what is right in the international arena of human rights. \p Jim Allister: What oversight is there by the Foreign Office of our devolved institutions’ connections with China? I ask because Simon Cheng, a pro-democracy Hong Kong activist who is in exile because he was tortured in China, has properly criticised the fact that when the First Ministers of Northern Ireland recently had contact with Chinese authorities, they refused to publish a record of those meetings. What oversight is there to ensure that we are presenting a united front across the United Kingdom to China? \p Catherine West: I do not think the hon. and learned Member intended a pun with “united front”. Taking his point very seriously, I think we could be doing more, and if he could write to me with the example he mentioned—the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) has also mentioned a particular incident to me in Edinburgh that I was unaware of—I would like that, so that I can challenge our officials to come up with a more robust, joined-up approach. As he is aware, following the general election in July, the Prime Minister set out first to Edinburgh, then to Cardiff and then to Belfast to emphasise the importance of the devolved regions to a holistic way of looking at governance. This is a really good example of where we could be doing more. \p Bobby Dean: I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers on the Chancellor’s visit to Beijing, and I believe she has said that concerns will be raised. Concerns have been raised time and again, and it has got us nowhere, so is it not time to draw a line in the sand? Is it not the minimum we could do to raise our voices a little more loudly, demonstrate our anger a little more publicly and cancel the Chancellor’s visit to Beijing? \p Catherine West: The hon. Member is quite right to say that it has been raised, not least by the Prime Minister when he met Xi Jinping; he is on film raising the Jimmy Lai case, which is in the courts right now. That is the nature of a dialogue—to raise it—but we will be robust in the way that we raise those cases, and we will continue to make a point. There will not be cancelling of trips, on the basis that there has to be an element of outward focus by the UK, particularly given the economic legacy and the position we find ourselves in. I will pass on the hon. Member’s concerns, and I will certainly listen to any further suggestions he has, but I believe that engagement is necessary. \p Tom Gordon: Harrogate and Knaresborough is blessed to have a small but thriving group of Hongkongers who have made it their home and opened up a number of local businesses, adding to the fabric of our towns. My worry is that, with the latest arrest warrants and transnational repression, Hongkongers will not want to be visible in public, playing that part in our communities. What tangible steps will this Government take to get the message down to people on the ground that this is not something we will stand for and that we will stand by and support them? \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Member for his question and, with his permission, I will take it away to see which hub he is closest to. Twelve hubs were set up specifically for the welcome programme for BNO passport holders, so keen were we in 2021 to extend the hand of friendship to those who were so cruelly treated in Hong Kong and continue to be. I will write back to him; if he could email me with any specific constituency issues, it would mean a more informed reply. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Alex McIntyre: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for an entitlement to paid safe leave for victims of domestic abuse; and for connected purposes.

Domestic abuse is a national emergency. All Members of this House will have been contacted by women and men in their constituencies who have suffered from domestic abuse at some point in their lives. According to SafeLives, approximately 2.1 million people in the UK have experienced some form of domestic abuse. Sadly, the majority are women, and I will refer today to the Government’s mission to tackle violence against women and girls. But we should not forget that 750,000 of those survivors are men, and Office for National Statistics data shows that one in seven men has experienced domestic abuse. Although those figures may shock some Members of this House, they do not paint a full picture of the emergency that we are in.

One in four women has experienced domestic abuse. At least one woman is killed by a current or former partner every week in this country. Each year, more than 75,000 people are at high or imminent risk of being murdered or seriously injured as a result of domestic abuse. Some 1.5 million domestic abuse-related incidents were recorded by police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2023, and nearly 250 people were arrested in Gloucester alone this December for domestic abuse-related offences. Behind all the statistics, however, is a human being—a person in our society, our communities and cities like mine who has faced unimaginable pain and suffering.

Domestic abuse is not just about physical violence. It is also about psychological manipulation, economic control, coercion and the isolation of victims from their friends, families and support networks. It affects people of all ages, backgrounds and walks of life. It takes a profound toll on a survivor’s physical and mental health. The trauma of abuse lingers and leaves long-lasting scars on victims that can take years, if not decades, to heal.

The impact of domestic abuse has been brought home to me, as a new MP, by the constituents who have attended my surgeries across the city and shared their personal stories. They include survivors and victims who have had to flee across the country, only to be followed by their abuser, individuals who have been prevented from having friends or even getting a job for more than a decade, and constituents who have been forced to pay their abuser’s rent long after they left the relationship.

Of course, we in Gloucester all remember the horrific murder of Hollie Gazzard, which I raised at Prime Minister’s questions just before Christmas. In 2014, Hollie was murdered at work by her boyfriend after months of obsessive behaviour, jealousy and harassment. Tackling domestic abuse matters to me, and it matters to my city. I have already held a roundtable with local charities and organisations, including the Hollie Gazzard Trust, FearFree and the Gloucestershire Domestic Abuse Support Service, and putting forward this Bill would  not have been possible without the tireless campaigning and research of national organisations such as Women’s Aid, SafeLives and Rights of Women.

I am pleased that this Government are already getting on with the job of supporting victims and survivors of domestic abuse as part of their unprecedented mission to halve violence against women and girls. We have already introduced domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms up and down the country and rolled out domestic abuse protection orders, which enable victims to be protected from all forms of domestic abuse, including non-physical abuse and controlling or coercive behaviour. However, I genuinely believe that this Bill could play an important part in that mission, and change the lives of victims and survivors across the country.

Why this Bill? Well, perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of leaving an abusive relationship is the financial reality. Survivors often find themselves trapped in cycles of abuse, because they simply cannot afford to leave. Figures from Women’s Aid’s recent report, “The Price of Safety”, suggest that it could cost a survivor almost £50,000 to leave an abuser, based on the direct costs of fleeing and rebuilding a new life. Despite the financial burden, taking time off work is an unavoidable necessity for many victims—whether it is for medical treatment, finding a new place to live, attending court hearings, seeking legal advice or taking their children to safety.

The demands on a survivor’s time are overwhelming, and many are forced to take holiday to give evidence against their abusers in court. Many take time off sick, only to fall foul of their employer for having too much sickness absence. Some take the impossible decision that they simply cannot afford to leave, so they remain in unsafe situations, continuing the cycle of violence. Two weeks’ paid safe leave would give victims and survivors the time they need to seek help, to find the resources they need to escape their abuser, and to start the long process of healing.

Let me be clear: victims of abuse should never have to choose between their safety or their wages. Survivors should not have to take annual leave to attend court in order to see their abusers prosecuted. Women fleeing an abusive husband should not have to call in sick and face the sack for getting their children to safety. Victims should not fear repercussions at work just for seeking help.

The last Conservative Government undertook a review of domestic abuse leave and concluded that it would be too difficult to implement. I do not accept that. What I do accept is that there will be complexities in ensuring that an entitlement to paid leave works as intended, that it supports survivors and victims of domestic abuse, and that it provides a framework by which survivors and victims can feel confident in having confidential conversations at work about what they are going through at home, free from fear of repercussions or a detrimental impact on their career. Unlike the Conservative party, however, I do not believe that something should be stuck in a drawer and forgotten about just because it is difficult. That is why I propose that the Bill require the Secretary of State to come back with regulations to implement safe leave. Such a process would allow the Government to consult victims and survivors, charities such as Women’s Aid, Refuge and SafeLives, businesses  and employers, and trade unions in order to tackle the difficult issues head-on and deliver for victims and survivors.

Some may argue that providing paid leave for domestic abuse victims will put a burden on employers. Although such leave would be paid for by businesses, that argument misses the bigger picture. Domestic abuse already costs business and the economy. A 2019 study by KPMG shows that businesses in the UK lost £316 million a year as a result of work-related absences due to domestic abuse. Women’s Aid and ResPublica have calculated that domestic abuse cost our society £78 billion in 2022 alone. The reality is that employers who already voluntarily offer supportive work environments, including domestic abuse leave, tend to foster loyalty, improve employee retention and create safer, happier and healthier workplaces. It is no longer enough to say that domestic abuse is a personal issue; it is an issue that should concern every workplace, every employer, and every member of this House.

We do not have to look far for examples of how safe leave can be introduced in this country. In fact, parts of the United Kingdom have already begun the process of introducing safe leave. The Northern Ireland Assembly have passed the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, and are currently consulting on proposals. Residents in the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the Philippines all have the right to time off work because of the domestic abuse they have suffered. As this Government are taking a global lead on tackling violence against women and girls, I truly believe that my proposal would be a fantastic part of that agenda.

Today, I hope to start a conversation in workplaces up and down the country so that employers ask themselves a very simple question: “If one of my employees was  suffering from domestic abuse, would they come to us for help?” If the answer is no, surely more needs to be done. Safe leave would save lives. Safe leave would start conversations in workplaces in my city of Gloucester that will help survivors and victims of domestic abuse get to safety, get the support they need and get back on their feet.

Imagine living in a society in which victims and survivors of domestic abuse feel safe and empowered to seek support at work. Imagine if, having fled your home, got your children to safety and then taken legal action against your abuser, you did not have to worry about your job. You could take the time to attend court, get medical help and see your solicitor, safe in the knowledge that you had a protected and paid right to time off. That is the kind of society that I want to live in.

In closing, I ask the House to consider the many victims and survivors who are suffering in silence today; I ask Members to think about the children and families whose lives have been torn apart by violence; and I ask all of us to think about what we as Members of this House can do to ensure that these survivors are not abandoned or left behind. Introducing two weeks of paid leave for victims of domestic abuse is a step towards a more just, compassionate and equal society. It is a commitment that we will stand by survivors, support them and never stop fighting until violence against women and girls is a thing of the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Alex McIntyre, Jess Asato, Emily Darlington, Catherine Fookes, Dr Allison Gardner, Tom Hayes, Uma Kumaran, Alice Macdonald, Ben Maguire, Anneliese Midgley, Katrina Murray and Mrs Sarah Russell present the Bill.

Alex McIntyre accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June 2025, and to be printed (Bill 157). \p UNKNOWN: Second Reading \p Darren Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. May I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) on his moving ten-minute rule Bill, which he just presented?

The purpose of the Crown Estate Bill is to bring legislation governing the Crown Estate into the 21st century. The Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from government, that operates for profit and competes in the marketplace for investment, yet it is restricted in its ability to do so by legislation that has not been amended since 1961. With less ability to compete and to invest, it is less able to deliver returns for the public purse than it might otherwise be able to do.

Existing limitations on the Crown Estate’s powers have meant it has had to generate capital for investment by selling its assets, which is neither desirable nor sustainable. Under current legislation, the Crown Estate is constrained in its ability to support sustainable projects and to preserve our heritage for generations to come. These are the reasons why the Bill is necessary and why the Crown Estate has asked successive Governments for reforms.

The Bill has been expanded and improved during its passage in the other place, with requirements relating to sustainable development, GB Energy and the composition of the board. Fundamentally, the changes that the Bill proposes will give the Crown Estate new freedoms, including the power to borrow as their competitors can, enabling them to adopt a sustainable and competitive business model.

The Bill has two key objectives. First, it broadens the scope of activities that the Crown Estate can invest in, in order to support the delivery of its core purpose across net zero, nature recovery, economic growth and generating returns to the public purse. In its current form, it is predominantly a property estate and is significantly limited in its investment options. The Bill would provide it with the ability to invest more widely in new growth opportunities—for example, investing in the further mapping of our seabed. This will enable it to undertake significant de-risking activity, such as pre-consent surveys and supporting grid connections, thus increasing the frequency of leasing for offshore wind and supporting the clean energy transition. \p Stephen Flynn: I hope the Minister will not hear much disagreement about the points he is making so eloquently. However, may I query why these provisions and powers, which he believes are relevant for the Crown Estate in England and Wales, are not also being provided to the Crown Estate in Scotland? \p Darren Jones: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Crown Estate Scotland is a separate organisation to the Crown Estate that is the subject of the Bill. Of course, we continue to have conversations and we will be pleased to talk to him and others about that issue for the future. \p Stephen Flynn: On that point, will the Minister give way? \p Darren Jones: I will make some progress.

The second objective of the Bill is to enable the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively. It does so by empowering the Crown Estate to reduce the size of the cash reserves it needs to hold, thereby expanding its ability to use its land and property assets far more efficiently. \p Mark Pritchard: Let us be clear that this is a huge departure for the Crown Estate. The Bill basically allows it to go to the City and to raise capital based on its assets, most of which, as the Minister highlights, are property. As he knows, the sponsor Government Department for the Crown Estate is the Treasury, but investments go up and down. What if those investments go down? Who will be the guarantor for those liabilities? Will it be the taxpayer or the Crown Estate? \p Darren Jones: I will come to a number of those points later in my speech. If I have not answered the right hon. Gentleman’s points as I get towards the end, I will take another intervention from him.

As a result of the changes in the Bill, the Crown Estate will be able to accelerate investment in redeveloping and decarbonising its Regent Street and historic London portfolio, as well as investing in projects to support science and innovation. The Bill will unlock potential investment of up to £1.5 billion in the science, technology and innovation economy over the next 15 years, building on the Crown Estate’s recent investment in the city of Oxford.

To reduce the size of its cash holdings and engage in more capital-intensive activity in the long term, the Crown Estate needs the ability to borrow, as its competitors currently can. Such borrowing will be from the Government or from other sources, but only with Treasury consent. Borrowing from the Government will be at commercial rates, meaning the interest the Crown Estate pays, funded from its own income, will outweigh the Government’s cost of borrowing the money they loan to the Crown Estate. This will enable the Crown Estate to build on its long track record of delivering significant revenues to the public purse year after year—it has delivered over £4 billion in the last decade. \p Mark Pritchard: Is there not a potential conflict of interest? The Minister mentions GB Energy, a new national organisation introduced by Labour Government policy. Because of the Crown Estate’s partnership with the Treasury, the Government are encouraging the Crown Estate to invest in GB Energy, but what if people out there do not like that policy? What if GB Energy is a failure? It is there not a clear potential conflict of interest between the Crown Estate and the incumbent Government? \p Darren Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is doing a brilliant job of anticipating sections in my speech. Once again, I will point at him when I come to the relevant section; in fact, it is the next section, so he is in luck.

There will be a memorandum of understanding in place between the Treasury and the Crown Estate that will govern how the borrowing powers will be exercised. Above all, the Crown Estate will be borrowing for investment, maximising the profits returned to the public purse. Any such borrowing will require Treasury consent and will be within our fiscal rules.

Given that the new powers will enable the Crown Estate to first draw on its cash holdings, it is not envisaged that these borrowing powers will be used until the end of the decade. As with any public sector borrowing, the Treasury will ensure that this is consistent with “Managing Public Money” principles to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. The fiscal impact of any Crown Estate borrowing will be fully considered, starting with this year’s spending review, to ensure it is consistent with our fiscal rules.

The Bill contains a set of necessary reforms, ensuring that the two key objectives can be met and that the Crown Estate can continue to operate effectively, both now and in the years ahead. It is composed of five key elements. First, it widens investment powers by removing existing restrictions on investing in the current Crown Estate Act 1961, and clarifies the Crown Estate’s ability to invest in complementary activities, such as research, digital technology and energy supply chains. Secondly, it grants the Crown Estate the power to borrow with Treasury consent. As well as generating returns for the public purse, the new ability to borrow will free it up to make better use of its existing assets, leveraging these to give it more room to invest.

Thirdly, the Bill makes amendments relating to the governance of the Crown Estate to provide legislative simplification and to bring it in line with best practice for modern corporate governance. By expanding the number of commissioners, the board will be able to better reflect the growing breadth of the Crown Estate business and ensure a greater range of expertise and diversity at board level. The Bill also requires the appointment of commissioners to advise on Wales, England and Northern Ireland, which will ensure that the board continues to act in the best interests of the areas in which it operates.

Fourthly, the Bill requires the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development goals in the UK. It is important that progress towards national goals on the environment and climate, as well as wider considerations on society and the economy, continue to be at the core of the Crown Estate’s strategy.

Fifthly, the Bill requires the annual report to include a section on the activities of the commissioners under their recently announced partnership with Great British Energy. That will ensure that details of the partnership and the benefits it creates are publicly available, clear to all and subject to debate in this House when those reports are published. \p Alistair Carmichael: I understand that the Minister is proposing that, in relation to the seabed, the Crown Estate will be a licensing authority for renewable energy projects and will now be able to invest in them too. The commissioners have a primary duty to maximise the return to the Crown Estate of any activity they undertake. To comply with the law, will the Crown Estate be compelled to side with renewable energy development at the expense of the fishing industry if, for example, there is a conflict between the siting of an offshore wind farm and the use of that sea by the fishing industry, and is that fair? \p Darren Jones: That is a great question. I have no idea, so I will commit to writing to the right hon. Gentleman with an answer, if he will forgive me for not knowing. \p Melanie Onn: Will the Minister give way? \p Darren Jones: Only if it is a question to which I know the answer. \p Melanie Onn: I might be able to help a little with the question asked by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). The Crown Estate has engaged in supporting the evidence and change programme that has brought the fishing industry and the renewables sector around the table to enable earlier planning to prevent some of the conflicts we have seen. My speech will highlight some good examples of where those plans and the evidence and change programme have started to be implemented. The industries are working together, hand in hand, to prevent the kind of conflict about which the right hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned. \p Darren Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her help, which I hope gives the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) some reassurance, as it sounds eminently sensible. \p Jayne Kirkham: Clause 3 covers this:

“The Commissioners must keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.”

This has been written into the Bill. \p Darren Jones: I am continually grateful for the team effort, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends for having paid such close attention to the Bill. \p Alistair Carmichael: I am aware of the duty to keep this under review, but that will surely be overridden, because the primary duty remains to maximise the return for the Crown Estate. I am quite happy for the Crown Estate to be both a licensor and an investor, although there is something of a conflict of interest, but surely there needs to be more concern about the Bill’s impact on other seagoing industries. In a way, I fear that the Minister’s response to my initial question suggests this has not been given sufficient attention thus far. \p Darren Jones: The right hon. Gentleman should not take my not knowing the answer as meaning that other people are not paying sufficient attention to the issue. He has asked a very technical question, and I commit to making sure an answer is made available to him and the House before the Bill goes to Committee.

The Bill currently places an obligation on the commissioners in relation to salmon farming, due to an amendment made in the other place. The Government do not believe this obligation would be effective or, indeed, appropriate, given that it relates to a devolved policy area. We therefore intend to seek to remove this measure in Committee.

The Bill has seven clauses. Clause 1 inserts two new measures into the Crown Estate Act 1961 to clarify and broaden the commissioners’ powers. It also removes section 3(4) of the 1961 Act, thereby removing limitations on the commissioners’ investment powers.

The two new measures grant a power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent, and clarify that the commissioners have the powers to do that which is connected, conducive or incidental to meeting their general functions, including enhancing and maintaining the Crown Estate and the returns obtained from it. This allows the Crown Estate to borrow from the National Loans Fund, the Treasury or otherwise, subject to Treasury consent, and authorises the Treasury to provide financial assistance to the commissioners or to provide loans from the National Loans Fund.

Clause 2 makes two amendments to modernise the Crown Estate’s governance, by increasing the maximum number of board members from eight to 12 and removing the requirement for the salaries and expenses of its commissioners to be paid out of voted funds.

Clause 3 requires the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. Clause 4 requires the commissioners’ annual report to include a specific report relating to the Crown Estate’s partnership with Great British Energy.

Clause 5 requires the commissioners to make assessments relating to salmon farms on Crown Estate land, and to refuse or revoke a licence for a salmon farm if the assessment determines that it may cause, or is causing, environmental damage, or if it raises significant animal welfare concerns. \p Stephen Flynn: The Minister has mentioned GB Energy and the desire to get on with allowing the Crown Estate in England and Wales to borrow. He will not have forgotten that GB Energy is likely to be located in my Aberdeen South constituency, and many of its projects to drive the net zero agenda across the UK will come to fruition in Scotland. Will he provide a little clarity on why he believes these powers should apply to the Crown Estate in England and Wales, yet his Government are not legislating for the powers to be provided to Crown Estate Scotland? I am at a loss to understand the reasoning. \p Darren Jones: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the ambitions for GB Energy are broader than those relating to the provisions of this Bill. On the connection between the Crown Estate and GB Energy in relation to this Bill, it is merely about the partnership that has already been announced to facilitate the investment opportunities that are available in relation to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my previous answer on Crown Estate Scotland. \p Steve Race: We have talked a little about Scotland and Wales, but does the Minister believe this Bill will stimulate greater economic growth in other areas and regions of the country? The south-west peninsula has a huge amount of wind energy potential, for example, so has he assessed what sort of investment opportunities might come from this Bill? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question. He will know from the work of ministerial colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero that the enormous potential for offshore wind in the Celtic sea and off the south-west coast is currently  largely untapped. A lot of the work that needs to be done to make those seabeds available, and to bring the interconnections onshore and on to the grid to make it viable for private sector investment, requires quite a lot of up-front work. The Bill will enable the Crown Estate, working in partnership with GB Energy, to identify opportunities to invest in things like supply chain and in preparation and planning for the seabed work, and to identify the cost profiles that might relate to the projects that are being developed. That will facilitate the deals that we wish to make with private sector suppliers to unlock those opportunities. We see this as an important enabling mechanism to take advantage of the opportunities we have in the south-west and other parts of the country.

Clause 6 requires the appointment of separate commissioners with responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland, noting, as I have on a number of occasions, that Crown Estate Scotland is a separate entity. It also grants Welsh Ministers and the Executive Office in Northern Ireland the right to be consulted on each of the appointments relating to those parts of the UK. Clause 7 sets out procedural matters relating to the Bill’s extent and commencement.

The Bill gives the Crown Estate the flexibility it needs to meet its core duty of enhancing and maintaining the value of the estate and the returns obtained from it. The Bill broadens the scope of the activities in which the Crown Estate can engage, enabling it to further invest in the energy transition, and it empowers the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively. Critically, these measures will unlock more long-term investment, increasing the Crown Estate’s contribution to creating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the United Kingdom.

This Bill delivers a targeted and measured enhancement to the Crown Estate’s powers and governance, modernising it for the 21st century, and I commend it to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p James Wild: The work on reforming the Crown Estate was developed by the previous Government. I am pleased to be debating the Bill today, and I thank my noble Friends for the scrutiny they have already provided.

We support the objective to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete and invest, so that it maintains and enhances the value of the estate and the income derived from it. Assets managed by the Crown Estate are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate. Since George III, the assets have been held in right of the Crown, which encompasses the interests of the sovereign and the Government. That is why appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate and its £15.5 billion in total assets is important. It has a rural portfolio of 185,000 acres, manages roughly 7,400 miles of coastline, has one of the largest property portfolios in the west end and returns all its profits to the Treasury. Last year, there was a record profit of £1.1 billion, up more than £600 million largely due to fees from round 4, and it has generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances over the past decade. There is, however, the potential to do more. In the business case prepared under the last Government,  the Crown Estate estimated that changes in the Bill would enable it to generate £100 million a year in additional revenues by 2030. It is right, therefore, that we help to modernise the Crown Estate as it aims to create lasting prosperity for the nation.

Although we support the Bill’s aims, further scrutiny is obviously needed in some areas, including a limit on the level of borrowing, governance, the relationship with Great British Energy and safeguards in relation to the disposal of assets. I will come to each in turn.

As we have heard, the kernel of the Bill is clause 1, which confers on the Crown Estate a broader power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent. While I note the need for Treasury approval, a lack of parliamentary oversight on borrowing levels is a concern. When pushed by Baroness Vere of Norbiton and other noble Lords, the Government stated that a limit on borrowing

“is better placed outside of legislation”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1400.]

and instead should be placed in the memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and the Treasury.

The MOU sets out that the Crown Estate can borrow up to 25% of the worth of its total assets, but an MOU is easily altered. Public borrowing levels should be transparent. If Parliament is being asked to remove restrictions on borrowing, why should there not be a cap in legislation with the ability to swiftly amend it through a statutory instrument, if necessary, to protect against unconstrained borrowing and the concerns that my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin raised? \p Mark Pritchard: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Crown Estate and Treasury’s framework agreement was ineffective, or that at least it could have been strengthened. The memorandum of understanding is in a similar vein. I therefore support him.

Will he comment on this? I have concerns about the Bill. I agree with the general principle but there are potential fiscal and reputational hazards ahead for the Crown—not just the Crown Estate—if some of the investments go south. Also, at the moment there is a link between the Crown Estate and the sovereign grant. I think it is around 12%, as not all the income to the sovereign grant is derived from the Crown Estate. However, if the investments were to go wrong, who would be liable? If we have a weak MOU with no statutory oversight, it is more likely to go wrong. \p James Wild: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the potential risk. There is no one-way bet in life, and there is no guarantee that the Crown Estate will successfully invest in projects that go well. I will come on to the point about the energy side of things later in my speech.

It is perfectly reasonable, as we proposed in the other place, to have that 25% cap in legislation, which could be amended. I am sure we will consider the issue further in Committee.

The Bill alters the governance of the Crown Estate and provides for the number of commissioners to be increased to 12. Given the extension of the powers and the decrease in parliamentary oversight, pre-appointment  scrutiny is of great importance. Again, I thank Baroness Vere for seeking and securing assurances from the Government that the chairman of the Crown Estate commissioners could be added to the Cabinet Office pre-appointment scrutiny list. Just before Christmas, Ric Lewis was announced as the preferred candidate for the role and I am pleased that the appointment will now be considered by the Treasury Committee. Will the Minister confirm in his winding-up speech whether other commissioners will be subject to any pre-appointment scrutiny?

Turning to salaries, which I do not believe the Chief Secretary referred to, under clause 2, Parliament will no longer be responsible for approving them through the estimates. Instead, they will be paid out of the income of the Crown Estate. Currently, the framework document sets out that remuneration of the chief executive should be in line with or below that of an appropriate benchmark group approved by the Treasury and that a clear majority of the chief executive’s total reward should be conditional upon performance. We support rewarding success, but with the loss of parliamentary oversight, will the Minister confirm whether any changes are proposed to the remuneration framework and, specifically, for the chief executive? Will he undertake to report to the House on any such change in future?

Turning to Great British Energy, on the day the Bill was introduced, the Government announced a partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy, which they claimed will

“unleash billions of investment in clean power.”

Indeed, the press release went on to say it

“will lead to up to 20-30GW of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030”.

However, there is a lack of transparency over how the partnership will work, the difference it will make, and its impact on the Estate’s primary duties. Given the supposed significance, I would have expected to have seen a partnership agreement by now, as without one, we do not know what has been agreed. Will the Minister confirm if there is a partnership agreement yet? Will he commit to publishing it before the Committee stage? Has the Crown Estate agreed to invest a certain amount with GB Energy? What process is there to ensure the Crown Estate continues to deliver on its duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate? How will the Crown Estate decide between projects GB Energy backs and other projects that may have a higher rate of return?

The GB Energy founding statement adds to the confusion, adding that the Crown Estate

“will establish a new division ‘Great British Energy: The Crown Estate’.”

That raises several questions. Will new staff be required, or will it simply be a restructuring of the existing group? The statement also says it will sit

“under both Great British Energy and The Crown Estate, with strategy and investment agreed by Great British Energy.”

Will decisions be made jointly on investments, or will the Crown Estate retain its independence? Given the Government voted down our amendments to the Great British Energy Bill to introduce more accountability, it simply fuels some suspicion that the partnership has been created for political rather than economic reasons. The reporting requirements that were secured and added  to the Bill in clause 4, which the Chief Secretary referred to, will at least help to bring some transparency to this, but there is a need for a lot more.

Under the previous Government, the UK became the first to more than halve emissions while growing the economy and became a leader in offshore wind. However, we must acknowledge that renewables are not cheap in all scenarios. There is clearly a risk that the Government will push up the cost of wind by rushing ahead to meet their political target and increase prices for consumers as a result. That is a far cry from the £300 cut in energy bills that Labour promised during the general election. As we scrutinise the Bill, Parliament has an important role to play to ensure the Government do not seek to use the Crown Estate to try and deliver the Energy Secretary’s damaging policies and undermine returns to the taxpayer.

As I set out earlier, the Crown Estate owns some vital assets, so it is surprising that there are so few safeguards to prevent commissioners from selling off such important assets. In the business case for the changes, the Crown Estate was planning £1.4 billion of disposals to fund investments, representing nearly 10% of its portfolio. When I asked Crown Estate representatives what that covered, they said they were unable to disclose plans for disposals because it is commercially sensitive information. Again, that raises concerns about transparency. In response to questions in the other place, the Government said they were working with legal experts

“to establish the extent to which the Crown Estate can currently sell the seabed”

for example. On Report, Lord Livermore confirmed that if the Government establish that

“further legislation is required to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed,”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1412.]

they would bring forward an amendment.

I would be grateful if, in his winding up, the Minister could update the House on the process of those discussions and the need for such an amendment. The disposal of assets should be properly scrutinised. The Government rejected attempts in the other place to bring more scrutiny here and said that a statutory limit on disposals would undermine the flexibility of the Crown Estate to operate commercially. Given that the assets are held for the benefit of the nation, we should ensure some form of transparency if they are to be disposed of, whether that is reporting to Parliament, or seeking HMT approval for disposal of specific assets, or those over a set value.

Finally, let me turn to salmon. Clause 5 would require the commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards on salmon farms on the Crown Estate. If a salmon farm is causing damage or animal welfare issues, its licence would have to be refused. I commend my noble Friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for his tireless work on this matter and for highlighting that salmon farming can cause detrimental impacts in the event of escapes in terms of disease, breeding and other issues. Given that wild Atlantic salmon are now on the international union for conservation of nature’s red list, these are perfectly reasonable obligations which he said might influence how the Crown Estate of Scotland is to operate. The amendment was sponsored by Lord Forsyth, but also by Green and Labour party Members, so it is disappointing to hear the Chief Secretary  to the Treasury talking about reversing that measure, and we look forward to that debate in the Committee stage. \p Alistair Carmichael: Salmon farming is enormously important in my community and in many other communities around the highlands and islands. Those communities will not be affected by this apparently, although we might hear conformation on that at a later stage, but is it the hon. Gentleman’s position that this is the only way of regulating salmon farmers? Is he not aware that there is a massive amount of regulation affecting salmon farming already? Does he really think that the Crown Estate commissioners are the people to be doing this job? \p James Wild: Like me, the right hon. Gentleman will have read the Hansard reports of the debates in the other place where this issue was covered at some great length, so I defer to the points made by Lord Forsyth there. Regulation is obviously in place, but this addition would simply raise awareness of the issues in the Bill. The Government said that they supported the objective of the amendment when it was discussed in the other House, but did not think it was necessary. They did not think that it would do any damage, so I suggest that it remains part of the Bill.

To conclude, the Crown Estate Bill will help deliver the modernisation that is needed, but the purpose must be supporting the estate’s duty to maintain and enhance its value for maximised return to taxpayers, rather than becoming an extension of GB Energy’s cheque book. We will be pursuing the concerns that I have raised about checks on borrowing governance, the relationship with GB Energy and the safeguards in response to the disposal of assets to ensure that that remains the case. \p Matt Rodda: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. I wish to speak in favour of the Bill and to make a few brief points, both general ones about wider policy and some in relation to my constituency. I wish to cover the issue of the Crown Estate in central London. I shall then move on to the estate’s property around the coastline, and, finally, I shall come on to some of what I hope will be significant wider benefits of the just transition to a green economy.

First, on modernising buildings in central London, it is often forgotten that our built environment is one of the poorest in terms of energy efficiency across the developed world, including in Europe, and that we do need significant investment. We can obviously see that in the building in which we work. Many buildings in central London date from Victorian and Edwardian times, or the 1960s, when building standards were much lower than they are now. Indeed, there is enormous potential precisely because those building standards were lower—I am talking about issues such as solid walls, cavity walls that are not insulated, and existing single glazing or poor quality older double glazing that could be replaced with newer materials. That shows very precisely the potential benefits in carrying out this work.

It is important to remember, however, that this is in the nature of a one-off capital investment in the short term, which will lead to enormous benefits in the medium  to longer term. Therefore, this type of measure, which was outlined so ably by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, is exactly what is needed by many large landowners to allow them to have access to the capital that they need to carry out works that will improve building efficiency and therefore lead to energy saving. I welcome that, and it is important to remember the context of the built environment in London and across the country.

Secondly, let me move to the issues of the coastline. It is worth noting that the UK is a leader in offshore wind. We need to recognise the benefits of the past few years, particularly the move to the majority of British energy being generated by low carbon sources, particularly offshore wind. However, there is a need for a new, significant additional step up, which requires the mapping of new areas of seabed, new interconnectors, and new grid connectivity at the coast, because the whole of the grid at the moment is designed around a post-war model of large, coal-fired generation inland, so there is significant need for further investment in coastal locations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) mentioned earlier, some of that is not particularly well mapped, and part of the work that we are seeing allowed today is the ability of the Crown Estates to map much of its property on the coast or on the seabed more accurately, therefore allowing investment as well as supporting and regulating investment as well. I ask the Chief Secretary whether he could outline further detail of aspects of that, in particular the scope for the Bill to allow for and support more investment in interconnectors to other neighbouring countries, as well as more grid connectivity at the coast itself, which can be a bottleneck for renewable energy coming onshore.

Thirdly, I would like to discuss some of the wider benefits of the Bill and ask some further questions. One of the big challenges with the move towards renewable energy is delays in grid connectivity. I have seen that in my own area when I visited a large solar farm next to the M4 motorway, just outside Reading in the seat occupied by my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang). The connection of this large solar array to the grid was delayed by a year because of a lack of capacity among energy companies and wider infrastructure challenges. I hope the Chief Secretary can provide some further detail on how the Bill will allow further acceleration of grid connectivity. I also hope it will add to the wider green energy economy and that the benefits accruing from it could be felt by some smaller onshore schemes.

I certainly ask the Chief Secretary if he could investigate the possibility for it supporting some smaller schemes. For example, in my area there is an innovative scheme to put a low-head hydro generation scheme on the Thames at Caversham. That generates power for several hundred homes. However, there were significant challenges in installing the scheme. Again, grid connectivity, access to capital and other practical issues delayed the project. Up and down the Thames, and other major rivers, there are many examples of sites that could be used for this straightforward, rapidly deployable form of renewable energy. I would appreciate the Minister writing to me if he is unable to comment directly today.

On a related matter, I hope that the Bill will in some way support the wider roll-out of solar on roofs and potentially on canopies over car parks. Both have enormous  potential as deployable forms of solar that would have a limited impact on land use, and they may have real benefits through the ease with which they can be accessed. I look forward to getting further detail on those points. I warmly welcome the Bill and thank the Chief Secretary for his words. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Pippa Heylings: I begin by extending my gratitude to all those who have worked tirelessly in the Lords on the Bill over the past seven months. I note in particular the way in which full transparency was offered and delivered by Lord Livermore, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in response to requests for clarification and evidence. I hope that we can replicate such co-operation as the Bill passes through this House.

The objectives of the Bill are to broaden the investment and borrowing powers of the Crown Estate and to strengthen its corporate governance, in order to help accelerate, among other things, the delivery of new renewable energy, particularly offshore wind. We are generally supportive of the Bill and would welcome further scrutiny on issues such as the cap on borrowing; accountability in the relationship with Great British Energy; managing the conflicts between competing interests and values of our seabed and coastline, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael); community benefit; devolution in Wales; and our climate and nature duty. I will proceed to elucidate those issues.

In the UK, we are off track in meeting our climate targets, following previous years when the Conservatives have dithered and rowed back on pledges. We need to increase investment in renewable energy in order to strengthen our energy security and to help families keep warm and lower their energy bills, particularly during this cost of living crisis. As a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, families and businesses have been left exposed to skyrocketing bills. For far too long we have been reliant on autocrats such as Putin to meet our energy needs.

The Crown Estate oversees 200,000 acres of land, 12,000 km of coastline and a seabed area larger than the combined land mass of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the owner and steward of the seabed, the Crown Estate leases plots to offshore wind developers and other infrastructure projects, playing a fundamental role in the sustainable development of this national asset and in the potential for securing our world-leading position on floating offshore wind development.

For many years, however, the Crown Estate has been constrained in its ability to borrow through the Treasury, forcing it—as we understand it—to resort to selling off assets in order to fund its investments for the future. The changes proposed in the Bill, in partnership with Great British Energy, hold the potential to unlock investment in vital infrastructure across supply chains, ports and green energy sectors, and to accelerate progress by unblocking the huge delays in the delivery of new green energy, which is desperately needed following the slow progress made under the previous Government.

It is reassuring to hear that during the Bill’s passage through the Lords, assurances were given that there would be a borrowing cap of 20% of the loan-to-value ratio. We look forward to seeing that reflected in the updated framework agreement as we go into Committee. On the day the Bill was introduced to the House of Lords, the Government announced the Crown Estate’s partnership with Great British Energy to bring forward new offshore wind developments. Despite the significance of that relationship between the two, the original Bill did not provide clarification on or accountability in how it would work.

Clause 4, which was introduced by my Liberal Democrat colleagues, ensures important transparency through annual reports on activities within that relationship. However, we also share Energy UK’s concerns about how that relationship will work, particularly in relation to other private sector investment. We support its calls for annual schedules for offshore wind leasing that identify locations and target capacities. Such a road map would help developers and suppliers to plan investments, including necessary port upgrades, and would align with the offshore wind industrial growth plan. \p David Chadwick: Does my hon. Friend agree that this legislation should have set out a framework for devolving the Crown Estate in Wales, as is the case in Scotland? \p Pippa Heylings: Indeed, I read the report of the debate in the Lords, and there was a passionate request for the Crown Estate in Wales to be devolved to the Welsh Administration and for the benefits to be felt by Welsh communities. We look forward to discussing that in Committee.

Another crucial area that has been mentioned is the mapping of the seabed around our coastline. The Crown Estate has already begun that work with award-winning geospatial techniques. That key contribution to spatial planning for our coastal and marine areas needs to balance economic development with environmental responsibility. For years, the Liberal Democrats have called for comprehensive land and sea use frameworks. Although the Government have committed to a land use framework, we remain far behind on marine spatial planning. We have heard today, in response to the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, about the conflict of interest in the Crown Estate leading on determining priorities in our coastal and marine areas. It is on that point that we seek assurances.

Statutory bodies such as the Maritime Management Organisation are responsible for prioritising and managing competing interests and values between users of our coastline, including in fishing, as has been mentioned, and in tourism, amenity use and shipping. All those things need to be managed, and that can be done through marine spatial management. We caution against the Crown Estate becoming the leader by default because it is the owner and steward of the seabed and has the capacity for mapping. We know that it is undertaking liaison work with fisheries, and that is good, but the MMO is the statutory body for managing those competing interests, and we seek assurances that that will be clarified in Committee.

Raising the issue of devolution to Wales brings me to the key point of community benefits. We need to know how communities will benefit from the investment in infrastructure and renewable projects facilitated by this Bill. Local communities must not feel that this energy transformation is being done to them, but that it is empowering them to participate and benefit from it. While the new borrowing powers will enable investment in offshore wind, they will also facilitate property development across the 185,000 acres of the Crown Estate, so the Bill must do more to ensure that those developments do not ride roughshod over community concerns regarding planning, infrastructure and environmental standards, both on land and at sea. People must have a say in the decisions that affect them and, where infrastructure is concerned, they should also receive the benefits where appropriate.

I was really pleased to see the inclusion of amendment 10, championed by Baroness Hayman. That amendment requires the commissioners to

“review the impact of their activities”

on sustainable development. As Liberal Democrats, we have long called for climate and nature duties to be a requirement of all public bodies. As Baroness Hayman wisely said,

“What matters is the endgame and the results… What matters is the impact we have and how much we have shifted the dial in terms of what the Crown Estate achieves in support of the Government’s climate and nature objectives.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1425.]

During the debate in the Lords, an undertaking was given that the framework agreement would be updated to include a definition of the meaning of sustainable development as regards the Crown Estate, with explicit reference to part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008—the targets for 2050—as well as section 56 of that Act, and to sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 regarding nature recovery. I look forward to seeing an updated version of the framework agreement to reassure us that this definition of sustainable development has been included.

This Bill presents a trident of opportunity. It can enhance energy security, reduce household bills and bring us closer to achieving our net zero targets, but we cannot afford to lose sight of the need for financial accountability, the duty to protect nature, the need to devolve to Wales, and the need to ensure that all communities are included in the crucial journey to net zero. \p Henry Tufnell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. The Crown Estate sits as one of the more peculiar features of our society—King George III’s surrender to Parliament in 1760 has now morphed into a corporate body that submits 88% of its profits to the Treasury, with 12% remaining with His Majesty. It does not stop there: up to £60 billion of borrowing powers will be granted by this legislation. Given that Great British Energy’s investment stands at £8 billion, that demonstrates the scale of this organisation, as well as its power, reach and influence. The key question is whether it serves the people of this great country or whether, like any other commercial outfit, it is seeking to feather its own nest in the name of corporate greed.

In our United Kingdom, one of our biggest and most powerful natural resources is wind. To cut bills, deliver energy security and achieve net zero, we have to become to wind what Saudi Arabia is to crude oil. Off the coast of my wonderful, coastal, diverse and rural constituency of Pembrokeshire, we have an abundance of wind, but thankfully not much hot air. However, 12 miles offshore—where that glorious wind blows with such regularity, majesty and force that it would make Aeolus proud—the seabed is owned by none other than the Crown Estate.

In the past few years, creativity in international industrial policy has moved on, leaving the UK in danger of trailing behind. The United States and the European Union are actively incentivising investment in domestic supply chains, justified by their need for national energy security and urgent acceleration to net zero. To keep pace internationally, we must grasp the nettle and do it fast. The Crown Estate must utilise its own financial resources to make enabling investments that crowd in private investment into UK supply chains, such as ports and other coastal facilities for floating wind.

Over the last year I have been doing everything I can to engage constructively with the Crown Estate, but, unfortunately, I have yet to secure any assurances that it will utilise its financial resources for the benefit of our energy security, our jobs of the future and our acceleration to net zero. We cannot sit by and let the conflict between raising national income via annual option fees and incentivising early investment to develop regional supply chains ruin the chances of bringing children out of poverty and giving young people in areas such as mine back home in Pembrokeshire good, secure, long-term and well-paid jobs.

The Bill should give full rein to the Crown Estate to explore all such options to maximise domestic supply chains, particularly for floating offshore wind. The population of south Wales and the south-west will never forgive us if we do not seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to redevelop their regional economies. The Crown Estate has an absolutely pivotal role to play here, and one that speaks to all the King has done across much of his career to address climate change and align business interests with the rejuvenation of economically deprived regions.

Yes, the Crown Estate has set out its strategy in respect of integration, ports, and apprenticeships and skills, but this has to be optimal vis-à-vis the clean energy strategy and the focus of this new Labour Government. When carrying out its leasing rounds, it should set out the options considered, with an assessment of and the reasons for the rejection of recent international precedents. These include, but are not limited to, the ScotWind lease auction of 25 GW of mixed fixed and floating offshore wind, which included commitments to project expenditure in Scotland via supply chain development statements, and did so without triggering a legal challenge by the European Union; and the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management lease auctions for offshore wind, which included a 20% bid credit for investments in domestic US supply chains—for example, the recent lease sale auction for offshore wind in California.

There should also be consideration of non-price factors in lease auctions, especially weightings allocated to the sustainability of supply chains, which would give a  lifeline to communities in Port Talbot, and the resilience of supply chains, also known as energy security, which are likely to favour geographical port-to-offshore project sites such as my own in Milford Haven in Pembrokeshire. There have been examples of and precedents for this, as in the recent EU Net-Zero Industry Act.

We need this Bill to equip the Crown Estate with powers to introduce non-price factors more directly into the seabed rights auction process—for example, by offering a fee discount, as is done in the United States, for supply chain investments that reduce the risk of offshore wind projects being delayed due to international supply bottlenecks, which in turn would accelerate our progress to a net zero power sector and protect UK energy security.

Finally, geographical ringfencing is a critical element in ensuring that we as a Government tackle regional inequality head-on and with real urgency. We must end the historical injustice of the politics of extraction, where the resources of a community such as mine are used to build ever more lavish buildings while young children struggle to get three square meals a day. This Bill can make a real difference. I urge the Minister to be bold and ambitious, and I assure him of my full support as he does just that. \p Llinos Medi: The Crown Estate owns 65% of Wales’s foreshore and riverbeds, and more than 50,000 acres of land. Recent rising demand for renewable energy projects has resulted in the value of the land sky-rocketing. In 2007, the asset value of the Crown Estate in Wales was £21.1 million, and in 2023 this reached £853 million. Correspondingly, profits generated from these assets have also increased. Net revenue profit across the Crown Estate rose from £345 million in 2020 to £1.1 billion in 2024. Profits generated from Wales’s natural resources are, however, not retained for the Welsh public purse; instead they leave Wales and are sent to the Treasury and the sovereign grant. In contrast, in Scotland the Crown Estate is devolved and profits from Scottish natural resources are transferred to the Scottish Government. In 2024 the sum was estimated to be a record £108.3 million. How can the Government justify Welsh profits being sent to the Treasury and the monarch when in Scotland they are held back and put back into the Scottish purse? The situation is worse than that, with Welsh councils having to pay lease fees simply to use the land which is owned by the Crown Estate. In 2023 the sum was nearly £300,000. With huge pressures on council budgets, how can that be justified?

In the age of coal, Wales saw a huge extraction of wealth from our communities. In 2025, Wales is now experiencing a similar process of extraction of our green wealth. \p Catherine Fookes: The reality is that Plaid Cymru Members are divided on this issue and are confused as well. Their colleagues in the other place supported provisions in this Bill to create a new commissioner with special responsibility for Wales, yet now the hon. Member is saying only devolution will do. Why does she think Plaid Cymru colleagues in the other place are wrong? \p Llinos Medi: I will come on to answer that question and perhaps show a pragmatic way of working forward.

As I said, in 2025 Wales is now experiencing a similar process of extraction of our green wealth and we cannot let this happen. As in Scotland, it is for the people of Wales to have control and derive the benefit from all profits generated from our own resources. However, the Bill makes no mention of devolving the Crown Estate to Wales despite the fact that the new investment and borrowing powers under the Bill may allow the Crown Estate to generate £100 million more a year in profits for the Treasury. None of this will be retained by the Welsh Government.

In the other place, Lord Hain’s amendment, supported by Plaid Cymru, has ensured that there will be Welsh representation on the Crown Estate board. While we welcome that as a step forward it still does not address the fact that membership of the Crown Estate board is largely outside of democratic control as it is the monarch who appoints the commissioners who make investment and borrowing decisions, not Parliament or the Senedd. \p Claire Hughes: Devolving the Crown Estate would needlessly jeopardise the role it is playing now to deliver good clean energy and jobs, which are needed across Wales, including in the hon. Member’s constituency, which neighbours mine. These jobs are much needed across north Wales, as she well knows. The hon. Member is a great champion for her constituency, but does she really want a delay in delivering the jobs in clean energy projects that are needed so much across Wales? \p Llinos Medi: I will come on to that, too, because as an energy champion for my constituents for many years I am fully aware that we do not want any delay but there is a way of working that through slowly while also benefiting from Scotland’s experience.

Plaid Cymru has been leading the calls for devolution of the Crown Estate for many years, and in July 2023 the Senedd passed a Plaid Cymru motion calling for the devolution of the management of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government. Only through the devolution of the Crown Estate can the people of Wales have democratic control over their natural resources.

Plaid Cymru will be bringing forward an amendment to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales. Although we will be looking to engage constructively with the Government, including on how to support the Welsh Government, the Crown Estate and energy developers to prepare for devolution, they cannot simply ignore the direction of travel. There is an overwhelming consensus in Wales for devolution. It is supported by the Welsh Labour Government and the independent commission on the constitutional future of Wales as well as 58% of the people of Wales. It is time for the Government to listen and devolve the Crown Estate to Wales. \p Jayne Kirkham: I represent Truro and Falmouth, which has huge potential to benefit from floating offshore wind. With Falmouth docks and our position in the Celtic sea, if the build-out of the sea is done quickly and well, our young people could benefit from good, well-paid jobs in a strong local supply chain, but intervention will be needed to get to that place. No projects in the Celtic sea have been  successful in leasing rounds or contracts for difference, except for one test and demo model that is struggling to build viably due to price changes. It cannot just be left to the market to build local supply chains. That will not occur without intervention and investment in our ports, businesses and further education.

I welcome the Bill. The changes to the powers of the Crown Estate will enable it, in partnership with GB Energy, to invest in ports such as Falmouth, the mapping of the seabed to front-load the leasing rounds, research and development and local supply chains. When Falmouth marine school, in my constituency, was struggling to get funding for a level 2 course on floating offshore wind engineering for local 14 to 16-year-olds, the Crown Estate stepped in with one year’s funding to allow it to go ahead on a pilot scale. With the Bill’s changes, more such positive interventions could be made. With powers to borrow from the Treasury national loans fund and invest come greater responsibility. The framework for this borrowing is to be drawn up at a later date, but the Crown Estate is classified as a public corporation with a portfolio of nearly £16 billion, so it is important that it is held accountable and scrutinised in the normal way.

I welcome the governance changes to the number of commissioners and the fact that they will now be paid out of Crown Estate proceeds, rather than from Parliament, but the fact remains that if they are to be given more power and control and are to enter into partnership with GB Energy, their aims and objectives need to strongly align with the growth agenda, the industrial strategy and our environmental targets, and there needs to be a mechanism of accountability.

Where clause 3 compels the commissioners to

“keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom”,

the words “strongly aligned with” would seem more appropriate. Most of the proceeds of the Crown Estate—it will be lucrative, now that wind energy is a priority, as the Crown Estate owns much of the seabed and there will be many more leasing rounds—go to the Treasury, but how the leasing rounds are conducted is important. If the Crown Estate’s priorities are truly to achieve sustainable development in the UK, price cannot be the sole criterion for awarding each lease. The highest bidder may not be the one who would work with the local population, consider the environmental impact, invest in further education, headquarter their development office in somewhere like Cornwall, which needs it, or grow the supply chain.

The way that leases are awarded needs to be considered in the round, and we have the power to do that. Exemptions to World Trade Organisation rules allow contracts or leases for energy security to factor in socioeconomic and environmental factors in their decision-making criteria, and we should make use of them. Currently, the Crown Estate asks for annual option fees from developers. If the aim of clause 3 is truly to be the priority, surely those option fees should be deployed into building local supply chains and mitigating those environmental and other impacts.

The partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy has the potential to be a huge force for good, spearheading the development of offshore renewable energy in a speedy but sustainable way and laying the groundwork for our future energy security, building  local communities, infrastructure and supply chains in some of the most left-behind and deprived areas of the UK. With a unified strategy between all levels of the public sector, including this public corporation, and faithful allegiance to the aim of clause 3, the achievement of sustainable development in the UK could be the key that unlocks the future potential of the Celtic sea and hopefully kick-starts Cornwall’s clean energy revolution. \p Angus MacDonald: I will speak about the Crown Estate’s borrowing powers and the broadening of its investment scope. These changes are intended to enhance the Crown Estate’s capacity to support our ambitious goals for renewable energy, nature recovery and economic growth. The Bill is undoubtedly a significant step forward in enabling the Crown Estate to play a greater role in the transition towards net zero. I fully support its efforts and ambitions.

The partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy to develop offshore wind projects is exciting. Many of us have been trying to get Great British Energy to include community benefits and community ownership within its reach, but we have failed to do so. [Interruption.] It does? Okay—we have tried hard. A measure is to be considered in the other House on 13 January to try to get it to do that, so perhaps Labour Members know something that I do not. Anyway, that is good news.

I want to focus on a critical element that is close to my heart, and perhaps even more familiar to my colleagues, as I bang on about it. That subject is, of course, community benefits. Those of us in remote and rural Britain pay far more for energy than those who can access mains gas, and we also have a much higher level of poverty; especially fuel poverty. Communities hosting renewable energy projects, and particularly those overlooking offshore wind farms, deserve to see tangible benefits from those developments. The Bill presents an opportunity to ensure that offshore wind farm projects—indeed, all renewable energy projects—not only meet our national and global ambitions but provide meaningful real-world advantages to the people most impacted by them.

There are numerous examples from overseas of where community benefits have become significant. One such example is from Germany, where in the North sea archipelago of Heligoland three offshore wind farms generated €22 million in 2016. These are massive amounts of money. While the Bill’s focus is on increasing borrowing powers and investment flexibility, there is no mention of how communities will benefit from these developments, although perhaps Labour Members know something that I do not. \p Melanie Onn: Is the hon. Member aware of the example of Ørsted, which has just given £1 million to the Horizon Youth Zone to support all young people across the Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency and further afield with new activities and free mentoring and support outside school hours? Not only that; it sponsors local fun runs. RWE, another company operating in my constituency, is supporting education activities. Both those companies are not only employing masses  of people but engaging with schools to support young people to have the skills and talents to come and work for them. That is the reality of community benefit. \p Angus MacDonald: Funnily enough, as a Highland councillor, it is a subject that I have spent many years working on. Highland council—I know this does not relate to the Crown Estate in England and Wales—had £9.1 million of community benefits and Scotland as a whole had £23 million. This is an industry worth hundreds of billions of pounds across the whole of Britain, so we should have, say, 5% of that as community benefits, which would be transformational for Cornwall, Devon, Pembrokeshire and indeed Scotland. I encourage the House to consider how the Bill could establish a robust framework for community benefits that could serve as a model for renewable energy projects across the whole of the UK, working closely with the Scottish Crown Estate.

The Bill represents a vital step forward in enabling the UK to meet its net zero targets and enhance energy security. However, it is equally vital that we legislate to include statutory powers for the Crown Estate in England and Wales, and indeed in Scotland, to ensure that these transformative projects see their fair share of community benefits for communities. \p Perran Moon: Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the provisions made in the Bill to improve the governance of the Crown Estate and broaden its investment powers and capacity to borrow. As stated in the Bill, the changes will mean that commissioners can undertake activities such as investing in port infrastructure and in digital technologies to map the seabed. As a Cornish MP, it is the seabed that I will focus on for the next few minutes.

Commissioners will be enabled to assist with investment in public infrastructure for the benefit of the nation. I support those provisions on the basis that the Crown Estate will use its increased power to invest in areas of higher deprivation where there is a clear commercial potential, such as, as has been mentioned, floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea. In that respect, Cornwall is perhaps the best example of where post-industrial deprivation is high, yet—I am sorry to mention this with Welsh Members in the Chamber—it is the closest land mass to much of the Celtic sea floating offshore wind opportunity.

As has been mentioned, Cornwall is also home to the third deepest natural harbour in the world, in Falmouth. The development of the port of Falmouth would support the export potential of critical minerals such as tin from my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, and of lithium that will be mined in Cornwall. As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), Cornwall’s economic development is also held back by a lack of grid connectivity. I hope that support for the Bill will result in significant improvements in that area.

The Crown Estate plays a fundamental role as an enabler of infrastructure projects. The Bill inserts a new subsection into the Crown Estate Act 1961 requiring the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. I sincerely hope  that Ministers agree that deprived communities such mine in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle should be the direct beneficiaries of this development through the work of the Crown Estate. I also hope that the Crown Estate fully understands the expectations of deprived coastal communities in every corner of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall. \p Jim Allister: I can well understand the need to update the Crown Estate Act, particularly in regard to the financial reach of the Crown Estate and the assistance that it may require. It is perfectly clear in this debate that Members have rightly discerned that the real driving force behind this legislation is to twin the promotion of offshore wind energy with Great British Energy. That seems to be the primary motivation behind much of the Bill. If the Government create circumstances where the Crown Estate is required and facilitated to increase its own financial success and they twin it with the promotion of GB Energy, they inevitably incentivise the development of offshore wind, which has its part to play, but it is not the answer to all our needs.

In Northern Ireland I have seen proposals for offshore energy, particularly in the South Down area, that have provoked great and rightful opposition from the fishing industry, leading to substantial difficulties. Yet it is quite clear that where the Bill talks about sustainable development, it is not in respect of the historic use of our seas as fishing grounds but in respect of our seas as sites for offshore wind energy. As another hon. Member said, there is a tension between offshore wind farms and fishing. It seems from the Bill that the Government have made up their mind about which is the priority. We have heard in this debate that the definition of sustainable development specific to the Bill will be very much orientated to the climate change theology. It will therefore place the need for wind farms above the needs of the fishing industry, which will not serve the interests of our coastal communities well. There is a need to reinstate some balance in that regard.

There is an interesting contrast between clause 3, which focuses on sustainable development, with the obvious meaning I have referenced, and clause 5, which I know the Government have said they will be removing. In clause 5, which relates to salmon farming, one of the matters to be looked at is the environmental impact; however, when it comes to wind farms, there is no requirement to look at the environmental impact—only at sustainable development, which is couched in terms that favour offshore wind development.

I think of my own constituency of North Antrim, where there are already proposals to put huge offshore wind farms not far offshore, just beyond the territory that contains the wonderful Giant’s Causeway and Rathlin island—cheek by jowl, coastwise, with areas of outstanding natural beauty. I do not think that would enhance the coastline or the waters in and around North Antrim. There have been similar proposals off Portstewart in County Londonderry.

When I read the Bill, it seems to me that the incentivising—it is much more than a nudge—is towards pushing along offshore wind farms with little regard, and certainly no corresponding regard, to the environmental impacts that they could have on whole communities. \p Polly Billington: I am struck by the fact that many of the people living in the hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency will be dealing with extremely high energy bills in poorly insulated houses, and will be desperate to see those energy bills go down and to see decent jobs come back to Northern Ireland, and for them and their communities to thrive. I also recognise the value and importance of heritage sites. My constituency in Thanet is surrounded on three sides by sea and has enormous opportunity for offshore wind, but we also want to retain the value and beauty of our surrounding environment. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman not see that these things are reconcilable? This is not a theology, but a science and an economic requirement of this country so that it can serve his constituents, as well as mine. \p Jim Allister: The point I am making is that the tension in the Bill between the environmental impacts and sustainable development—the codeword for offshore wind—is out of kilter. It is very much weighted in favour of offshore wind, with little or no regard, it would seem, given to the environmental impacts. I am simply saying to the House that we need to have regard to both. I do not think we serve future generations well if we surrender the beauty and serenity of the coastline that we enjoy, to be blotted for years to come by huge offshore wind farms.

Offshore wind farms have their place, but that is not in every place—that, I think, is the key point. Take the Giant’s Causeway, which is a UNESCO world heritage site. Are we saying there should be giant wind farms shortly beyond it? What would that do for the UNESCO setting of the Giant’s Causeway, or for other sites around the United Kingdom? I am therefore advocating caution. I am advocating that we remember that it is about not just offshore wind farms, but preserving and protecting our environment and getting the balance right, and I am not sure that the Bill does that. \p Dave Robertson: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate alongside so many of my coastal colleagues. It puts me in slightly odd company, because Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are quite a long way from the edge. We are quite a long way from the coast, but it is important to have some representation from the middle of England. When we look at the desired outcomes of the Bill and what it will mean for constituents across England, Wales and Scotland in coastal and non-coastal communities, it is about growth and jobs. Very few of those jobs in floating offshore wind are likely to be along the River Trent, but this is about building a country that works for everybody across the country for the future.

In my constituency, I am fortunate to have an agricultural Crown Estate holding. A wonderful strength of the Crown Estate is that it supports so much agriculture across the country—that most traditional and important of industries which provides us with the food we eat. It is a real strength of our country that so much of the land in the Crown Estate is leased out to farmers who can go off and do their thing and run their business.

The Bill seeks to update the Crown Estate. No legislation relating to the Crown Estate has been passed since 1961—24 years before there was a Dave Robertson. By  updating the Crown Estate, we make it ready for the 21st century. As of about a week ago, we are now in the second quarter of the 21st century, a fact I am struggling to compute. Making changes to allow the Crown Estate to invest in the industries of the future will bring jobs and investment into the UK. That will grow our economy, which will be felt across the entire country, tackling real pockets of deprivation, particularly around the coast. That will in itself be beneficial, unlocking economic growth and driving wealth creation right across the UK. It will also drive investment everywhere. The simple fact is that we now have another large investor operating in the UK, meaning that other investors will be able to seek other opportunities. If any are listening, please have a chat with me; there are some sites I would like to talk to them about, particularly Burntwood town centre.

Alongside that point, there is another really important issue. There has perhaps not been enough focus on the real value of the Bill in helping us to reach our net zero goals. This week, in large parts of my constituency a large number of farmers have again found their fields replaced by some type of aquatic environment because of flooding. Yet again, King’s Bromley has almost been cut off. Climate change is real. Climate change is here. It is having an economic impact and a social impact—a real-world impact. We need to take steps to achieve our goals. Allowing the Crown Estate to partner with Great British Energy in the way the Bill proposes, allowing it to drive down the carbon cost of our energy and help us to move to that just transition, will not only cut energy bills everywhere in the country—Lichfield, Burntwood, the villages and everywhere—but drive up investment and bring economic growth everywhere across the UK. It will also help us to meet our obligations on the climate crisis, which will have a material impact on the lives of our children, our children’s children and all generations to come.

On that basis, it is an absolute pleasure to say that I fully support the Bill. I look forward to helping it through its further stages through Parliament. \p Melanie Onn: I welcome the Government’s proposed powers to enable the Crown Estate to drive greater investment in the country’s future to boost energy security, nature recovery and economic growth. It should be allowed to access private sector funding to expand and get the greatest benefit possible from its access to financing, and not retreat to markets having to survive on their own and not delivering, or recourse to the public sector for critical funding to grow industries.

I want to focus on clause 3, which deals with sustainable development, and to pick up some of the comments that were made in Committee in the House of Lords. My constituency is at the forefront of the delivery of practical skills in the day-to-day operations and continued maintenance of the offshore wind sector, and my constituents benefit from apprenticeships, introductory training, continuous professional development and, critically, long-term, well-paid employment in the sector. The Bill has the potential to open up possibilities for broader community engagement through the promotion of various educational opportunities in numerous workstreams.

Having worked with the Crown Estate in a previous role before returning to this place, I must say that I have had a slightly different experience from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell). I know that in recent years the Crown Estate has sought to expand the areas of work in which it actively engages, and has provided immense support for the renewables sector. We should bear in mind that there has been a collective understanding—not just within our Government—that for energy security purposes we must, as a minimum, look at renewable energy sources to supplement our other energy sources as we progress, and as we view the global economics and the changing impact of the energy industry and the way in which others are maximising this change to encourage wealth into their countries.

We know that not just the present Government but Governments around the world, and previous Governments in this place, have recognised that we should accept and embrace this move, seeing it not as something divisive or prohibitive to other sectors but as something that will be the mainstay of this country. Simply objecting to it and saying no will not help to move things forward. We should be working together, as I think the renewables sector has been endeavouring to do and has been enabled to do in a much stronger way through the partnership that the Crown Estate has facilitated, to unite the many different relevant parties in seeking appropriate solutions to some of the most testing and challenging issues that the industry faces, including people and skills, environmental impacts and derogations, the unlocking of the UK supply chain, spatial squeeze, offshore asset security—which has not been discussed today—and aviation impact, which has not been referred to either. The Crown Estate has played a critical role in ensuring that the voices are heard in each of the areas where this new industry is having an impact—and it is having an impact, as I think the industry itself recognises—in the knowledge that this must be done in collaboration and co-operation with the other existing organisations, industries and operators in those sectors.

Through the evidence and change programmes, it became clear to everyone involved, including those who might have been less than happy that a new industry was making things different and challenging in certain circumstances, that the earlier these issues were considered as part of the Crown Estate’s planning and scoping, the easier it was to fulfil the existing and basic expectations of both the Crown Estate and the renewables sector from a Government perspective. Earlier consultation and partnership working on common difficulties and challenges meant that agreeable solutions were found earlier, and it was then possible to build acceptable frameworks for future use. Some of that is in evidence now, in the context of the Celtic sea developments and the fishing communities in those areas.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is my co-chair on the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, rightly raised the issues and concerns that the fishing communities will have. However, in Committee in the Lords, there was a conversation about the regional wealth funds that the Bill will create. It seems to me that there is a prize opportunity for support and training for the fishing industry, to make it work alongside the renewables sector and to look at the opportunities that will come  from the decarbonisation happening in that sector when it comes to offshore vessels and flexibility of service, so that a fishing vessel is not just a fishing vessel. Can it be used for multiple purposes? Can it be used for surveys? It can, because fishing vessels are already being used for surveys. There is an opportunity for the Bill to support those other industries, and we should not lose sight of that.

With these new ways of working, there is a great opportunity to expand the level of knowledge and understanding of the sector, to be able to teach the next generation of young people about how things really work in practice. To date, that has been a bit more experimental, I think it is fair to say, but because the sector is maturing and all the organisations involved have become more experienced, there is much more collective learning, and there are clearer lines of guidance that the Crown Estate has a definitive interest in ensuring a wide and common understanding.

I would like to focus on the people and skills area of work, which the Crown Estate has had some engagement in. There is an acceptance that the workforce will grow and needs to grow substantially. For areas such as mine and other coastal communities, ensuring that we have a skilled workforce ready to go is imperative. It is much more effective to ensure that people have the skills to get the jobs to earn their own way and have some pride in their life, working in an industry they are proud to be working in, than to simply rely on other community benefits that may well be short-lived and do not have the long-term impact that growing a brand-new industry around the country delivers. We know that the workforce will need more than three times its current numbers—I had written in my speech “over the next decade”, but I do not think that is true; actually, it is over the next half a decade, which is hardly anything at all—to meet the needs of the industry, and that is across all the different areas I mentioned such as environmental impact and aviation. \p Angus MacDonald: May I come back to the community benefits, which the hon. Member brought up in her intervention on me? The community benefits will be hundreds of millions for 25 years or the life of the project. It will be absolutely transformational to the most rural parts of Britain; it is not just something that will come and go. \p Melanie Onn: I thank the hon. Member for that comment. It is about how we view community benefits and how embedded in communities they are. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) talked about things being done with communities, not to them. This is about what will best benefit a community and having that discussion at an early stage, which is what I have been advocating.

The traditional understanding of community benefit is payment for a local football team’s shirts or things like that, but that is not what I see this industry or this Bill unlocking. It needs to be about transforming local communities, which, critically, comes through skills, through the supply chain and through delivering industrial benefits that local people have access to. That is the thrust of what I am trying to say—clearly I have not been successful, if the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye  and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) did not see that, but I will persevere, which I am sure he will be delighted to know.

Interestingly, the Crown Estate has recently supported a community project in my constituency called Projekt Renewables—it has a “k”, giving it a slightly Nordic slant on things. It is a box park construction next to the Grimsby Fishing Heritage Centre, bringing together the old and the new, and the past, present and future. It provides community education, and it is a space to bring together schools, businesses and visitors to learn about the renewables sector in Grimsby, including its history, its importance and the possibilities for the future. The community education piece is incredibly important, and we do not talk about it enough.

The Crown Estate recognised that there is a need for wider understanding of activities, some of which are significant or significantly disruptive in local areas, so that residents can better understand what is happening in their place. I keep talking about opportunity, because some Members have not seen this Bill as an opportunity for expansion, investment, growth and long-term change. The Bill actually unlocks quite a lot of that. There is an opportunity not only for greater expansion of public information and education, but to have a single standard of available materials and off-the-shelf information to support local areas. That would help provide a general understanding that would stop individual companies producing their own bespoke education programmes. We should have something that is uniform and that provides the facts, and then companies can build on that if they want. It would be a much stronger offer, and more beneficial to collective understanding because of the uniformity.

However, there are further steps that the Crown Estate could take to provide local people with skills, to guarantee sustainable development. In my area, the freeport is already undertaking some work on skills. Under the new devolution plans, there is provision for skills to be a key strand of mayoral responsibility, but how can the Crown Estate fit into that model? I believe that it really must do so to maximise the benefit of all the organisations, and to have a common theme and common objectives. Arguably, the Crown Estate has a lot more to lose if the skills are not there for offshore deployment and long-term maintenance support.

New projects such as the Able quay, which is just outside my constituency, will make offshore wind ambitions deliverable. It will open up the supply chain investment opportunities that we have been waiting for—frankly, for far too long—and enable the Crown Estate to generate significant revenue and value for the UK. The Crown Estate could do so currently but, under the new proposals in the Bill, has an even greater opportunity to invest in infrastructure such as the Able quay. Port facilities are holding back the sector and the core skills that are currently in shortage in the industry, as well as those that we know will become a critical blockage in the future once the newly consented projects get under way.

If we really want to maximise the value of projects and see the UK get the biggest bang for its buck, it is essential to use every arm of every organisation to actively support them in overcoming the challenges. I know that the Crown Estate is willing—and I have seen it in action, so I know that it is also able—but  I wonder whether this Bill needs to say explicitly that it has a duty to focus on infrastructure and skills, which are so critical. Not having those prerequisites in place could make projects undeliverable, and no developer or supply chain company can oversupply or invest ahead of decisions, because the Crown Estate makes so many of the final decisions, alongside the Government. No one can invest until those decisions are made.

Devolution and the creation of GB Energy—two great leaps in structural change in this country—give a great opportunity for new public institutions to be created in order to intervene in skills. In the Humber region, I would like to see an arrangement or organisation that brings together the Crown Estate, the new devolved authorities, the freeport and the Humber Energy Board. With support from the likes of GB Energy and central Government, it could back a coherent approach to supporting skills and avoiding their becoming a barrier to project delivery, as well as reduce costs by supplying enough talent for the whole sector, rather than each project chasing the same small pool of people.

We should use the Bill to catalyse substantial and lasting change, providing employment opportunities for generations to come. I understand that Crown Estate Scotland is already carrying out similar efforts, actively promoting skills and job opportunities through initiatives such as community capacity grants, which support social enterprise projects and training courses, and land-based skills education, so I do not think that is beyond the scope of the Bill. \p Luke Charters: I am pleased to speak in today’s debate, because although the Bill is short, it is an incredibly important piece of legislation, not least because it ties together two things that we on the Government Benches care about: unlocking growth and driving clean energy. Perhaps Conservative Members do not care about those things, judging by the Conservative Benches today. The Bill gives us the chance to start delivering the growth that this country desperately needs, without requiring a new fiscal statement or drastic economic reforms. Most importantly, the Bill will benefit my constituents in York Outer and the country as a whole.

For too long, the Crown Estate’s ability to act as an engine for growth has been held back by outdated rules. Imagine a business sitting on vast potential—real estate, seabed rights and assets worth billions—but unable to reinvest or leverage those resources to their full extent: the Bill changes that. By freeing up the Crown Estate’s balance sheet and allowing it to operate more like a modern, agile business, it creates the conditions for growth, without requiring sweeping fiscal reforms or additional taxpayer contributions.

However, the Bill is not just about numbers on a balance sheet; it is also about impact. Through the Crown Estate’s role in renewable energy, the legislation will support the creation of new projects, secure our domestic energy production and unlock up to £60 billion in private sector investment. That is the kind of forward-thinking approach we need to create a secure and prosperous future. \p Christopher Vince: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is another example of how this Labour Government are rolling up their sleeves, getting the job done, and creating growth and jobs for communities in York Outer and in Harlow? \p Luke Charters: I always agree with my hon. Friend. He will recognise the impact the Bill brings not only to the Crown Estate but to GB Energy, which was one of the first initiatives implemented by the new Government. Taken together with the Great British Energy Bill, these are two pieces of thoughtful, complementary legislation that will support our green energy transition and economic growth—what a stark contrast to the previous Government, who not only ran out of ideas but failed to make the few ideas they had work in the first place.

The interaction between the Crown Estate Bill and the Great British Energy Bill is vital. In York Outer, we have a number of exciting projects that are ready to go and exemplify how these changes can drive forward our ambitions for a clean, secure energy future. For example, proposed battery storage facilities in York Outer could become critical national infrastructure for our local energy network, and Hessay solar farm was awarded funding from the contracts for difference scheme a few months ago. I welcome the exploration of wind projects, such as the Harewood Whin green energy park and the North Wigginton onshore wind project. Just today, we discovered that wind power was Britain’s largest source of electricity in 2024, topping gas-fired power plants for the first time in history. With the Crown Estate Bill, we can make even more projects like those in York Outer possible, unlocking clean energy for my region and beyond.

That takes me to the issue of energy security. Conservative Members, wherever they are, continue to oppose our publicly owned clean power company. Perhaps they have forgotten why it is so crucial to transfer power back into the hands of the British people. The myopic and naive approach of the last Government left our energy portfolio far too exposed. The Bill supports Britain’s flexibility and freedom to secure our own energy supply. It enables British households to be supported by British power—produced, owned and delivered by the British people. That is what Great British Energy is all about. We have all seen the cost of relying on foreign oil and gas. Families and businesses paid the price of our energy supply being dictated by foreign powers. Under this Government, that needs to stop—and it will stop. This Bill is a huge win for our energy independence.

But the benefits of this Bill go beyond energy. The Crown Estate is already a significant contributor to the public purse—last year it generated over £1 billion in net revenue profit, much of which was returned to the Treasury. By giving the Crown Estate the freedom to reinvest and modernise, we can grow that figure even further. That is not just a win for Government revenues; it is a win for taxpayers, as the money can be reinvested in public services and infrastructure in York Outer and across the UK.

I know that some Conservative Members, wherever they are, may worry about fiscal rules. I reassure them that although the Bill is radical in what it achieves, it does so in a sensible manner. By allowing the Crown Estate initially to use its cash reserves for investment, there is no immediate need to trigger new borrowing  powers. This is therefore a measured approach that creates confidence for investors, while keeping fiscal discipline intact. It is not about ripping up the rulebook; it is about using the rulebook more effectively. \p Adam Jogee: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, which I am sure those on the Front Bench are enjoying. He mentioned sensibleness and moderation—both words I would use to describe my constituents. Will he join me in urging the Crown Estate, as it enjoys its new freedoms and powers in looking to invest for the future, to give a thought to the people, the place and the economy of Newcastle-under-Lyme? \p Luke Charters: I was half-expecting my hon. Friend to mention Walleys quarry, although I cannot conceive of how he would link it to the Crown Estate Bill. He will agree that the additional revenue raised by the Bill will benefit his constituents as much as mine.

Over the past decade, the Crown Estate has returned £4.1 billion in net revenue profit to the Treasury. Just imagine how much more it could achieve with the freedom that this Bill provides—not just for the country, but for constituencies such as York Outer. This is what smart, forward-thinking legislation looks like: supporting businesses, securing energy and driving growth. I urge Members on both sides of the House, and particularly Conservative Members, wherever they are, to back this Bill and help us deliver a brighter, greener and more prosperous future. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p James Wild: With the leave of the House, it is a pleasure to respond briefly on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. [Interruption.] I do not know whether there is a party going on to which I have not been invited, but I am personally very happy to be here to take part in the debate.

This has been a good debate, with more than 10 Members contributing, and not only from coastal areas such as my Norfolk constituency; we have also heard from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), which underlines the importance of the Crown Estate to all our constituencies.

The hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke about the potential benefits of investment in their constituencies and their part of the world, including the funding of college courses, which are important, as well as investment in energy production.

The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) may want to get some tips from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about how to get on with the Crown Estate, how to get it to do what he actually wants it to do, and how to secure the benefits for his constituency. Perhaps he can have a reset with the Crown Estate.

A number of Members spoke about community benefits, which are very important to securing public support for new infrastructure, be that energy or other issues. Labour Members spoke quite a bit about cutting energy bills. I distinctly remember the pledge they all made during the election campaign to cut energy bills by £300, but  energy bills are going up and there is no date for when they will come down. Voters and constituents will remember the pledge and, at the moment, all they can see is their costs going up. The concern is that the pace at which the Energy Secretary wants to drive forward will actually drive up costs for all of our constituents.

I began my remarks by emphasising that the Crown Estate is neither the property of the Government nor part of the sovereign’s private estate. That is key. Its core purpose is to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. That is why greater transparency is needed about the partnership with GB Energy. The Minister will have heard and, I am sure, noted down all the questions from my opening speech, so I will not repeat them all, but I will repeat this: will he commit to publishing the partnership agreement before we head into the Committee stage?

I am afraid that some of the contributions we have heard have only fuelled my suspicions of the Government’s intention to use the Crown Estate as a vehicle for its energy policy and as a provisional part of the GB Energy body, whatever that may turn out to be. That raises issues about how investments will be determined and the returns that are generated for the taxpayer, as well as the risk surrounding investments, whether crowding in, as hon. Members have referred to, actually happens, whether investment in ports will drive a return, and why commercial providers are not seeking to make similar investments. That conflict and risk was one of the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is sadly not in his place. I hope that the Treasury Committee will engage with that point when it examines the nominated new chairman of the Crown Estate commissioners.

That is also why it is important that Parliament has oversight of borrowing limits, rather than that just being in an MOU that can be changed at the Treasury’s whim. That is an important protection that we have in place, and I know that the Minister will also respond to that point in his remarks. Will he also get back to the specific point I raised about disposals and the seabed, and the commitment that Lord Livermore made on Report in the other place about protections and whether an amendment is needed and will be forthcoming?

To conclude, there is wide support for the Bill from across the House, but the short-term interests of the Government should not come at the long-term expense of the Crown Estate and the nation. I look forward to continuing the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister to wind up. \p James Murray: It is a pleasure to close this debate on the Crown Estate. May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a happy new year?

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his comments today, as well as for the contributions of all my hon. Friends. I am particularly grateful for the Opposition’s support for the Bill in general, which they display by their absence this afternoon. I welcome the questions set out by the shadow Minister and I will go through some of those in my remarks.

As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury noted in his opening speech, the purpose of the Bill is to bring the legislation governing the Crown Estate into the 21st century by making a targeted and measured enhancement to its powers and governance. Without the Bill, the Crown Estate would continue to be restricted in its ability to compete and invest and would therefore be limited in its ability to deliver returns to the public purse. The Bill therefore broadens the scope of the activities that the Crown Estate can engage in, enabling it to further invest in the energy transition that we know is so crucial. It empowers the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively and, critically, the measures will unlock more long-term investment, increasing the contribution that the Crown Estate can make to creating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the UK.

I turn to some of the points raised in the debate. I appreciate the shadow Minister’s broad support for the Bill’s aim. On his specific question about the Crown Estate’s borrowing powers, the Bill is clear that any borrowing undertaken by the Crown Estate can only be from the Treasury or otherwise with Treasury consent. The Treasury will, of course, ensure that any borrowing is consistent with our fiscal rules. There will, as has been noted, be a memorandum of understanding in place between the Treasury and the Crown Estate, and that will govern how borrowing powers will be exercised. As with any public sector borrowing, the Treasury will ensure that that is consistent with managing public money principles to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.

The shadow Minister also asked specific questions about commissioners’ pre-appointment scrutiny. I want to set out for him how the appointment of other commissioners is likely to work. The Crown Estate commissioners who manage the Crown Estate are appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of Ministers. The appointment process is governed by the code for public appointments. The reforms in the Bill will not alter the fundamental statutory basis of the Crown Estate, which is as a commercial business that is independent of government, operates for profit, competes in the marketplace and needs to recruit the highest quality talent to its board of commissioners. Within that context, it would not be appropriate for either the Government or Parliament to place further requirements on the recruitment process.

The shadow Minister also asked about chief executive pay. The details of a chief executive’s remuneration are a matter for the Crown Estate board, which is operationally independent of government, as I set out. As the Crown Estate is statutorily an independent, commercial organisation, which returns hundreds of millions of pounds in profit to the Exchequer every year, continuing the success is crucial and it requires the organisation to have the freedom to compete for the top talent in the commercial world.

We know that cheap executive remuneration in this context is set at the lower end of the private sector peer group, which is agreed with the Treasury. The majority of the package is in fact conditional on performance, which ensures that the chief executive rewards are heavily dependent on delivering long-term value to the Exchequer. The shadow Minister also asked about governance when  it comes to the Crown Estate and Great British Energy. I can set out to him the operational matters in regard to the partnership, but they will be determined in their final detail by the passing of the great British Energy Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. Once it completes all its legislative stages, the partnership will be subject to an agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy. Although the partnership agreement itself will not be published, given that it will be commercially sensitive, the Crown Estate has committed to publish information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report. This will include a report on the activities of the commissioners under that partnership and any effects or benefits resulting from the activities of the commissioners that entails.

The shadow Minister asked a specific question about the amendment on the seabed, which was debated in the other place by Lord Livermore. As hon. Members may know, on Report of the Crown Estate Bill in the Lords, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury committed to bring forward an amendment, if it were needed, to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed. That was in response to concerns from peers that the seabed, which is owned by the Crown Estate, is a unique asset and therefore special protections may be warranted. As the Financial Secretary noted at the time, the law on the ownership of the seabed is complex, so officials are working with the Crown Estate to establish the extent to which the Crown Estate can currently sell the seabed. If it is established that further legislation is required to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed, we will look to bring forward an amendment at Committee stage.

Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned the measures on salmon that were inserted in the Bill in the other place. There is a fundamental question about whether the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for a debate about the rights of salmon and protecting animal rights in that context. In England, Wales and Northern England, to which the Bill applies, there is on Crown Estate-owned land only one relevant area—one relevant salmon farm. The issue really relates more widely to Scotland, which is governed by Crown Estate Scotland and not by the provisions in this Bill. We know that fisheries policy is the responsibility of devolved Government in Scotland. All fish farming in England is regulated with the intention to ensure that it is carried out in a responsible manner. Given that virtually all salmon aquaculture in the UK takes place in Scotland, the matter is really one for a different debate.

As well as the comments from the shadow Minister, we also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings). Many points that she raised have been covered in what I have said so far, although she raised an additional point that aligned with comments by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about how the Crown Estate will balance the expansion of offshore renewables with the needs of the fishing industry, marine wildlife and so on. I wish to set out briefly the Government’s position on that matter. We know that the Crown Estate is committed to sustainable management of the seabed and, where appropriate, it collaborates with industry stakeholders, marine licence bodies and environmental non-governmental organisations to ensure that activities on the seabed are conducted responsibly.

As with any developer, the proposals of the Crown Estate go through a standard planning application process, which includes the relevant environmental assessments. Under the Crown Estate strategy, it has an objective to take a leading role in stewarding the natural environment and biodiversity. Key to delivering that aim is managing the seabed in a way that reduces pressure on, and accelerates the recovery of, our marine environment. The Bill will not directly impact on how much commercial fishing takes place in areas managed by the Crown Estate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) raised an important point around grid connections and grid connectivity, which are vital to ensuring that our plans to move towards clean energy are effective. His points were important as part of the connection between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy, which we have been talking about during the debate. One benefit of the Crown Estate working with Great British Energy is that they can work together to speed up the process of developing clean energy projects, including co-ordinating planning requirements and grid connections, as well as leasing land to de-risk and speed up projects so that private developers can get on and build them. That will be crucial to unlocking the private investment and speeding up the deployment of clean energy infrastructure. As well as de-risking private sector investments, GB Energy and the Crown Estate will directly co-invest in clean energy infrastructure. That will include floating offshore wind and carbon capture projects.

Several of my hon. Friends made important points around local community benefits and supply chains. I thank in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald). They all focused on the importance of community benefits, local supply chains and investment in jobs and skills. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) made a helpful set of points around the importance of long-term community benefit—that is, people who are not just building infrastructure, making a one-off payment and then leaving, but actually making a long-term investment in the area and the people who live there. She referred to Projekt Renewable in her constituency, and it would be interesting to discuss that with her after the debate.

Looking more broadly at what the Crown Estate has been doing and intends to do on investing in local community benefit, it is committed to working with local communities and partners to enable employment and skills opportunities. For example, it has allocated £50 million through the supply chain accelerator to stimulate green jobs. It is also developing a green skills pipeline from a GCSE in engineering skills for offshore wind, seed-funded by the Crown Estate and developed with Cornwall college, to a post-16 destination renewables course with Pembrokeshire college. The Crown Estate is partnering with the employment charity Workwhile to create green construction apprenticeships.

On offshore wind specifically, the Crown Estate has worked on upskilling frontline Department for Work and Pensions work coaches to be well equipped to support job seekers in the offshore wind industry through  the offshore wind learning programme and specifically in relation to offshore leasing round 5, which hon. Members have mentioned. The Crown Estate has designed the leasing process in such a way that developers have to make commitments to deliver social and environmental value as part of the development of new wind farms, including a requirement to provide an apprenticeships plan and a skills development plan.

The Crown Estate is also committed to working with communities to ensure that future generations can make the most of the opportunities that marine energy will bring. It is working closely with local educational institutions, such as Falmouth marine school, where it helped develop a pre-16 engineering programme to build skilled local workforces, alongside other initiatives, including the marine internship programme and a recent partnership with the Sea Ranger Service, which is based in Port Talbot.

We heard from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who asked questions about the devolution of the Crown Estate and its functions to Wales. Some of the points she raised were addressed by my hon. Friends, but it is important to recognise that the proposed powers in the Bill will be of huge benefit to Wales. Combined with its existing scale, expertise and track record, the Crown Estate is uniquely placed to help drive the activities required, such as de-risking and developing offshore renewable energy and other emerging offshore technologies to realise the potential of the Celtic sea. I would be concerned that further devolution of the Crown Estate in the manner suggested could fragment the renewable energy market and undermine the strong international investor confidence in the UK to the detriment of both Wales and the wider UK. It would risk creating further complexity and delay our drive for energy security and net zero at a time when simplicity and accelerated deployment are essential. That is why the Government believe that the existing provisions are the best way to ensure that the assets of the Crown Estate are managed most effectively to benefit people across Wales, England and Northern Ireland.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) spoke of his concern about environmental impacts. Offshore wind is essential to meeting our net zero and energy security objectives, which I hope he supports, but to get the wider balance right, the habitat regulations assessment process ensures that we can deliver our offshore wind requirements while maintaining environmental protections. The Government are also consulting on revisions to the national planning policy framework to increase support for renewable energy schemes in order to tackle climate change while safeguarding environmental resources.

I thank my hon. Friends the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for York Outer (Mr Charters) for their particularly impassioned support for the principles behind the Bill and what it sets out to achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, it is crucial for investment, growth and modernising the Crown Estate for the 21st century. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer focused on the power of the Bill’s measured reforms to modernise the Crown Estate and support growth in a fiscally responsible way while generating revenue that will benefit our constituents across the country.

I hope that I have managed to address hon. Members’ points. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I have set out, the Bill delivers a targeted and measured enhancement to the Crown Estate’s powers and governance, thereby modernising it for the 21st century. It broadens the scope of activities that the Crown Estate can engage in, enables it to further invest in the energy transition, and empowers it to invest more effectively in capital-intensive projects. Critically, the measures in it will unlock more long-term investment and increase the contribution of the Crown Estate to generating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the UK. Growth is at the heart of our Government’s mission. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Crown Estate Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 11 February.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: King’s recommendation signified.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crown Estate Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Treasury under any other Act that is attributable to the Act;

(2) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums payable out of the fund under any other Act that is attributable to the Act.—(Christian Wakeford.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Christian Wakeford.) \p Andy MacNae: Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the chance to have this debate, and I thank the Minister for her attendance and for her work on tackling this issue, including through the upcoming road safety strategy.

I requested the debate because our current approach to road safety is in desperate need of overhaul. Although a few local authorities have robust and innovative approaches to road safety, too many lack the resources or political will to implement proactive safety measures, which is increasingly making road safety a postcode lottery. Too often, safety interventions come as a response to collisions, rather than as proactive measures to prevent them. We do not listen to our communities and have failed to invest and to learn from international best practice. As a result, progress in reducing road deaths has largely plateaued in recent years. The UK has passed a grim and shaming milestone: 500,000 people have died on the roads in Great Britain since records began in 1926. That is more than the number of UK citizens killed as a result of warfare in the same period, including in the second world war.

I am well aware that this is a complex and multi-dimensional issue to which we cannot do justice in such a short debate, so rather than trying to address every aspect of road safety, I will instead focus on a couple of linked aspects that are of particular concern to my Rossendale and Darwen constituents—specifically, speeding and issues related to large commercial vehicles. Rossendale and Darwen is a constituency of A roads running down valleys, with relatively few alternative routes, and most residential and commercial development extends along those lines. I live off Burnley Road in Bacup, and the lived experience of residents along that road serves to highlight most of the issues I want to raise today. Ask anyone who lives on Burnley Road and they will tell you that speeding is endemic. There have been serious injuries and fatalities, but more fundamentally, residents will cite numerous close calls and the fear they generate.

For example, one house on a bend in the road has now been hit by speeding vehicles three times. In one case, a vehicle impacted on a spot where a pedestrian had been standing just seconds before, and when we lived on the main road, a car judged to be speeding at over 100 mph hit my wife’s car with such force that it was lifted up and landed on mine—that was in a 30 mph zone. There are many more stories like those; indeed, just this morning, constituents contacted me about a particularly serious close call, which I cannot detail now because it may go to court. To compound this, the road is very heavily used by large commercial vehicles. \p Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Andy MacNae: I will—it would be a pleasure. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand—through two or three different people, but I got to him eventually. I was intrigued by the title of the debate,  “Prevention-based road safety and community involvement”, simply because in my constituency, back in October of last year, we had a double-decker bus taking children from school. It was travelling along the Ballyblack Road outside Carrowdore, going towards Bangor and Newtownards, and it fell over. Thank goodness, nobody was killed, but some children were injured.

The point I wanted to make, which I think is important and fits with the theme of the hon. Gentleman’s debate, is that while we must have ongoing road safety and infrastructure projects in place, we also need community involvement in safety. It was the community who responded to the incident—the nurses and doctors on the road and the farmers who came across the fields. Community involvement is really important; if we want to improve safety, we must have the community tied in. \p Andy MacNae: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman—indeed, that is the main subject that I will try to focus on today. It is hugely important that we listen to our communities, because in the end, not only do our communities know best, but they are the ones who experience the consequences of these decisions.

Burnley Road is very heavily used by large commercial vehicles, and there have been numerous close calls with those vehicles as well. Residents see them speeding or travelling in convoy, too often with their driver on a mobile phone. This is a massive concern around the local primary school, which—like many in Rossendale and Darwen—is sited directly on the main road. Last year, two big wagons managed to crash into each other just outside the school. Narrow pavements and a lack of safe crossing areas further increase the risk, and it is hardly a surprise that many parents are reluctant to let their kids walk even a short distance to school. I cannot think of anyone who rides a bike there. \p Samantha Niblett: In my constituency, we have the busy A444, which runs from Stanton right through to Acresford on the border with North West Leicestershire. That road has varying speed limits along its length. It is a huge concern to the community; we have large articulated lorries travelling very fast on that road, sometimes on very skinny roads. We also have a primary school close to Stanton where there is no close pelican crossing, so there is no safe way for families with young children to cross the road and get them to school. My community feels very much that highways authorities do not listen to sense when it comes to speed limits. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for us to work with local communities and reconsider their involvement in how rules are made for the application of speed limits and where we put crossings? \p Andy MacNae: I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. She has framed her example tremendously well—the greatest fear that most of us have is that combination of primary schools, unsafe roads and large vehicles. Sadly, that can only end one way. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Andy MacNae: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). \p Peter Prinsley: A constituent of mine lost her son, Alan, in a dreadful accident on the A14 in September 2023. He died in a collision with a lorry that was stationary on a live lane. The lorry driver was disqualified from driving, and had no MOT on his trailer and no insurance. Despite the driver committing road safety offences, the Crown Prosecution Service determined that the driver did not cause the death under current legislation, and he was only charged with disqualified driving. Will the Minister commit to examining the Road Traffic Act 1988 with a view to introducing an offence focused on presence, rather than causing? I would suggest this wording: “A person being disqualified from driving—” \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I am just going to make the point to Members that interventions are getting very long. We have some hours to conclude this debate, so if Members wish to make a full contribution, they will be able to do so, rather than simply making an intervention. \p Andy MacNae: My hon. Friend raises a hugely important issue about the regulation of commercial vehicles, and the level of responsibility that companies and employers take for their drivers is a crucial part of this debate.

To return to the story of Burnley Road in Rossendale, I have described the various instances of close calls, and when we bring all this together, the obvious conclusion that residents reach, including myself, is that without further action further deaths and serious injuries are inevitable. The great fear we have is that everyone can see this coming, and when it comes and there has been no action, I think we will all feel that we have failed. \p Rachel Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate, which is hugely important. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) here, as we share on the edge of our constituencies one of the most dangerous road junctions in the country, between the end of Woodford Lane and the A5 in Mancetter. Our communities know that dangerous accidents happen there on a far too regular basis, with fatalities and serious injuries requiring attendance from air ambulances as well as other crews. Does my hon. Friend agree that our communities know best about needing to implement preventive strategies for road safety rather than waiting for yet more lives to be lost before we actually do something about it? \p Andy MacNae: Again, I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. The role of communities is absolutely vital. \p Matt Rodda: In my own area, there is a serious problem with a lack of co-operation between Oxfordshire county council, as the neighbouring local authority, and Reading borough council. Sadly, Oxfordshire, despite requests from Reading, has allowed heavy goods vehicles to go through a Reading suburb called Caversham and into Reading town centre when they could be diverted on to much safer routes. There have been repeated requests for Oxfordshire to work more constructively with Reading. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that there should be greater emphasis on co-operation between neighbouring local authorities as part of this preventive approach, which he is so ably describing, to try to avoid unnecessary injuries and deaths? \p Andy MacNae: Absolutely. I will touch on this later, but I feel that devolution and local government reorganisation create a huge opportunity to ensure new levels of co-operation between authorities, and we should have no hard borders when it comes to road safety.

Again, the conclusion we reach is that we need action to prevent deaths and injuries, yet when communities raise their concerns and real-world experience with the county council and the police, they are told that the KSI—killed or seriously injured—data does not meet the threshold for speed cameras and other meaningful interventions. \p Peter Swallow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, too often, an accident waiting to happen has been forced to become an accident that has happened before action is taken, and that when communities know that a road they live on and live with every day is unsafe, we should listen to those communities much more and act before the accident happens? \p Andy MacNae: I agree entirely. Again, it is devastating for communities to raise those issues repeatedly, stridently and sometimes desperately, yet feel that they are not being heard. The message they get back is, in effect, “We have to wait for someone to get killed before we do anything”, which is surely is not the message our communities should be hearing.

As well as Burnley Road in Rossendale, I could tell stories about Todmorden Road, Burnley Road East through Whitewell Bottom, Market Street in Whitworth, Bury Road in Edenfield, Newchurch Road in Waterfoot, Bolton Road, Sunnyhurst Lane, Hollins Grove and Pole Lane in Darwen. In each case, residents see close calls day by day, but are told that the statistics do not merit action, and even when they do, they are simply told there is no money. This approach is nonsensical and out of line with even the county council’s own adopted vision zero strategy and is decades behind those employed internationally. Ultimately it costs lives and money. Beyond this, unsafe roads have far-reaching impacts affecting an area’s sense of place and identity. They take lives, devastate families and shake up communities. Roads felt to be unsafe have a significant impact on the day-to-day lives of people living near them. Residents feel less able to get around, uncomfortable on their own doorstep and cut off from each other. \p David Smith: This is an important subject. There seems to be a common denominator in many of the comments: the significance of rural areas. I note that my hon. Friend’s constituency has large rural areas, as does mine. Does he agree that there is a particular challenge—whether with rural B roads or even major national roads or national infrastructure, such as the A1 that runs through my constituency—with the type of vehicles on the roads and the proximity to small local communities, making them particularly unsafe, and that that should therefore be a priority for our national road safety strategy? \p Andy MacNae: Absolutely, and those committees feel particularly vulnerable and under threat. The issue is that mixture of rural roads coupled with the speed limits and then compact villages sitting along those roads, with those changes in road conditions. \p Julia Buckley: Rural roads are often winding, unlit and poorly maintained, all of which require additional driving skills. Many young people in my constituency find themselves needing to drive at 17 to access education or other opportunities, and we have a higher prevalence of young drivers being killed. I am thinking particularly of Harvey Owen, one of four boys killed on their way to Wales after only a week after passing their driving test. More than 1,500 young people are killed every year— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Lady might not have been here to hear my earlier comment. There is plenty of time for Members to make speeches if they so choose—this debate does not need to conclude until 7.30 pm—but we really must not have prepared speeches read out disguised as interventions. \p Andy MacNae: My hon. Friend makes that vital point extremely well. I will touch on it again later, but young drivers are an important topic that merits a debate in its own right.

On feeling safe or unsafe on roads and the impact of that, we can take the example of active travel. The biggest reason why people do not walk or cycle to work or school is concern over road safety. This forces people to travel by car, with all the impacts that brings and accentuating all the issues we are talking about. \p Scott Arthur: I rise at the point when the Deputy Speaker is changing; it feels like something from “Dr Who”—[Laughter.] Apologies, I was thinking out loud there.

This debate is on an extremely important subject for my hon. Friend’s constituents. On active travel, good habits start early in life, and that is particularly true of walking and cycling. In Edinburgh South West, parents and residents are keen to work with the council to make it easier and safer for children to walk to Nether Currie primary school, and they are really open to collaboration. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are serious about tackling road safety issues in rural areas and our towns and cities, we have to work with our school communities to make sure it is absolutely embedded in them? \p Andy MacNae: Absolutely. This is a hugely important issue and, as in many other areas, we know the solutions. Fantastic work is done by organisations such as Active Travel England that detail the solutions, yet our current or past funding structures make it incredibly difficult. I am campaigning in our constituency for a safe path to a school, yet I find there are essentially no dedicated funding opportunities to meet that very obvious and stark need. This is an absolutely crucial area.

I mentioned active travel, but there is also the question of older people. Residents in social housing along Newchurch Road in Rossendale feel trapped in their estate because there is literally nowhere safe to cross the road near them to reach the amenities they need.

In 2023, there were 1,624 road deaths in Great Britain and 132,977 casualties in total. Pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists still make up a disproportionate share of those killed or seriously injured on UK roads. Department for Transport estimates suggest that the annual cost of reported road collisions is around £43 billion. We cannot  afford any of these costs, so what do we do about it? We know the basic principles, and we have touched on them in the debate, with many Members raising them brilliantly.

Many local authorities have adopted strategies based around vision zero, which is an approach originally adopted in countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands. It emphasises that no level of death or serious injury is acceptable on the roads, and it is focused on prevention, protection and post-collision response, coupled with evidence-based targets and robust safety performance indicators. We know that such approaches can be effective and save a great deal of money over the long term, but as we have seen and heard, there seems to be a huge gap between strategy and practical implementation.

If we want to be serious about tackling this issue, we must move towards a truly proactive, community-led approach to road safety that is informed by statistics and not led by them. In such a model, rather than claiming that a centrally held database knows better, we trust the instincts, experiences and wishes of those who use the roads every day. Instead of waiting around until enough people have been hurt to merit an intervention, we proactively identify high-risk areas, and we act.

An excellent example of that approach in action can be seen in the Netherlands. Over the past decade, both Rotterdam and the Hague have been using an algorithm to determine the likelihood of crashes on their roads. The model considers a range of factors, including past crashes, traffic flow, the features of the road, and the presence of on-road parking. From that, it creates a risk rating for each road. Crucially, this rating informs, rather than leads, the local authorities’ decisions. Community experience and input are a key factor in the decision-making process. The ratings are combined with an analysis of the volumes and severity of complaints the authorities receive regarding specific roads. Out of this community-led, data-informed model, the local authorities choose to proactively intervene to protect their citizens. \p Anna Dixon: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. It is personal to me, as I lost my grandfather in a road traffic accident before I was even born, and my grandmother was left with disability. Shipley experienced 183 road casualties in 2023, one of which was fatal. My hon. Friend mentions vision zero. West Yorkshire has a vision zero partnership that seeks to eliminate all traffic fatalities and injuries by 2040. It brings together the combined authority with local authorities, emergency services and National Highways, as well as victim support and road safety campaigners—speaking to his point about community. Is there still a place—I suggest that there is—for these vision zero partnerships, alongside the community approaches that he is advocating? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Before the hon. Member responds, I remind Members that interventions should be short and to the point. \p Andy MacNae: I agree fully with my hon. Friend, and there is no conflict between a vision zero approach and the community-led approach I am talking about. The issue is that while vision zero has been adopted by many local authorities, the implementation falls far short of the intent. It is therefore a question of finding the appropriate implementation and delivery mechanisms, rather than just rehashing the strategy.

As well as the Netherlands model I mentioned, similar preventive work has been pioneered by researchers using automatically collected data from car sensors to identify dangerous sections of roads. That is interesting, because it collects data that key success indicator stats do not highlight. They collate real-world data where cars harshly and suddenly brake. These models have proven effective in predicting areas of danger, and such systems could be used to proactively examine hotspots before collisions occur, taking account of near misses and validation experiences with communities such as ours. \p Harriet Cross: I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. In my constituency, the A96, which goes from Aberdeen to Huntly and up to Inverness, and the A90 north of Ellon are known as accident blackspots. On these roads, we know that local residents are not going out, because of the fear of an accident, which has an impact on our local economy, and emergency vehicle response times. Does he agree that emergency response times and local economic impacts should be part of the basis of assessments of where safety improvements should be put in on roads across the country? \p Andy MacNae: I thank the hon. Member for making that point. How we value road safety interventions must recognise the full gamut of those impacts. Far too often, we use narrow measures of cost-benefit. Emergency response, impacts on wider infrastructure and the general feeling of being unsafe are hugely important considerations.

I have tried to highlight a few approaches to identifying areas of risk proactively before collisions occur. Again, we know how to do this. With those risks identified, we also have a range of effective, advanced interventions that we can utilise to reduce the risk of incidents. Average speed cameras have been proven to be particularly effective, yet due to fears about cost and a lack of awareness of advanced technology, many authorities have been reluctant to implement them.

Looking at the evidence, a review by the RAC Foundation found a 36.4% reduction in serious or fatal injuries at sites with average speed cameras installed, with a further 16% reduction in incidents of all severities. In some cases, the installation of speed cameras has reduced incidents by up to 86%. With Lancashire county council valuing the cost of a road-related fatality at £2 million—I do not know how it gets to that figure, but none the less that is the figure being used—it is no surprise that effective safety measures like these save the Government money in the long term.

The College of Policing has found that through a reduction in medical treatment and repair fees, the financial benefits of these schemes exceed their costs by 3:1. On the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), that is on a narrow basis, perhaps not recognising some of the wider impacts. The figure only increases when we look at the benefits beyond five years. I urge the Minister to use the upcoming strategy to stress the significant long-term benefits of proactively implementing speed reduction schemes with average speed cameras. \p Amanda Martin: My hon. Friend talked about a number of schemes, but has he looked at the 20 mph speed limit in Wales, which came into force in September 2023? Insurance companies  such as Esure have said that it has reduced risk and that it is also beginning to reduce the premium that people pay in residential areas. We do not just have long and fast roads in our constituencies, but also residential areas, where that 20 mph speed limit has an impact. \p Andy MacNae: There is no doubt that speed limits are a crucial part of this work, as long as they are targeted and appropriate. However, I cite the need for effective enforcement, because if people feel that there are no consequences from breaking those speed limits, they will be broken. Enforcement is a crucial part of the consideration.

Returning to average speed cameras, I urge the Minister to consider how sharing best practice between authorities could be improved. As the College of Policing noted, and as I and colleagues have seen all the time, there is a significant variation in the methods used to implement average speed cameras and assess their validity. Many authorities are unaware of the significant cost saving measures that have been pioneered over the last decade and the new technologies that exist.

To take one example, we were told by Lancashire county council that a relatively small average speed system on one key road in Rossendale was unviable as it would cost many millions to implement and maintain, yet when we approached a Home Office-approved supplier recommended by another local authority seen to be a pioneer in the area, we were given a quote of £800,000 for not just that scheme, but three others that together covered all the key risk areas in Rossendale. That huge disparity demonstrates not only how funding might be used inefficiently, but how local authorities are unnecessarily being held back from implementing schemes by an out-of-date view of their costs.

We need to recognise that cost is a genuine factor and that funding models under the previous Government were wholly inadequate, with road safety budgets squeezed alongside other local authority budgets. Under the last Labour Government, we had a system of netting off road fines, which helped to fund road safety enforcement activities. That should be reviewed as a possible funding stream to pay for road safety improvements, increasing policing numbers and making the best use of new and existing technology to reduce road risk. With increased information sharing, clarity over the costs of such schemes and hypothecated funds, there is significant potential to reduce the obstacles to enforcement that local authorities believe they face.

In addition to speed reduction methods, major gains can be made through improving pavements and creating cycle lanes through a genuine safe-system approach. Shockingly, of all road deaths in 2023, 25% were pedestrians, with cyclists accounting for 5%. Despite many local vision zero strategies, our road safety design evidently fails to protect those vulnerable users. I urge the Minister to use the upcoming strategy to encourage councils to meet their ambitions with action, utilising support from Active Travel England and genuinely adopting safe system approaches. That requires proactive interventions, whether through establishing clearer and protected cycle lanes, constructing safe footways or building new traffic lights and crossings where needed.

Another key area that we can tackle is the safety of commercial vehicles, as we have touched on. As I mentioned, there are schools in my constituency that border dangerous roads that are frequently used by large commercial vehicles. Due to the force of impact, HGVs are the second most dangerous vehicles on the road, killing 6.9 people per billion passenger miles—significantly higher than the comparative figure of 1.6 for cars. Considering that, it is completely unacceptable that in 2023, 36% of lorries were seen to exceed the speed limit. Drivers often have minimal oversight and training from companies, which have weak corporate safety standards.

We must proactively recognise and respond to the heightened risk that such vehicles pose. One crucial step could be to incentivise companies to maintain high safety standards in their fleet, be that through offering lower insurance to companies that demonstrate best practice, naming and shaming companies that do not, or even making companies fully liable for work-related collisions.

Alongside that, a variety of other proactive, low-cost methods could be used to improve the safety of our roads—for instance, tightening the regulations on tyre safety. Poor tyres accentuate the impact of speeding or poor driving. Over the past decade, an average of 182 people have been killed or seriously injured per year because of poor tyre conditions. MOTs flag over two million cars with sub-standard tyres each year, 1 million of which are so poor that they are considered actively dangerous. Given the improvements in tyre technology, coupled with the fact that the highest proportion of serious incidents occur in the winter months, there is room for the Minister to consider mandating that all new vehicles be equipped with all-season tyres.

More generally, there are significant opportunities offered by safe vehicle technologies, which can be embedded through advanced vehicle safety regulations. Let me touch on a point raised earlier about driver education, particularly protecting young drivers. This is a complex area, which needs a debate in its own right, but given that 16% of car driver fatalities are younger drivers, there is no doubt that this area really needs attention.

Finally, as we have touched on, increasing devolution is also central to ensuring that communities’ voices are heard. In places such as Lancashire, road safety interventions are still determined on a county level. Officials and county councillors are often very far removed from the roads and communities impacted by their decisions. When this responsibility is held on a unitary level, the voices of communities are louder, and decision makers are much closer to the area in question. Given the widespread local government reorganisation coming in this Parliament, the Minister has a significant opportunity to establish best practice in new unitary and combined authorities. I urge her to seize this unique opportunity, and to provide meaningful support and guidance to these emerging authorities.

To wrap up, considering the reactive and inefficient approach to road safety that the Minister inherited from the previous Government, I urge her to utilise her upcoming road safety strategy to move the country towards a preventive, community-led and statistics-informed model of road safety, alongside a sustainable funding approach. Central to that approach, I call for the following measures to be given detailed consideration within the road safety strategy: first, ending the safety postcode  lottery via a robust, mandated national road safety strategy, based on a community-led, data-informed, safe system approach and, within that, prioritising lived experience and perceptions of safety over arms-length data. \p Mark Sewards: On data, as a councillor in Farnley and Wortley and now as the MP for Leeds South West and Morley, I found that when I tried to help residents with accident spots on problem roads, I was often told that the average speed on that road was not high enough for action to be warranted. I have been met with that excuse so many times—too many to count—as both a councillor and as an MP. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to move away from that? Of course we should rely on data, but we should also speak to the people who live next to those accident spots, so that we can deal with them properly. \p Andy MacNae: Absolutely. That is the essence of what we are talking about. Given that average speed data is a blunt tool anyway, we should ask ourselves who knows best: the people who live on that road and experience it every single day, or someone sitting looking at an algorithm in county hall far away? As politicians and representatives of our constituents, the answer that we should give is that the community knows best. We should put in systems to support their everyday lived experience, not the other way around.

Secondly—and this point is linked to the first—we have to use the opportunities presented by devolution and local government reorganisation to embed best practice, including improving information sharing between authorities regarding the availability of new and emerging road safety technologies.

Thirdly, we must address the barriers to proactive implementation and enforcement measures, particularly average speed cameras. Fourthly, we have to develop a sustainable funding model based on bringing back netting off. Fifthly, we must make companies fully responsible for the actions of their drivers on public roads. Sixthly, we need a genuine safe system approach to road and pavement design to protect pedestrians and cyclists. Finally, we need to address accentuating factors via advanced safety and vehicle safety regulations and develop approaches to protect young drivers. \p Nusrat Ghani: I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response, as road safety is a big issue in the Sussex Weald. Before I call her, though, I am told there are three very short contributions from Back Benchers. My worry is that there are more people standing than I have been alerted to—they will need to make their way to the Chair quickly, in the appropriate way, and make it clear what they are trying to do. Contributions will be short. First, I call my fellow Brummie, Paulette Hamilton. \p Paulette Hamilton: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this important debate. The issue of road safety is vital and we need a sustainable funding model. Local councils are a key player in improving prevention-based road safety.

I have heard a lot about rural settings from hon. Members this afternoon, but my constituency is in the middle of a city, and the problems occurring within cities are just as bad. People veer from main roads and go on to side streets. I would like to share an incident that took place this morning in my constituency, where yet another vehicle struck the bridge on Summer Road. This follows a recent incident where a truck collided with the same bridge and overturned. It is the third such occurrence since last November—it is simply unacceptable.

Does the Minister agree that the local council needs to step up and implement measures to address this issue, not only to prevent the severe disruption that is caused by these accidents, but to ensure the safety of other road users and pedestrians? My time as a nurse taught me that prevention is better than cure; it is much better to take measures now than to risk the safety of local residents in areas across this country. \p Nusrat Ghani: Thank you so much—short and sweet. \p John Slinger: I will also try to be short and sweet, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on bringing forth such an important subject. He alluded in his excellent speech to the sheer number of fatalities, and it is perhaps worth reflecting on the fact that there are three times the number of road fatalities than homicides in an average year, which is something we could all bear in mind as we go about driving on the roads.

I want to draw Members’ attention to the importance of listening to our constituents who have sadly suffered the trauma of losing someone in a road traffic collision. In my constituency I have Giulietta and George Galli-Atkinson, who for 26 years have run the Livia awards, which recognise the professionalism and service to justice of police officers. I had the honour of speaking at the 26th award ceremony at the Metropolitan police headquarters this year. The awards are in memory of their daughter, who sadly was killed by a dangerous driver. I mention that because I believe it is incumbent on us to listen to the voices of those who have suffered the trauma and devastation of such unnecessary, preventable deaths. We need to hear their words and act on them. Community involvement is critical.

In conclusion, we must get the message across to our constituents that road collisions are, in all but the smallest number of cases, not accidents—they are preventable; they are avoidable. We must all take responsibility, including national Government. My hon. Friend the Minister takes these issues very seriously. We must tighten the law wherever we can and I know she is looking at various ways to do that. We must fund local authorities for their excellent work to help increase road safety and empower police forces to enforce our road traffic laws. We must do everything we can to empower ordinary citizens to engage with this really important issue. We must ensure that ordinary citizens are in control of our roads, not those who would endanger us all through their selfishness and criminality through dangerous and reckless driving.

Finally, we must take responsibility as individuals. Our constituents must take responsibility for driving more safely whenever they can so that we reduce the  tragic number of avoidable and terrible deaths on our roads and the tens of thousands of serious injuries. We must reduce that number as much as possible.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen for giving us the opportunity to reflect on these important matters and to encourage the Government to do everything in their power to ensure that the number of road deaths and injuries is reduced significantly. \p Nusrat Ghani: To help the Minister prepare, we have three more very short Back-Bench contributions. \p Julia Buckley: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this excellent and pertinent debate. All Members come with horror stories from our own constituencies, after families have been in touch with us. I mentioned that in Shrewsbury it was the family of Harvey Owen, who died with three other young children aged between 17 and 18 on a trip to Wales. The driver had been passed for one week.

That story is not unfamiliar in rural towns and areas like mine, where public services have been decimated. We have lost 5,000 bus routes since 2010, which means that 17-year-olds find themselves with no alternative but to learn to drive in order to access education, sport and social activities. That experience is reflected across the country, but particularly so in rural areas. Young drivers, aged between 17 and 24, are consistently over-represented in the statistics. Very distressingly, globally road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 15 and 29, and one in five drivers will crash within their first year on the road.

A national campaign group called Forget-me-not Families Uniting brings together families who have lost young people. One of those campaigners, Crystal Owen, the mother of Harvey Owen, who is from my constituency, put together a petition with 22,000 signatures, asking Ministers to look at measures to protect young drivers in particular. The Minister very graciously gave her time to meet Harvey’s mum and listened carefully to some of those suggestions, such as additional training for young drivers and progressive licensing, and safety measures such as “Harvey’s hammer”, a device that could smash open a window if a car is trapped. That could save many lives. I know the Minister is working really hard to develop a road safety strategy. I hope she will hear the message that young drivers are three times more likely to die. We must consider them in those safety measures and, in so doing, understand that this has a stronger prevalence in rural areas.

Members may be pleased to hear that today I have been granted a Westminster Hall debate on road safety measures, in particular to protect young drivers. I hope they will join me on Tuesday 29 January at 9.30 am.

In conclusion, I again appeal to the Minister that policies must go hand in hand with the other work we are doing to increase public transport, particularly in rural areas. It must be a viable alternative. I know the Minister will join me in my dream for Shrewsbury to  have evening buses and a Sunday service. That would encourage young people to embrace public transport, rather than risking their lives on the roads. \p Nusrat Ghani: As a rural Member of Parliament, I tend to share the hon. Lady’s dreams. \p Jodie Gosling: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for initiating this important debate.

I have heard many passionate arguments tonight about why our roads should be safer, and about deaths that were waiting to happen and were preventable, but I have been involved in a situation in which a death actually happened. Even after an 11-year-old was killed on one of our roads, we had to fight and campaign with his grieving mother for the road to be improved.

Harley James Jackson was killed during his first half-term at secondary school. His mum had to campaign to persuade the county council to make the improvements to that road, and it took two and a half years. We were told that the mean average speed on the road of 38 mph was within the expected range, although speeds of 5 mph and 80 mph at 8 pm were recorded in the speed data. The data is not consistent. We were also told by the safety officer during our campaign that there were 50 roads with similar speed characteristics but there was funding for only two.

This death could have been prevented. We knew that the road was dangerous; the community had said so, and the community campaigned. I can guarantee that no one knows more about that road than the mother of that child, who has campaigned ever since. We need to listen to these people in order to prevent such things from happening again. \p Nusrat Ghani: That was a very powerful speech. I call Amanda Martin to make the final Back-Bench contribution. \p Amanda Martin: I welcome this important debate. A number of causes for concern are being raised with me by my constituents, and all of them are preventable. First, abandoned cars are routinely being left at the side of a road in my constituency, usually near car dealerships, with no MOTs or insurance. They can sit there for weeks, and they cause a hazard, because local schoolchildren are having to walk around them. One constituent contacted the council, only to be told that it was not the council’s responsibility and the constituent should go to the police. The police said, “Go to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency”, and the DVLA said, “Go back to the council.” Someone needs to take responsibility; that is vital.

The second problem is congestion. Cars pull up in bus lanes where there are no double yellow lines, near hospitals, when roads are jam-packed with buses. No one can get in or out, and that causes not only delays but accidents and damage to vehicles. Congestion, and accidents, are also caused by narrow streets and roads that are used as rat runs, with cars running all the way down them. Residents of Oakwood Road have been pushing for a one-way street, although there are speed  bumps, because it would help with the flow of traffic and also with safety; the street in question is very near a school.

Finally, there is the serious issue of zebra crossing safety. A lack of signage means that crossings are ignored. One, in Baffins, is next to a sixth-form college and also near schools, and hundreds of pupils cross the road every day, but that zebra crossing and others are often ignored. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Minister. \p Lilian Greenwood: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing the debate, and thank him for continuing to raise the issue of road safety in his constituency. I am pleased, and somewhat surprised, to see that so many of my hon. Friends have come to the Chamber to contribute to this vital discussion about reducing deaths and injuries on our roads. It is welcome to have had more time than we might have expected for an Adjournment debate.

The Government are committed to road safety, because it contributes to every single one of our national missions. Safer roads enable economic growth and opportunities, support greener journeys through active travel, reduce pressures on our NHS, and help people to travel without fear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen clearly described the impact that road danger has on his local residents, and other Members have made equally valuable points, particularly highlighting the impact on children and their ability to travel safely and make those vital journeys to school and in their local communities.

More than four people lose their lives every single day on our roads, and as a number of Members have said, we know that most of these deaths are avoidable, the result of excess speed, driving under the influence of drink or drugs and frequently both, using a mobile phone behind the wheel or not wearing seatbelts. My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about those who do not use our roads appropriately and place themselves and others in harm’s way.

In my short time as future of roads Minister, I have read too many heartbreaking accounts of loss and serious injury, and we have heard more examples this evening, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), who is not in his place; I cannot comment on the specifics of that case, but I would be happy to meet him to discuss his concerns.

I have spoken to grieving family members rightfully demanding change. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for speaking on behalf of his constituents this evening and for the work that he and they are doing to campaign on this issue. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) for the work she has done in her constituency and with her constituents.

The Transport Secretary and I are determined to make our roads safer for everyone who uses them. The lack of progress on road safety over the past decade has been inexcusable. There has been no direction and no  long-term vision, and that is reflected in the statistics, with drink-driving deaths at their highest levels in 15 years. In 2022, around 300 people were tragically killed where at least one driver was over the drink-drive limit. That represents 18% of all fatalities. In the same year, 203 people were killed in a road collision where at least one deceased driver had an impairment drug detected. That was 13% of all fatalities. We need to tackle these illegal behaviours. As the Secretary of State has stated, tackling reckless behaviour on the roads is a priority for her and for us, because these statistics—more than 1,600 deaths a year and almost 30,000 serious injuries—are not inevitable.

Our THINK! campaign continues to address key priorities around drink-driving, speeding and seatbelts. Our innovative campaigns around positive choices and the power of peer influence are targeted at young men aged 17 to 24—a group that is four times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on our roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) spoke about her constituent Crystal Owen, who lost her son Harvey in heartbreaking circumstances, and I look forward to the debate that she has secured. These life-saving behaviour change campaigns matter, and we will continue to work on them.

I turn to the important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen made on community road safety interventions. Traffic authorities have the responsibility for making decisions about the roads they manage. That includes measures to protect the safety of road users based on their knowledge of the area, taking into account local needs and considerations. That must include listening to local communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) made an important contribution about a dangerous road in her constituency, and I am sure that her concerns and those of her local constituents will have been heard by the relevant local authority and the Mayor of the West Midlands. Traffic authorities are best placed to make these decisions, but my Department also has a really important role: we need to set the enabling legislation and national policy objectives and provide good practice, guidance and, of course, vital funding.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the risk rating of a road should be a consideration when designing road safety interventions. Since 2017, the safer roads fund has provided £185.8 million to address the dangers on 99 high-risk roads, working with the relevant local authorities to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. The programme has provided vital infrastructure interventions where they are needed the most, taking into account those who are killed or seriously injured but also traffic flow and the potential hazards on a road. It is really important work. A number of hon. Members have rightly highlighted the dangers on rural roads, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We need to look to the future and understand how new technologies can help prevent future collisions. My hon. Friend talked about some of the international comparisons and how we might draw on those in the future.

When it comes to speed, local authorities have the power to set speed limits on their roads. It is for local authorities to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases, because they have local knowledge. They also have a range of traffic management measures available to help them improve safety outside schools,  including 20 mph speed limits, traffic calming and the introduction of school streets where appropriate. Local authorities are able to place advisory part-time 20 mph speed limit signs in the vicinity of schools without the need for Government approval.

I listened with interest to my hon. Friend’s suggestion to implement “netting off”. The previous trial allowed fixed penalty revenue to be used to reinvest in more camera enforcement, and the national scheme that followed ended on 1 April 2007. The funding of cameras was integrated into the local transport plan process at the same time that the scheme ended. Paying fines and penalty receipts such as speeding fines into the consolidated fund is generally considered preferable to ringfencing or hypothecating specific funding. The risk of appearing to create incentives to collect fines and penalty receipts for the sake of generating revenues, rather than for the purpose of enforcement and road safety, needs very careful consideration if we are to retain public trust in tackling speeding.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that most central Government funding for local government is not ringfenced so that local authorities can make the best decisions relating to their local priorities. Money from the Consolidated Fund supports general expenditure on public services, including those that motorists will benefit from, such as healthcare, policing, local government grants and transport. Nevertheless, he makes an important point, and I will certainly look into it further.

The enforcement of road traffic law is vital, and how available resources are deployed is the responsibility of individual chief officers and police and crime commissioners, taking into account the specific local problems and demands that they face. My hon. Friend made important points that I will consider further, including about people who drive for a living and the important role that we can play in ensuring that employers take their responsibilities seriously.

I turn to my hon. Friend’s point about tyres. Tyre labelling regulations require a new tyre’s wet grip performance to be displayed at the point of sale, along   with other attributes. The ratings are established following standardised tests, and presented in a consistent manner that helps the consumer to see the relative performance and make an informed choice. The market surveillance unit in the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency checks new car tyres supplied into the market are accurate with respect to their assigned wet grip, fuel efficiency and external noise ratings. The unit has also worked closely with trading standards relative to part-worn and re-treaded tyre sellers, supporting any sanctions that trading standards may take in respect of non-compliance. The DVSA welcomes intelligence about part-worn and re-treaded tyre compliance.

The last Labour Government halved the number of people killed on our roads each year, but under the Conservatives that progress stalled, with only a 12% reduction between 2010 and 2023. That is a legacy that my Government are determined to put right. That is why we have announced that we are developing a new road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. I can assure my hon. Friends that we will continue to use the “safe system” approach to support our thinking, be evidence based and ensure responsibility for tackling the problem is shared among policy makers, those who enforce our laws, those who design our roads and those who use them. We will be setting out next steps in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen made a number of really important points in his contribution, and I will be working with officials to consider them further, as we continue our work in this area. I will be pleased to keep in touch with him, and other hon. Friends here today, as we progress our work on road safety. I once again congratulate him on securing this important debate, and everyone who made a contribution this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.