debates/debates2025-06-10b conversation_20
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-06-10)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-06-10b conversation_20

Rebecca Smith:In 2026, Formula 1 will be using a fully sustainable drop-in fuel in all its cars. Does the Secretary of State agree that this provides an exciting opportunity for the UK to lead the world in using research and development from Formula 1 to support the pursuit of net zero for all motorists, and will he agree to meet me and representatives of motor sport to discuss this issue further? \p Ed Miliband: Yes. That sounds really good. \p David Williams: Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. At the former Chatterley Whitfield colliery in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, the council has launched an ambitious  plan to go from black to green, creating a combined digital and eco park that includes an AI growth zone. Will the Secretary of State meet me—alongside my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who has championed this cause, and partners—to see for himself the potential of our coalfield communities? \p Ed Miliband: That also sounds really good, and it sounds like a really important initiative. The idea of AI growth zones, which have been promoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Technology and Innovation, is great, and I congratulate my hon. Friend. \p Stephen Flynn: May I extend an invite to the Secretary of State to come to Aberdeen and meet the highly skilled energy workforce, whose jobs are being put at risk as a result of his policies? \p Ed Miliband: I absolutely meet North sea workers and companies. What we need to do for them is build the clean energy future so that they can transition. That is about carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and offshore wind, and it is about nuclear as well—something that SNP Members oppose. This Government are going to make the investments to make it happen. \p Alan Gemmell: Lang may yer lum reek, Mr Speaker.

The Minister may know that we used to have nuclear power in Ayrshire, creating many well-paying jobs. Does he think we could see small modular reactors at Hunterston, and what does he think of the SNP’s abject failure to bring nuclear to Scotland, even though it has planned for an independent Scotland to rely on English nuclear? \p Ed Miliband: The SNP’s is an anti-jobs, anti-investment and anti-clean energy position, and SNP Members should be ashamed of themselves. \p Ashley Fox: During the last election campaign, the Secretary of State said he would cut energy bills by £300. Could he set out for families and small businesses in Bridgwater the timescale for fulfilling that promise? \p Ed Miliband: We said we would cut energy bills by up to £300 by 2030, and that remains our commitment. \p Perran Moon: Penn-bloodh lowen, Mr Speaker.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to nuclear energy as a means of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, but I am concerned that far less attention has been given to another low-carbon, low marginal cost, firm baseload power source—deep geothermal. By some estimates, there are over 30 GW of geothermal energy potential in the Cornish granite batholith alone. What are the Government doing to assess and unlock this untapped geothermal potential? \p Michael Shanks: As always, my hon. Friend is a great champion for his local area and its different energy sources. I am very happy to meet him, as geothermal  has huge opportunities. I think some of it has yet to come to market, but we look at all opportunities for delivering clean power. \p Christine Jardine: Happy birthday, Mr Speaker—I suspect you may be relieved that we cannot sing in the Chamber.

I was recently approached by a small business owner in my constituency of Edinburgh West who faces bill of almost £30,000 for the period of lockdown when her business was closed. She is getting no sense out of British Gas Lite about why she is facing this bill, and I am getting no response from it. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can find out what is happening? \p Lindsay Hoyle: A quick yes will do. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: Yes. \p Rachael Maskell: Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.

The York Central development site at the heart of my constituency has been found to be a rich source of deep geothermal energy. Will the Minister meet me to look at how we can bring this on stream to heat the 2,500 homes and support the 12,500 jobs there will be on that site? \p Michael Shanks: I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. There are a number of schemes like this already. The Mining Remediation Authority has a number of projects under way. There is huge potential, and I am happy to meet her to discuss it. \p Sammy Wilson: Happy birthday, Mr Speaker, and despite what has been said by colleagues on the Benches in front of me, you do not look a day over 75. [Laughter.]

While the Minister is claiming to save the world by closing down the oil and gas industry in the United Kingdom, Centrica has signed a £20 billion deal with Norway to supply gas to the United Kingdom. How does he justify the loss of British jobs, giving away tax revenue and putting growth in jeopardy by closing down an industry that is still much needed? \p Michael Shanks: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on two fronts. First, we are not closing down oil and gas. It will continue to play a part for many years to come, but there is a transition under way, as there has been for many years. The truth of the matter is that, while we want to create the jobs that come next, he turns his face against all the investment in what those jobs will be, which means that, under his plan, the transition will not lead to a future for that incredibly skilled workforce. We are determined to do it differently, so that there are good, well-paid jobs in the future and a secure energy mix for decades to come. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I thank everybody who has wished me well for my birthday. I got the best birthday present, and that was the knighthood for Sir Billy Boston, who had to leave Wales to play rugby league. This is the first knighthood for rugby league, so it is the best present I could have had. \p Ed Miliband: With permission, I would like to make a statement about Government plans for investment in new nuclear power.

Sixteen years ago, in 2009, as Energy Secretary I delivered a statement to this House identifying potential sites for new nuclear. I said:

“We need to use all available low-carbon sources… New nuclear is right for energy security and climate change, and it will be good for jobs too”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2009; Vol. 499, c. 31.]

That was true back then, and it is even more true today. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the cost of living crisis that followed showed how vulnerable we are as a country because of our dependence on fossil fuels, at the whim of markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The imperative of energy security and the demands of the climate crisis mean that we must shift as fast as possible to clean, home-grown power. The demand for that power, as we shift away from gas, is expected to at least double by 2050, so we need all the low-carbon sources possible to meet the demands we face.

The advice from experts, including the Climate Change Committee, is clear: we need new nuclear to meet our climate obligations. This Government support new nuclear because of our belief that the climate crisis is the greatest long-term threat facing our country and our world, not in spite of it; because of the imperative of energy security; and because of the good, skilled jobs that nuclear provides. In Britain today, there are too few industries that offer the secure, well-paid jobs with strong trade unions that the British people desire and deserve. Time and again, I have heard from people up and down the country about the importance of nuclear jobs to their communities. For all these reasons, the Government are taking decisive steps today to usher in a new golden age of nuclear for Britain.

First, back in the late 2000s, when I was Energy Secretary, I identified Sizewell as a potential site for new nuclear. It has taken 16 years, but I am incredibly proud that today we are announcing £14.2 billion of public funding for this spending review period to build Sizewell C, the first Government-funded and owned nuclear power station in Britain since the 1980s—a strategic partnership with France, with EDF intending to invest alongside us.

I recognise the contribution of my hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) and for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) in advocating for this project and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her advocacy for nuclear as a whole. I also acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who is not in his place, when he was Minister for nuclear.

Sizewell C will power the equivalent of around 6 million homes with clean, home-grown energy for 60 years,  and will be a jobs and growth engine for Britain,  supporting 10,000 jobs at peak construction and creating 1,500 apprenticeships—well-paid, highly skilled jobs in East Anglia and communities across the country. I thank the GMB, Unite, and Prospect trade unions, which are brilliant champions for the nuclear industry.  Sizewell has already signed £4.2 billion-worth of contracts with 311 companies, and will eventually work with 3,500 suppliers in all four nations of the UK.

This project is good value for money for the taxpayer, because there will be a clear economic return on the investment, and for the bill payer, because all the due diligence we have done demonstrates that the cost of the clean power it will supply will be cheaper than the alternative. We expect the final investment decision on the project, including through the capital raise from the private sector, to be completed in the summer, when we will set out further detail. This is a new generation of nuclear power, promised for years and delivered by this Labour Government.

Secondly, small modular reactors offer a huge industrial opportunity for our country, and we are determined to harness Britain’s nuclear expertise to win the global race to lead in this new technology. I can inform the House that following a rigorous two-year competition, today Rolls-Royce SMR has been selected as the preferred bidder to develop the UK’s first SMRs, subject to final Government approvals and contract signature. This initial project could create up to 3,000 skilled jobs and power the equivalent of around 3 million homes.

In the spending review, we are committing to the public investment needed to get the SMR programme off the ground, with more than £2.5 billion in funding over the period. The project will be delivered by Great British Energy Nuclear, a publicly owned company headquartered in Warrington—an allied company to Great British Energy, which is headquartered in Aberdeen. Subject to Government approvals, the contracts will be signed later this year. Our aim is to deliver one of Europe’s first SMR fleets, leading the world in the nuclear technologies of the future, with more good jobs and energy security funded and made possible by this Labour Government.

Thirdly, beyond the immediate horizon, nuclear fusion offers the potential of an energy-abundant future. Britain already leads, thanks to the pioneering work of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, but unlike in the past, we are determined to make the investments to stay ahead as a country. Today, we are pledging to invest more than £2.5 billion in nuclear fusion, including in the STEP—spherical tokamak for energy production—programme, which will help to progress the new prototype fusion plant at West Burton. I congratulate the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, on her tireless advocacy for this project, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Jo White) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on their advocacy. This will be the first fusion plant of its kind in the world, and it will be on the site of a former coal-fired power station. Under a Labour Government, Britain will lead the clean energy transition and trailblaze the technologies of the future.

Fourthly, our nuclear ambitions do not stop there. As we move ahead on these projects, we see huge potential right across the country. That is why we are looking to provide a route for private sector-led advanced nuclear projects—advanced modular reactors and SMRs—to be deployed in the UK. And we will task Great British Energy Nuclear with a new role in assessing proposals, with the National Wealth Fund exploring potential investment opportunities. My message to the private sector is that if it wants to build new nuclear, Britain is open for business.

I can also tell the House that, following the incredible campaigning work of my hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), my Department has asked the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Cumberland council to consider the potential of privately led clean energy development in Moorside, delivering jobs and growth in Cumbria.

We also know that this is an industry that demands long-term thinking. Therefore, having announced these steps today, we will build on our 2030 clean power action plan and set out our plans for the energy system, including our ambitions and next steps on nuclear, into the 2030s and beyond.

Taken together, the steps that I have announced today will kick off the biggest nuclear building programme that Britain has seen in half a century, doubling down on our nuclear strength to take the latest step forward in our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. When people ask what clean energy and net zero means for our country, this is what it is all about. For too long, our country has not made the crucial investments in energy or infrastructure that we need. The British people have paid the price for this short-sighted failure to invest—in lower living standards, insecurity and declining public services. This week’s announcements signal a decisive change in approach—to invest in the future and make the right choice for energy security, the right choice for jobs, the right choice for climate, our children and grandchildren, the right choice for Britain, and the right choice of investment over decline. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister. \p Nick Timothy: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

The Conservative party is a pro-nuclear party and we welcome any decisions, backed by investment, that increase Britain’s nuclear capacity, because we cannot deliver cheap, reliable and secure energy without it. Although the investment announced today by the Secretary of State is significant, it is a fraction of the £230 billion cost, which will ultimately be borne by consumers, of his plan to decarbonise the grid. Unlike the intermittent technologies backed at such cost by the Secretary of State, nuclear provides reliable baseload power. It generates inertia to stabilise our grid. Nuclear power plants require substantially less new grid infrastructure compared with dispersed generation from wind and solar. It is to the shame of successive Governments over many years that Britain relinquished its status as a world leader in civil nuclear technologies. In 1965, we had more nuclear reactors than the United States, the USSR and the rest of the world put together. Between 1956 and 1966, we built 10 nuclear power stations, but we gave all that up. The contribution of nuclear to our power generation peaked in 1994 and has fallen consistently since then.

Labour came to power in 1997, saying that it saw no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations. In 2010, the coalition agreement ruled  out public investment in nuclear. It was the last Conservative Government who planned the largest revival of nuclear power in 70 years and it is thanks to that work that the Secretary of State has been able to make many of these announcements today. Can he reiterate, despite the headlines this morning, that the final investment decision has not yet been made? He said in his statement that he will announce it in the summer, but can he give us a more precise date when we will be told the total Government investment and the private capital raised?

This statement is a downgrade on what the previous Government put in motion. Today, the Energy Secretary has announced only one small modular reactor. There is no clear target to increase nuclear power generation and no news on Wylfa. The nuclear industry is expecting news of a third gigawatt scale reactor. The previous Government purchased the land and committed to build, but on this today the Energy Secretary said nothing. Can he commit to the planning inherited for a third gigawatt scale plant at Wylfa and will he recommit to the Conservative policy of 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050?

Although it is good news that Rolls-Royce will build our first small modular reactors, this is a downgrade on what was previously planned. Can the Secretary of State tell us why he has awarded just one technology rather than two as set out previously? Furthermore, will he commit, as other countries have, to going faster?

Canada has approved a plan for four SMRs by 2029. As things stand, Britain will not have SMRs connected to the grid until the 2030s. The contrast between this caution on nuclear and the Government’s rush to decarbonise the entire grid in just five years, while betting the house on unreliable and intermittent renewable technologies and shutting down British oil and gas in the North sea, could not be clearer. We need the Energy Secretary to focus on the positive, not to stake our country’s future and people’s bills on ideology. \p Ed Miliband: I feel a bit sorry for the hon. Gentleman; it is hard on a day like this to be an Opposition Member. Nevertheless, I will try to answer his questions, such as they are. On the question about the final investment decision, he will be aware that we are currently doing the private sector capital raise. When that is complete, we will proceed to the final investment decision, which will take place this summer. That is obviously important.

On his fundamental question, I do slightly scratch my head, because he says that this is a downgrade—we have announced the largest nuclear building programme in 50 years! What he says might have looked good in the mirror this morning, but it does not bear much resemblance to reality. The question, which goes to the point I made at the end of my statement, is this: why did the Conservatives make all these promises on nuclear but fail to deliver them? There is a simple answer. It was not because of a lack of diligence from his colleague the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The simple reason is that they did not put up the money. They did not make the investment. The one thing that has bedevilled the nuclear programme is a failure to invest public money.

In this spending review we are putting in £14 billion for Sizewell, £2.5 billion for SMRs, and £2.5 billion for fusion. Those are significant sums of long-term capital investment. The Conservatives made all these promises,  but they did not put in the money. I was the guy who identified Sizewell, and I am back here delivering Sizewell. This Government are willing to make the investment. We welcome the support from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), such as it is, but he needs to learn some lessons. Public investment, not decline, is the answer for Britain. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. \p Bill Esterson: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on delivering on his promise from 2009 and confirming Sizewell C, along with the vast array of commitments to a bright nuclear future for this country. The Select Committee looks forward to our inquiry in the autumn into the future of nuclear; we will be taking evidence and making recommendations to support the work that the Secretary of State has set out. We visited Sizewell C, and I also visited the nuclear physics department at the University of Liverpool. I learned in both cases about the jobs that will be available across the country. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he sees this as the start of both gigawatt construction of new nuclear and a big expansion into SMRs and AMRs, which are still a nascent technology, to support a very good future for nuclear generation in this country? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks very well on this subject. I agree with him about the huge jobs potential from new nuclear and the timelines. My priority when we came into office was to get these things over the line, because there had been so many promises made by the last Government. Long-term promises were made under Boris Johnson for 2050, but they did not deliver anything towards the 24 GW target. My priority was to get on and deliver these things and get them over the line, which we are doing. Then we can look at what the energy needs are going forward and how we meet them. I agree with my hon. Friend that nuclear has an essential part to play, alongside all the other clean energy technologies; electricity demand is going to double by 2050, so we need all of them. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Pippa Heylings: We welcome the Government’s renewed focus on energy security through nuclear power as part of the energy mix. It is long overdue, after years of dither and delay from successive Conservative Governments. It has been 16 years since Sizewell C was first announced in 2009, and now, seven Prime Ministers later, we are finally seeing real movement. That is not a success story but a warning. Short-term thinking, poor delivery and exorbitant costs— \p Nick Timothy: Are you quoting Nick Clegg? \p Pippa Heylings: Will the hon. Member let me continue? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I will decide when things are out of order. I do not need any help. I want you to get the question finished quickly, so come on. \p Pippa Heylings: I cannot help but wonder whether the Secretary of State imagined when he stood at his Dispatch Box back in 2009 that he would be back in 2025 still announcing funding for the same project.

We support investment in clean, home-grown energy. Small modular nuclear reactors have real potential to reduce our dependence on foreign gas—from tyrants like Putin—and help bring down bills, so we welcome the Government’s backing of the nascent technology of small modular reactors and their choice of Rolls-Royce, which is recognised as a first mover across all of Europe. That is where the focus should be—not on large-scale projects like Sizewell C that cost billions, take decades and so often go over budget. We have to ensure that this does not land consumers with higher energy bills. That risk is very real. The Government must be transparent about how this will be paid for, because families cannot afford another hit to their household budgets.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the best way to cut bills, create good jobs and boost energy security is to invest in home-grown renewables such as solar, wind, tidal and geothermal, and to upgrade our national grid to deliver that clean power. We look forward to seeing more detail on the long-overdue reform of the outdated first come, first served grid connection system, which is holding back renewable energy projects and could even delay the roll-out of new SMRs. Today’s announcement is a step in the right direction, but the real test is in the delivery of cheaper bills, stronger energy security and a modern energy grid fit for the future. \p Ed Miliband: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I feel bad about mentioning this, but she has slightly airbrushed out the role of the current leader of the Liberal Democrats, who was Energy Secretary for a period, but we will “Trotsky”—to use a familial term of origin—that out of the record.

I sincerely welcome her support for this programme, and she puts the case very well: it is a lesson to some of the Opposition Members sitting behind her that we need all the clean energy technologies; we should not choose between them. Being in favour of nuclear does not mean that we are against wind. I am the biggest enthusiast for offshore wind, onshore wind, solar and all these technologies. Let us have all of them, to get off fossil fuels and meet our electricity and energy demand. \p Josh MacAlister: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy birthday; you were born only a few months after the opening of Calder Hall, the world’s first civil nuclear power plant, so you share that.

The Secretary of State has made the major decision, which is incredibly welcome in west Cumbria, to unlock up to 200 acres of land at Moorside for clean energy projects, including new nuclear. This issue has been stuck for many years, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s efforts on it, the decision he made and the work he has done with the Cumberland Nuclear Future Board to make it happen. Will the Secretary of State continue to work with me and local partners to drive the project through so that we get something delivered at the site? Secondly, can he say more about the regulatory taskforce that is being undertaken at the moment so that we can cut through the bureaucracy and build reactors more quickly? \p Ed Miliband: To reassure you, Mr Speaker, you look much younger than the Calder Hall nuclear power station. \p Lindsay Hoyle: And it is being decommissioned—that is even worse! \p Ed Miliband: Absolutely right—there will be no decommissioning of you, Mr Speaker.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on showing incredible leadership for his constituents on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him and other colleagues on these questions. He is right about the potential; he is also right about the regulatory question. We have some of the highest standards of regulation in the world, but it is always right that we look at how we can improve standards of regulation and avoid changes in regulation during the course of projects, which is crucial for success. That is the work we are getting on with. \p Greg Smith: Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. To give credit where it is due, I totally welcome today’s announcement on nuclear. Where I disagree with the Secretary of State is on his persistence to plough ahead with inefficient technologies such as solar and the associated paraphernalia, such as battery storage, which trash the Buckinghamshire countryside and, indeed, the wider British countryside. Nuclear works 24/7; solar works about 10% of the time. Will he have greater courage and plough ahead with this much more efficient 24/7 nuclear technology and drop solar? \p Ed Miliband: I thank the hon. Member for part of what he said, if not most of it. We have a fundamental disagreement. Solar and wind offer cheap power for our country—why would we possibly say no to that? The biggest threat to the countryside is the climate crisis, and solar and wind alongside nuclear are the way to tackle it. \p Jo White: I, too, wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I very much welcome the statement, which is about the future-visioning and future-proofing of our energy security and production. I particularly welcome the £2.5 billion investment in fusion, including for the STEP—spherical tomahawk for energy production —programme at West Burton in north Nottinghamshire. I thank Ministers for their work to secure that, which is very welcome indeed. The process has already started, with the tender outcomes for the construction and the design and technology to be announced later this year. I am championing British companies, which are very much part of that process.

I am excited about the thousands of jobs and skills in new infrastructure that will be developed because of this programme. The work has already started on the skills partnership, which is stretching right across regions including the east midlands, Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire. That partnership is working with our further education colleges, our universities and the advanced manufacturing centre in Rotherham. Does the Secretary of State agree that left-behind, red wall areas such as mine are where we need investment to revise our energy production and our industry? This is where we start, and I want to see more. \p Ed Miliband: I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy. When I was in discussions with the Chancellor, I did think that if this did not go ahead I would have to answer to my hon. Friend and to the Mayor of the East Midlands, so she was a motivating force in ensuring that the project did go ahead. Her point is crucial: this is about good jobs in areas of the country that really need those good jobs. Last night, I was talking to an apprentice from Sizewell—she went there at age 16 and has been there for a year—about the experience she has had. She gives credit to Sizewell. We can see her career in front of her, and we want that for lots more people. \p Julian Lewis: Assuming that the large nuclear power station at Sizewell C and the small modular reactors both prove to be successful, as we trust they will be, what is the Government’s thinking about the respective roles of each of those two very different types? Which does the Secretary of State think will be the better bet in the long term for the future of the country? Can he assure us that China will have no part in any of this? \p Ed Miliband: On the latter point, yes, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that. He asks a typically astute question, if I may say so. The truth about these technologies, I think, is that the answer is both. We cannot really make a judgment about this until we see the SMR programme developed. The SMR programme offers something that has eluded nuclear for a long time, which is modularity and replication, and that, as we know from other technologies, is the way to bring down costs and speed up delivery. There is huge potential in both, but large-scale gigawatt can also play an important role. \p Louise Haigh: I warmly welcome the SMR announcement, which is great news for Sheffield as Rolls-Royce is already doing significant work at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre. When I met Rolls-Royce recently, it said that 70% of its bid could be built and produced in Great Britain. How will the Government hold Rolls-Royce to account for that and ensure that the announcement delivers great jobs and great investment right across the UK? \p Ed Miliband: I thank my right hon. Friend for her incredible advocacy on this issue, including at the AMRC. She makes such an important point: this will be taxpayers’ money, and we need to ensure that as much as possible is built in Britain. I make absolutely no apologies for saying that. The answer to her question is that as we negotiate terms with Rolls-Royce over the coming months, that will be a key part of our discussions. \p Kirsty Blackman: This £14 billion splurge on English nuclear power plants comes on top of £22 billion for English carbon capture and storage, while there is nothing for Scotland’s Acorn project. With Grangemouth allowed to close and the fiscal regime ruining the north-east’s energy jobs, this latest announcement shows that Scotland is not an afterthought—Scotland is not a thought at all. If nearly £40 billion can be found for English energy projects, why has money never been found for Scotland’s carbon capture project? \p Ed Miliband: Maybe a change in the SNP’s position is coming. Absolutely, if the hon. Lady wants, let us have a discussion about Scottish nuclear power stations. We are in favour of the Acorn project and will say more about that in the coming weeks. But on nuclear power, SNP Members have really got to think again. They are sticking their heads in the sand. This is about jobs, investment and clean energy. They should really rethink. \p Lizzi Collinge: If I had known it was your birthday, Mr Speaker, I would have brought you down a Chorley cake, but never mind. As you know, my constituency hosts Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations. As the Secretary of State is aware, I am pushing for Heysham also to host new nuclear. Will he tell me how today’s announcement supports nuclear communities such as mine and will enable the next generation of nuclear across the country? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To get slightly into the weeds, the new planning framework that we are consulting on opens up possibilities for new nuclear. Today we have set out the public money that we can commit to new nuclear at this stage. We are seeing this a bit in the US and in other countries with a 50% increase in nuclear investment last year globally. My message to the private sector is that if it is interested in partnering with us and saying to us, “We want to build in places other than those where you’ve put the public investment,” we are absolutely open for business and dialogue. \p John Whittingdale: The Secretary of State will be aware that it was originally proposed to build a third nuclear power station, based on a Chinese design, at Bradwell-on-Sea in my constituency. Is a third station—it will not be Chinese—at Bradwell still a possibility, or could it be allocated an SMR? \p Ed Miliband: Good nuclear sites, including Bradwell, are always going to be possibilities as far as I am concerned. We are not going to have China building our nuclear power stations, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss this with my Department, we will be happy to do so. \p Claire Hughes: It is clear that this Labour Government are putting pounds behind promises to deliver clean energy and good, skilled jobs in all parts of the country. With that in mind, given its importance to north Wales, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Great British Energy Nuclear will prioritise Wylfa? \p Ed Miliband: I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked that question. Wylfa is an incredibly important site that has huge potential for our country. Obviously, over the months ahead Great British Energy Nuclear will look at the role that Wylfa can play in relation to SMRs and large-scale nuclear. \p Llinos Medi: The Secretary of State’s message to the private sector is, “If you want to build new nuclear, Britain is open.” Companies have told me that they need decisive and committed leadership from the UK Government to be confident to invest in a new project at Wylfa. I have raised that 11 times in the  Chamber, yet today there was no mention of Wylfa. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the UK Government support the delivery of new nuclear projects at Wylfa? \p Ed Miliband: Yes, we do. Again, we are open to discussions with the hon. Lady and other colleagues. \p Clive Betts: I will not say “happy birthday” to you again, Mr Speaker; perhaps we can arrange to sing it next time so that we do not all have to repeat it.

The Secretary of State’s statement is welcome. The other welcome news today is the Government’s commitment to £460 million of investment at Sheffield Forgemasters. That is primarily for defence nuclear, but it also provides extra capacity for civil nuclear. There is a bit of concern about Rolls-Royce’s link with Czechia, so will my right hon. Friend commit to using forgings from Sheffield Forgemasters in the first-of-its-type SMR in this country and build the supply chain so that the vast majority of jobs are provided for British workers? \p Ed Miliband: I definitely believe that Sheffield Forgemasters has an incredibly important role to play in our civil nuclear programme. Contractual details for Rolls-Royce and our discussions with the company are for a bit down the road, but in my view, Forgemasters is central to our plans. \p Claire Young: Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Oldbury in my constituency is one of the sites under consideration for SMRs, and I have been told many times that it has many factors going for it, including GB Nuclear’s ownership of it, the nuclear expertise in higher education locally, its existing nuclear history and the potential for co-ordination with the Berkeley site. Given that the old nuclear power station has already been decommissioned, the local community wants to know what the future looks like. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Oldbury is still in the running and will he give a timeline for the decision? \p Ed Miliband: As part of the process that we go to from here, Great British Energy Nuclear will look at what is the right place for the SMR fleet and, absolutely, Oldbury is one of the candidates. \p Baggy Shanker: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker. What a wonderful day today is proving to be. As a proud Derby MP, I am delighted to welcome the selection of Rolls-Royce to deliver the first of the UK’s small modular reactors. We know that the Secretary of State, his ministerial team and the Mayor of the East Midlands are champions of clean energy jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s decision is good news for the country and for Derby? Also, in backing home-grown SMRs, what will the benefit be for UK workers and those in the east midlands region? \p Ed Miliband: I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for Derby and for Rolls-Royce. It is important to say to the House that this was a fair and open competition, conducted at arm’s length from Ministers. Rolls-Royce  came out as the winner and I am incredibly pleased about that. The possibilities for Rolls-Royce are huge in what it can do for SMRs in this country, in the export opportunities and in the jobs in the supply chains. That is the thing about nuclear: it is about the jobs not just at the top of the tree but right across the supply chain that we have the potential to create. \p Roger Gale: While I fear that the development of Sizewell C may prove to be a multibillion-pound investment in yesterday’s technology, I welcome the commitment to SMRs in so far as it goes, which is probably the way forward for tomorrow. We have to get from where we are today to there. Why are we going to spend billions of pounds and accumulate masses of wastage importing carbon fuels from overseas instead of developing our own North sea resources? \p Ed Miliband: On the nuclear point, there is real potential at Sizewell. I understand the implication of his views on that: to learn from what happened at Hinkley—because it is a replica of Hinkley—and therefore to cut the costs and do it quicker. The aim is to deliver it cheaper and faster. On the wider picture, we may have a difference of view. Mine is that we have to get off insecure fossil fuels as quickly as possible. That is why nuclear has a role and renewables have a role, but the existing North sea fields will be kept open for their lifetime, so oil and gas will continue to play a role in our energy system. \p Johanna Baxter: Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. New nuclear has the potential not only to power communities across our country, but to create jobs in every constituency. That is why it is particularly extraordinary to hear SNP representatives argue against those jobs. Will the Secretary of State confirm how many new jobs will be created by today’s announcement and what conversations he has had with workplace representatives to ensure that those are genuinely good jobs, with good terms and conditions? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that in all respects. Sizewell alone will create 10,000 jobs at peak and 1,500 apprenticeships. For good safety and other reasons, there is a strong trade union tradition in the nuclear industry, which we intend to uphold. As for the situation in Scotland, it genuinely beggars belief that the SNP would turn its back on such a huge opportunity. \p David Mundell: As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, and having championed the nuclear industry for 20 years in this Parliament, even when it was not popular on either side of the House, I very much welcome today’s announcement, because I have seen over 60 years in my constituency the economic impact of the Chapelcross nuclear power station. Returning to the subject of Scotland, we see the SNP’s intransigence, which is costing Scotland jobs on the nuclear front. Will the Secretary of State ensure that if we will not have nuclear power stations, we can at least have jobs in the supply chain? \p Ed Miliband: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his long-standing advocacy on the issue, including when it was not popular. He makes a very good point: we need to see a change in Government in Scotland, to a Labour party that will advocate for nuclear. The supply chain in all four nations of the UK can play a crucial role in the nuclear renaissance that we are announcing today. \p Adam Thompson: A very happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Secretary of State for today’s announcement, which represents a massive boost for my constituents in Erewash and a huge vote of confidence for Rolls-Royce just down the road in Derby? How does he foresee the announcement affecting the availability of apprenticeships for kids leaving my local schools in Ilkeston and Long Eaton? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend raises such an important point. There is a good tradition of apprenticeships in nuclear. I have seen it at Hinkley Point C and we will see it at Sizewell. I am sure, and I will make sure, that we will see it in the SMR programme as well. These are fantastic opportunities for young people and opportunities that we intend to make happen. \p Adrian Ramsay: Will the Secretary of State tell the House a bit more about the regulated asset base funding model for Sizewell C? In particular, will he assure the public that the construction phase of Sizewell C will not be funded by increases to people’s bills, given that it will be well over a decade—potentially nearer two decades if we look at Hinkley Point—before it produces any new electricity? \p Ed Miliband: The hon. Gentleman will know that the RAB system that was passed through this House involves the role of bill payers. We believe that that is the right system and will cut the cost compared with Hinkley Point C. The hon. Gentleman appears to oppose many different forms of clean power. He opposes transmission infrastructure for offshore wind and solar, he opposes solar farms, he opposes carbon capture and storage, and I guess he opposes nuclear. I have an all-of-the-above position on clean energy; he seems to have a none-of-the-above position. \p Jonathan Hinder: I am delighted that Rolls-Royce has been selected to deliver SMRs in the UK. It really is time for us to stop delaying the new fleet of nuclear power stations more broadly. The Secretary of State will remember that he came to my constituency before the election, to the Barnoldswick Rolls-Royce site, and heard that it now supports 400 jobs, whereas pre-pandemic it was 900. This is a huge opportunity for us to create good skilled jobs in all parts of the country, so will he reassure me that the Government as the customer of Rolls-Royce will demand that those jobs go to places such as Barnoldswick and all over the UK and that we stop the offshoring of manufacturing? \p Ed Miliband: I was incredibly impressed by what I saw at Barnoldswick. I had to maintain a position of neutrality when I became Secretary of State as to who won the competition, but I am incredibly pleased that Rolls-Royce won the competition fair and square. My  hon. Friend makes an important point about making sure that the jobs go to places such as Barnoldswick. I am sure that Rolls-Royce will want to do that. \p Gavin Williamson: Capula, based in Stone, is an example of a great British company that has been supplying the electricity-generation industry in this country for many decades. To get the very best for British jobs, how can businesses such as Capula link in at the very earliest stages with the Government as they start to plan how the investment will be made? \p Ed Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue; let me take this away. As we embark on this golden age for nuclear, we need to make sure that the supply chain really benefits. Perhaps he could furnish my Department with the details so that we can think about how such companies can benefit? \p Elsie Blundell: I welcome today’s announcement. I have been speaking to people from across my constituency—cleaners, hospitality workers and others—who desperately need the cost of bills to come down. How will the projects announced today, and the other steps the Government are taking to counter the impact of uncertainty in global energy markets, help to stop people in Heywood and Middleton North being out of pocket? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is that this is about planning for the long term to get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels, which are insecure. We saw what happened when Russia invaded Ukraine. Let me give the House one fact: if the Sizewell C plant had been up and running at the time of that crisis, bill payers would have saved £4 billion in 2022-23 alone. That is the security that new nuclear can give us. \p Tom Gordon: Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Secretary of State what guarantees are in place to ensure that these jobs go to local people rather than to overseas contractors? Also, what investment in training and skills will be provided to make sure that they go to local people on the ground? \p Ed Miliband: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that Members on both sides of the House have raised in different ways. It is absolutely part of what we are going to do to make sure that these jobs come to the UK. There are commitments around 70% of the supply chain spending being in the UK, and my Department will ensure that there is accountability on the part of the companies that will be benefiting from public money, to ensure that we see the maximum benefits across the country in the UK. \p Gregor Poynton: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today. Unfortunately, it is not for viewers in Scotland. Scotland was once a pioneer in nuclear energy, and it should be again, but due to the SNP Scottish Government’s outdated, backward and frankly bizarre opposition to nuclear energy, they are turning away billions of pounds of investment and  thousands of high-skilled jobs. Does he agree that this is yet another way that the SNP Scottish Government have lost their way? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is so right about this. People in Scotland will be looking at these announcements and saying, “Why isn’t it us who are benefiting from this? Why are we not even in the race?” We have lots of Members saying that they want their area to benefit, yet the Scottish Government and the SNP are saying that they want no part of it, and no part of those jobs. That makes no sense. \p Sammy Wilson: I also welcome—[Interruption.] It is very unusual for me to welcome anything from the Secretary of State but I welcome this announcement, because nuclear is an important element in providing the baseload for electricity across the United Kingdom. He mentioned delivery five times in his statement, but this is an announcement not a delivery, and there is a period when we will still need the baseload to be provided. Can he tell us how he intends to ensure that the baseload is provided in that interim period, and what discussions he has had with the Economy Minister in Northern Ireland about the suitability of SMRs for supply in Northern Ireland? \p Ed Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman and I have been discussing these energy issues for about 17 years since he was the spokesperson on this, and agreement is rare between us, so I really welcome what he says. I would say to him that these are the steps we have to go through to deliver, and they are incredibly important. To reassure him on his point about the Economy Minister in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Energy Minister will be meeting them next week. We believe that this can benefit all four nations of the United Kingdom, and it is 100% our intention to make that happen. \p Andy McDonald: Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Government’s commitment to securing our future energy supply and, by doing so, taking control of our energy, protecting family finances and tackling the climate crisis. In addition, I am keen to learn about the Department’s assessment of new technological developments to reduce energy waste, in particular through developing underground thermal energy storage solutions. I am aware of organisations in that sector that are keen to share opportunities with the Government, so what is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the role of thermal storage solutions in reducing energy loss, avoiding curtailment fees and maximising the benefit from energy generated? \p Ed Miliband: I know that my hon. Friend has been strongly advocating on these issues in terms of the exciting possibilities for his constituency. My suggestion is that a Minister from my Department—perhaps the Minister for Energy—should meet him and the company concerned about the potential involved. \p Andrew Murrison: The announcement today is good news as far as it goes, but the baseload that it will provide will not be on tap for many years to come. How does the Secretary of State propose to fill that gap? Will he now look again at  the UK-Morocco power project, which needs a decision soon and could be delivering electrons by the turn of the decade? Does the announcement today affect the likely contract for difference and strike prices eventually reached with the proposed operator? \p Ed Miliband: We are looking seriously at the Xlinks project. The right hon. Gentleman is a tireless advocate for it, and I respect him for that. My answer on the baseload question is that we need a combination of things to meet the power that we need, and there are all kinds of different ways in which we can do that. I would also say that part of the job that we are undertaking is to make sure that we can get Hinkley Point C delivered as quickly as possible, because that can also make an important contribution. On his last point, the decisions today do not affect the decisions on Xlinks. Those are separate decisions. \p Graham Stringer: I welcome the statement today, which is moving towards an energy mix that is less weather dependent. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of investment in nuclear fusion. There is one constant about nuclear fusion, which is that, starting from the original ideas in the 1950s, it has always been 50 years in the future. The International Energy Agency is still predicting that the earliest that nuclear fusion will be providing energy on to the grid will be the second half of this century. Does the Secretary of State agree with that, and if not, why not? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend is definitely right about the old saying on nuclear fusion. I think maybe it is coming a bit closer. There have been really important breakthroughs, particularly in the UK, and we are determined to invest in them. I do not think anyone can say for certain when it will arrive, but the prototype fusion project is a really exciting step on that journey. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: Penblwydd hapus i chi, Mr Llefarydd—happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. The nuclear community at Trawsfynydd remains disappointed not to be on GBN’s SMR site and will continue to push for that and also for alternative uses. Security of supply of medical radioisotopes is critical to avoid the ethical nightmare of rationing diagnoses and treatments for a range of diseases including cancer. The Welsh Government’s Project Arthur will see north Wales become the home of a public sector national laboratory to produce medical radioisotopes. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to help the Welsh Government to realise Project Arthur at Trawsfynydd? \p Ed Miliband: This is why these statements are important. I think I need to check the answer, because I do not want to give a flippant answer to the right hon. Lady’s incredibly serious question. Let me write to her to give her a proper answer. \p Lillian Jones: Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. While I welcome this fantastic announcement, Scotland will unfortunately not benefit due to the SNP’s ideological block on nuclear power, blocking billions in investment and thousands of well-paid  secure Scottish jobs and blocking growth across our Scottish communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland and, indeed, Ayrshire need a new political direction, and that the only way to get that will be at the ballot box next year? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend puts it very well. I notice that SNP Members have sort of disappeared; they are probably a bit embarrassed. She is absolutely right about this. In a sense, it comes into sharp focus today because we can announce a golden age of nuclear with our investments, but not in Scotland because of the position of the SNP Government. It makes no sense. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Energy security is important, so I welcome this investment in nuclear. One more small modular reactor can power a million homes using just two football pitches-worth of land, while solar needs 2,000 acres of good-quality farmland to power 50,000 homes. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the importance of food security as well as energy security, reconsider the use of good-quality farmland for solar, and concentrate instead on producing nuclear? \p Ed Miliband: We are operating under the previous Government’s planning guidance when it comes to the best agricultural land. On the hon. Lady’s wider point, we need all the clean energy resources that are at our disposal—solar, onshore and offshore wind, and nuclear. I am for all of the above. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that the Government will make a statement later today to give an update on the middle east. \p Jonathan Davies: Today’s announcement that £2.5 billion will be invested in the small modular reactor programme is fantastic news for the country. It will help bring energy bills down, power homes and create jobs. It is amazing news for Derby, too, because the technology behind the SMRs has its roots in the technology developed at Rolls-Royce Submarines half a century ago. As the Government move forward with investment and delivery, and the Secretary of State approaches the contractual aspects, will he ensure that we build on what we have in Derby, such as the Nuclear Skills Academy, and the good jobs already there, so that we can grow opportunity for the wider region and the country as a whole? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. Derby should be incredibly proud of Rolls-Royce winning the competition, and incredibly excited about the possibilities for young people in Derby and across the wider region. Now we must ensure that, working with Rolls-Royce, we deliver on that promise, and that is what we intend to do. \p Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) asked perfectly reasonable and pertinent questions about the cost of this whole project. Is there a private finance initiative element involved, and what will it cost? How ultimately will we dispose of the nuclear waste, and who will pay the decommissioning costs in 60 years’ time? The nuclear industry does not have a great record on strike price, decommissioning costs or the cost of dealing with waste. \p Ed Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman asks perfectly legitimate questions. I am glad to say that decommissioning is in at the beginning of the financing model, as part of the overall costs. We will lay out total costs when the final investment decision is made. Similarly, on the regulated asset base costs—I know that he genuinely cares about the climate crisis—all the evidence we have shows that this is our lowest-cost alternative, compared with other low-carbon technologies, so it is a crucial part of the energy mix. \p Gurinder Josan: I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Labour Government on this incredibly important investment announcement. As a physicist by training, I particularly welcome the investment in fusion technology, as well as traditional fission. I am sure that this investment will bring closer the final outcome that we want. Will he ensure that the benefit of this investment is felt across all our communities by using a predominantly UK supply chain, and will he ensure that all aspects of the nuclear jigsaw receive Government support, including the provision of nuclear fuel, the decommissioning and safe disposal of nuclear waste, and even the reuse of currently stockpiled nuclear waste products in future generations of reactors? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point: across the lifecycle of nuclear and across the supply chain, there are important economic opportunities. The importance of realising that potential is a constant theme of the questions that we have heard today, and that is what we intend to do. \p Blake Stephenson: Global tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon have announced plans to use SMRs to power their data centres, so they have trust in SMRs. I happen to believe that they should be the future of nuclear in this country. I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State. The announcement states that a new public company, GB Energy Nuclear, will be set up. Will he set out why a new company is required, how much it will cost the public purse, and why it is based in Warrington? I have nothing against Warrington, of course, but why has the decision been made to place the company there? Will he outline when he expects meaningful deployment of the modular reactors? \p Ed Miliband: The hon. Gentleman asks good questions. On the first, GB Energy Nuclear is a development of Great British Nuclear, which is based in Warrington. On deployment, I am aware of the record of people who promise deployment that is then not delivered, but the truth is that we expect a final investment decision in the next few years, and deployment in the early to mid-2030s—I think that is the fairest way of putting it. I agree with him about the potential. I also agree—this is why I have said that I am open to the role of the private sector—that private sector partners may want to come in and build sooner, and that would be great. \p Luke Murphy: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the investment in our energy security and jobs. I know from my visit to Sizewell with the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee that jobs in the nuclear industry are good, well paid and highly skilled. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is in  part thanks to the strong relationship between business, trade unions and the Government in that sector, and that there is much to be learned from that relationship in other parts of the energy sector and beyond? \p Ed Miliband: My hon. Friend characteristically puts it incredibly well. The nuclear industry offers us a model of good employee relations, and there is a good, strong role for trade unions in ensuring safety and guaranteeing good terms and conditions for workers. That is a lesson that other parts of the energy industry, including the renewables sector, can definitely learn from. \p Richard Foord: New jobs in clean energy are very welcome. Many of the skilled jobs at Hinkley Point C in the south-west are going to young people from beyond the area. Given the social mobility challenges in East Anglia and west Somerset, will the Secretary of State comment on investment in colleges and skills to encourage applications from the local area for those new jobs and apprenticeships? \p Ed Miliband: The hon. Gentleman puts it incredibly well. That was certainly my impression when I went to Hinkley Point C, when I saw the impact that it has on the local economy. We want to do the same at Sizewell C. There are plans to start a local college, modelling in a way some of the stuff that was done at Hinkley Point C. He is so right about the massive opportunities here, which we must exploit. \p Mark Ferguson: As a child, Sizewell was an important word to me, like Wylfa, Hunterston, Dungeness, Dounreay and Hinkley, because they were places where my father, based in Gateshead, went to work. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the announcement is part of bringing back those fantastic safe jobs, which are so important for Gateshead and the nuclear industry? \p Ed Miliband: I am glad that my hon. Friend asks that question and talks about his heritage and family history. That reflects something real. The nuclear industry has a great tradition in this country. It went through a sort of extended hiccup, I think it is fair to say, but it is really important that we bring it back. Those are good, long-term secure jobs that people can take pride in. We should absolutely embrace that. \p James Naish: As the chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on fusion energy and for the east midlands, I say a huge thank you on behalf of my constituents and my region for the two major announcements: Rolls-Royce winning the SMR contract, and the £2.5 billion for fusion energy. Does the Secretary of State agree that such large infrastructure projects offer huge apprenticeship opportunities for my region, and will he commit to meeting me and the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, to discuss how the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station can play its role? \p Ed Miliband: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his two-hatted advocacy on these issues. He makes an important point. The potential of the new prototype fusion plant is huge, as is the wider potential of nuclear. I look forward to discussing that with him. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the clear positivity in every word he has said. I very much welcome the news that nuclear energy is to be secured for the United Kingdom, bringing job security and many contracts, and we look forward to seeing how we can all benefit across this great nation. Can he confirm that companies from the United Kingdom will be able to secure contracts to supply materials and manpower? How can Government ensure that each area of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will benefit from this massive investment? \p Ed Miliband: It is really important that there is a four-nations approach to the supply chain contracts; that is something I am very keen to ensure. There will be thousands of contracts in the supply chain, with huge opportunities for Northern Ireland, and I am determined to deliver them. \p Paul Waugh: Andy Burnham’s Atom Valley mayoral development zone for advanced manufacturing will be based in Rochdale, Oldham and Bury, and it is so named in honour of Ernest Rutherford’s groundbreaking research at the University of Manchester on splitting the atom. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that today’s huge public investment in both nuclear and nuclear fusion will rely on precisely the kind of cutting-edge research that will be done at the Sustainable Materials and Manufacturing Centre in Rochdale? \p Ed Miliband: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that question and on the new centre, which is incredibly appropriately named. We should celebrate our history on these issues, and the way to honour our history is by building the future for nuclear—that is what today is all about. \p Paul Holmes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given the Speaker’s Office advance sight of this point of order on process, following proceedings last night in relation to new clause 82 tabled to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which was not put for a separate decision. First, I want to say very clearly that this is no criticism or challenge of the decision of the Clerks, Deputy Chairs or Chairs, for whom I have immense respect, but it is a request for clarification on the process and the decision that was come to last night. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the following.

New clause 82 was accepted for a separate decision yesterday, and it was signed by over 70 Members of Parliament. The Member who tabled the new clause, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), had indicated outside the Chamber before the conclusion of the proceedings that he would not push the new clause to a vote, and that is his right. However, advice was given to the Chair that the Chair has discretion not to mention or put the Question at the conclusion of proceedings, despite the new clause being allocated for separate decision through the usual channels; thus, when the conclusion of proceedings came, there was no mention of new clause 82.

Precedent in this House says that another Member who has signed the amendment can push the new clause to a vote. However, that option was not given to a Member who wished to do so and had signed the amendment. “Erskine May” states under paragraph 28.139, titled “Conclusion of proceedings on consideration”:

“If the time available for debate on consideration under the terms of a programme order has been exhausted, Standing Order No 83E is engaged. In order to bring proceedings to a conclusion, the Speaker must put forthwith the following questions (but no others):

a. any question already proposed from the Chair;

b. any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;

c. the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate decision;

d. the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister; and

e. any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.”

Another example comes in Standing Order No. 32, which says in sub-clause (1):

“In respect of any motion or any bill under consideration on report or any Lords amendment to a bill, the Speaker shall have power to select the amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be proposed thereto.”

Sub-clause (5) states:

“The powers conferred on the Speaker by this order shall not be exercised by the Deputy Speaker save during the consideration of the estimates.”

I have a concern that this has set a precedent. Over 70 Members across the House who had signed a new clause did not have the chance to put it to a vote last night. The Member who tabled the clause spoke to it and outlined the measures that it would bring into the legislation. I am worried that Members from all parties across the House who have signed amendments and  new clauses will not have the opportunity to put them to a vote just because the Chair decides they have the discretion to eradicate that Question from being put in the proceedings of this House. I would be grateful for your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, and maybe you could offer a meeting with the Principal Clerk, so that I can discuss my concerns about this issue. \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank the hon. Member for advance notice of his point of order. I can assure him and the House that nothing irregular or, indeed, unusual took place last night. It is usual for the Speaker to give provisional advance notice of amendments and new clauses that are expected to be selected for separate decision. However, it is not infrequent for the Chair to make changes based on new information that comes to light during the course of the debate, particularly when the lead signatory to an amendment or new clause indicates that they do not wish to move it.

Only an amendment or new clause that has been moved by a Member needs to be withdrawn with the leave of the House before the Question is put. This only applies to the lead amendment or new clause in any group. In this instance, the Member had not been called to move the new clause, so there was nothing to withdraw. It is wholly appropriate and normal for the Chair to decide not to call a new clause or amendment for a separate decision when the lead signatory has indicated they do not wish to move it. Ideally, this indication should have been made in the course of the debate by the Member who tabled the new clause. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) knows very well how to touch base with the Table Clerks and the staff in the Speaker’s Office. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Priti Patel, supported by Andrew Rosindell, Wendy Morton, James Cartlidge, Mr Mark Francois, Helen Grant, Jesse Norman, Alex Burghart, Andrew Griffith, Sir Mel Stride, Mr Richard Holden and Mike Wood, presented a Bill to make provision about sovereignty and constitutional arrangements in respect of the British Indian Ocean Territory, also known as the Chagos Archipelago; to prohibit the making of payments of public funds to the government of another country in connection with the sovereignty or constitutional arrangements of the British Indian Ocean Territory, unless authorised by Parliament; to require the Secretary of State to consult and engage with British Chagossians in relation to any proposed changes to the sovereignty and constitutional arrangements of the British Indian Ocean Territory; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed (Bill 258). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Nick Timothy: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about freedom of expression in relation to religion or belief systems; and for connected purposes.

I do not believe that Mohammed was a Prophet sent by God. I do not accept the instructions he said he received from the Archangel Gabriel. I do not accept that the Sunna, or body of Islamic laws, has any relevance to me. I respect the religious beliefs of others, but I do not mind if Mohammed is satirised, criticised or mocked. I am not a Muslim, and I choose not to live by the moral codes set out by Islam. I am a Christian, and I should make it clear that I do not think anybody should be prosecuted for satirising, criticising or mocking Jesus either.

England and Wales abolished blasphemy laws in 2008, and Scotland abolished them in 2021, but even then, those laws had not been used for decades. The last blasphemy trial took place in 1977, and the state has not brought a public prosecution for blasphemy in more than a century, but now, blasphemy laws are back. I have been advised not to refer to two high-profile cases of people being arrested, charged and prosecuted for causing harassment, alarm or distress to Muslims or even, nonsensically, to Islam itself. While I will keep my speech to the conceptual, I invite the House to recall that there are real examples of what I raise in the criminal justice system right now.

The issue is the way that sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 are being used—far beyond the intent of Parliament—to police what we can and cannot say about Islam. I will come to the details of sections 4 and 5, but first I want to say something about the intent of the Public Order Act. The long title of the Act makes it clear that its purpose was to abolish some common law and statutory offences to make way for new offences relating to public order. Nowhere in the Second Reading debate from 1986 did anybody raise the need to protect religions or followers of religions from offence. The context of the Act was football hooliganism and the riots in Brixton and Broadwater Farm.

It is true that part III of the Act created new offences relating to racial hatred, and this was amended to include religious hatred by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. However, section 29J of the Public Order Act, to which we will return, says:

“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents”.

We can therefore be confident that the Public Order Act, even as amended, was never intended to become a blasphemy law.

That obvious conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the controversies regarding blasphemy and Islam in this country began two years after its introduction, in 1988, with the publication of “The Satanic Verses”. Since that year, and the protests and fatwa against Sir Salman  Rushdie, our public conversation about Islam has been limited through a mixture of self-censorship and more official restrictions, such as the definition of Islamophobia accepted by many public bodies. These restrictions are motivated not by a desire to avoid offence—consider the criticism and mockery made of other religions—but by fear of a violent response by those who are offended.

Some say public order offences are not the same as a blasphemy law, and that it can be legitimate to prosecute somebody for saying something that might cause wider disorder. Perhaps in some circumstances that may be so, but we should interrogate this line of thinking. First, the Crown Prosecution Service gave the game away by charging one man with causing “distress” to the “religious institution of Islam”, which is pretty much the dictionary definition of blasphemy. Secondly, twisting the law to make a protestor responsible for the violent reaction of those who will not tolerate the opinions of others is wrong; it destroys our freedom of speech. Some argue that although this may be regrettable, it is now an unavoidable consequence of the multicultural society in which we live today.

By this logic, the state must police the boundaries between different ethnic and religious groups to avoid disorder, but we should be clear that that means state intrusion and a loss of liberty on some occasions, and mob rule on others. This is the very essence of the two-tier policing row we have seen recently: rough justice for those belonging to identity groups that play by the rules, and freedom from justice for those belonging to groups willing to take to the streets and threaten violence. This is the logic of using the Public Order Act to prohibit us from saying what we like about a religion. A person may be found guilty because of the violent reaction of those offended by their actions.

From Sir Salman Rushdie to the Batley teacher still in hiding with his family, the threat of violence is what lies behind these new blasphemy laws. Perhaps we should not be surprised. There are at least 14 Muslim-majority countries where the penalty for blasphemy or apostacy is death, and we have significant diaspora populations from many of them. With the number of people here who came from those countries growing and the increasing  assertiveness of organised political Islam in Britain, this is a problem that seems likely only to get more severe. But the answer is not to surrender to the mob; it is to hold the line, and that is why today I bring forward this Bill.

I said earlier that section 29J of the Public Order Act protects “criticism”, “insult” and even “abuse” of

“religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents”.

However, that applies only to part III of the legislation, because part III introduced offences relating to racial hatred, later amended to include religious hatred. Nobody thought sections 4 and 5, which in part I of the Act make it an offence to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” by using

“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”

would be used to criminalise the expression of opinions about religious belief.

This Bill would therefore extend the scope of section 29J to the whole Public Order Act—thus preventing the use of sections 4 and 5 as a de facto blasphemy law—and would apply section 29J also to section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. In so doing, this Bill would restore free speech as it applies to religion in England and Wales. It would stop the police, prosecutors and judges from creating a blasphemy law from legislation that was never passed for that purpose. It would send the strongest powerful message from this place, where political power legitimately and democratically resides, that this country will not tolerate intimidation, violence or censorship, that there will be no special treatment here for Islam, and that there will be no surrender to the thugs who want to impose their beliefs and culture on the rest of us.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Nick Timothy, John Cooper, Dr Luke Evans, Mr Richard Holden, Robert Jenrick, Rupert Lowe, Rebecca Paul, Jack Rankin, Sir Alec Shelbrooke, Bradley Thomas, Tom Tugendhat and Sir Gavin Williamson present the Bill.

Nick Timothy accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 257). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords message \p Nusrat Ghani: I inform the House that nothing in the Lords Message engages Commons financial privilege. \p Chris Bryant: I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 49F and proposes, in lieu of the Lords Amendment, amendment (a) to Commons amendment 45, amendments (b), (c) and (d) to Commons amendment 46 and amendment (e) to the Bill.

I fear it is an inevitable aspect of ping-pong that there is a degree of repetitiveness about our proceedings. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), said last week that it reminded him of the film “Groundhog Day”, but that refers to the Pennsylvania Dutch superstition that if a groundhog emerges from its burrow on 2 February and sees its own shadow, it will retreat to its den and winter will go on for six more weeks. Well, I can see my shadow and I just hope that ping-pong is not going to continue for another six weeks.

Last week, I covered some misconceptions about the contents of the Bill and what we are trying to achieve separately in relation to artificial intelligence and copyright. I fear that some of those misconceptions persist. The Guardian carried the following sentence this weekend:

“The AI Bill, which proposes allowing‬ tech companies to use copyrighted material, has suffered‬ a fifth defeat in the Lords.”

That was repeated by one of the presenters on the “Today” programme, who stated that the Bill allows AI companies to use copyright material. I am glad the “Today” programme has apologised and corrected‬ the record. Let me reiterate: this is not an AI Bill and it does not propose changing copyright in any regard whatsoever. If the Bill goes forward in the way proposed by the Government, there will be no diminution in the robustness of the UK copyright regime. Sometimes I want to say, in the words of Richard II, “you have mistook us all this while.” ‬‬ \p Julian Smith: I accept what he said at the start of his speech, but the industry is desperate: its intellectual property is being stolen day by day, and the Minister does understand that it wants a timeline and a vehicle. I hope he will confirm that the Government are going to bring one forward. \p Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not going to do that. He also knows that the enforcement of copyright law is not a matter for Government because it is not the Government who enforce it. I have the enforcement regulations in my hand. Chapter VI of the Copyright, Designs and Patents   Act 1988 makes it very clear that infringement is actionable by copyright owners. In common with many bits of the law and with statute law in the UK, enforcement is not normally by Government. It is by either the prosecuting authorities or by people taking a civil action. Those are the measures that exist in copyright law today and we are not changing them in a single regard. Having said all that, I acknowledge the strong feelings expressed in both Houses about the need to protect the intellectual property rights of 2.4 million people who work in the creative industries in this country, including the significant proportion of the creative industries represented by the tech industries, which this week are celebrating London Tech Week.

It must be said that their lordships have been persistent, so much so that they remind me of a poem by Robert Browning, “A Toccata of Galuppi’s”, about the 18th century Venetian composer Baldassare Galuppi. It uses several musical terms, such as the dominant, and includes the line:

“Hark, the dominant’s persistence till it must be answered to!”

The Lords have been persistent, which is why we have not just listened to them; we have heard them, and we are answering them. Although the Bill, which was drafted largely by the previous Government, did not originally refer to the matter of copyright at all, that is why at a previous stage we tabled specific requirements on the Government to produce an economic impact assessment of the options available to us and to report on key issues, including transparency, technical solutions, access to data and copyright licensing within 12 months.

In response to their lordships, we are going several steps further. First, we are adding two further reporting requirements on approaches to models trained overseas and on how transparency and other requirements should be enforced. Secondly, in response to the call for us to work faster—meeting the point just made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith)—we will deliver the economic impact assessment and reports within nine months, rather than 12 months. Thirdly, we are introducing a new requirement that the Secretary of State make a progress statement to Parliament about the documents within six months of Royal Assent. \p Pete Wishart: The Minister is being generous, as always, in giving way. I welcome the amendments—I think they are helpful and useful—but they miss out and exclude transparency, which is what this is all about. The Lords, the creative sector and artists around this country want a commitment that this Government will deal with issues of transparency. Why will the Minister not sit down and compromise with the House of Lords and ensure that we get a solution that works for everybody? \p Chris Bryant: In the end, the single most important compromise will be between the AI sector and the creative industries sector. That is the bit that we need to negotiate over the next few months. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the idea of simply putting one part of the jigsaw into this Bill. The truth is that if we are going to get to a proper compromise solution, it will require all the bits of the jigsaw to be put together into a comprehensive picture. That means that we need to go through a proper process.

The last time we discussed these things, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) referred to the noble Lord Peter Mandelson and amendments that he thought were tabled to deal with Napster in the Digital Economy Act 2010. Because I had some spare time over the weekend, I read all the debates on that Act in 2010, and we went through a process to get to that Act: we produced a White Paper and then legislation, which went through both Houses. It was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Mandelson and in the House of Commons by Ben Bradshaw. In fact, most of that Act was so controversial that in the end, it was never implemented by the Government who took over in 2010, and large chunks of the Act were taken out when it collided with the 2010 general election.

I am not sure that things were quite as the hon. Gentleman thought at the time, but the key point is that we need to go through a proper process of bringing forward conciliation in this area. That means introducing legislation once we have considered the responses to the consultation, bringing forward our economic impact assessments, considering all the different aspects that really matter to the creative industries and the tech companies, and then considering legislation. I want to do that as fast as we possibly can, because I want to get to a solution for all of this problem.

The Government have tabled amendments to put these commitments in the Bill. The amendments were initially tabled in the other place, but they were not voted on by peers, who instead insisted on the amendment that we disagreed to last Tuesday—in fact, as I understand it, the amendments were not moved. They show our commitment to ensuring considered and effective solutions, as I have outlined, and demonstrate that we have unequivocally heard the concerns about timing and accountability.

We need to do one other piece of work. The House already knows that we will bring together working groups to consider transparency and technical solutions. They will have AI and creative industry representatives on them and will be extra-parliamentary. \p Anneliese Midgley: I thank the Minister for being so generous with his time. On that point, will he outline how the Government will decide which parliamentarians will be on the advisory group and how they will be chosen? \p Chris Bryant: I am about to come to that—my hon. Friend has a faster timeline than I have. There is of course expertise in Parliament, which is why I commit today that the Government will convene a series of meetings to keep interested parliamentarians informed on progress on this important issue, so that we can benefit from their input as we develop our thinking before any formal proposals are brought back to Parliament.

The working group meetings will include a cross-party group of Members, made up of MPs and peers. We hope that the group can act as an informal sounding board, but it is not intended to replicate or replace the normal scrutiny role of established bodies, such as Select Committees. I see that the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for  Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), is in her dutiful place as usual; I would not dream of seeking to tell her Committee what to do or how to conduct its business, but we would none the less like to be able to draw on its members and their expertise. \p Meg Hillier: Will the Minister give way? \p Chris Bryant: I thought that might happen. \p Meg Hillier: Late on Friday night—after hours and to an unmonitored inbox—emails suggesting that approach were sent to the Chairs of the two relevant Select Committees: the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. That was the first that had been heard of it. An all-colleague email went round on Saturday morning. This seems to be rather hurried, breathless and not very courteous to the House. The Minister has written two very respected books about Parliament, and I am sure that he did not intend disrespect, but we need to be clear that scrutiny is done through Select Committees and that policymaking is a separate thing. Combining the two is not really appropriate. \p Chris Bryant: I completely agree with the last point that my hon. Friend makes. Scrutiny of Government legislation through the proper processes in either this House or the other House—or through Select Committees, for that matter, which do it in a slightly different way—is one thing, and the business of developing policy is another. I completely apologise for the inadvertent sending of the email to the wrong address and all the rest of it.

We are simply trying to engage as many Members in this House and the other House as we possibly can, on a matter that clearly matters to a great number of Members of Parliament because of their constituents. That includes my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who I know has a very large creative community in her own constituency. We want to involve as many people as we possibly can. We may be moving faster on occasions than people want, but sometimes the demand is that we move faster. I apologise for the inadvertent discourtesy, but we are simply trying to engage as many people in the future debate as we possibly can. \p Christopher Vince: Will the Minister give way? \p Chris Bryant: Before I do, I will say that because my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch is the Chair of the Liaison Committee, I wonder if it would be useful if she and I met in the next few days with the Chairs of the two most relevant Committees to discuss precisely what shape all that should take and what would be useful and informative, rather than doing anything that might undermine the process. \p Christopher Vince: The Minister partly answered my question as he went along there. My thought on the group is that it is really important that we get creative voices into the room to have that conversation. Once the group is formed, will part of its remit be to invite members of the creative industry in to discuss their concerns and how we can work together to solve them? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Before the Minister responds, I remind him that we have only an hour for the whole debate. We have four Back Benchers wishing to contribute. \p Chris Bryant: I feel told off, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you very much. I have been told off for talking too long, for talking too short, for going too fast and for going too slow.

My point is that we are already committed to creating two working groups that will look at transparency and at technical solutions to the problems that we face. Both of them will have members of the creative industries and members of tech and AI companies engaged in them. In addition, we want to have a separate group of Members of this House and the other House who are engaged with and have an interest in the subject to help us to develop these policy areas. I think it is best to keep those separate, and that is the plan. As we know, the Secretary of State has already written to the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees, but I hope that what I have just said is helpful. \p Caroline Dinenage: indicated assent. \p Chris Bryant: I see that I am getting a slight nod from the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee about the prospect of our meeting to sort out a way forward on that.

I will say a few words about ping-pong. Some peers have suggested that different rules apply because the Bill started in the Lords. That is simply not true. Double insistence would kill the Bill wherever the Bill had started, and I take people at their word when they say that they do not want to kill the Bill. It has important measures that will enable digital verification services, the national underground asset register and smart data schemes to grow the economy; that will save NHS time; that will make vital amendments to our policing laws; and that will support the completion of the EU’s adequacy review. Its provisions have the support of all parties in both Houses, which is why I urge this House to accept our amendments in lieu and urge the Lords not to insist on their amendment but to agree with us.

It is worth pointing out that if their lordships do persist, they are not just delaying and imperilling a Bill that all parties agree is an important and necessary piece of legislation; they are imperilling something of much greater significance and importance economically: our data adequacy with the European Union. The successful renewal of our EU adequacy decisions is predicated on us having settled law as soon as possible, and we will not have that until the Bill gains Royal Assent. I cannot overemphasise how important this is, and I am absolutely mystified as to why the Liberal Democrats—of all parties—would want to imperil that.

I am equally mystified by the position of the Conservative party. They tabled amendments in the Commons Committee and Report stages that are almost exactly mirrored by what we have already added to the Bill and are adding today. I very much hope therefore that the Conservative party will agree to our motion. It is not as if it disagrees with any of the measures in the Bill.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness Kidron, who said in the Lords,

“I want to make it absolutely clear that, whatever transpires today, I will accept the choice the Government make.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 755.]

It was a point she reiterated later in the debate when she said,

“if we”

—that is, the Lords—

“choose to vote on this and successfully pass it, I will accept anything that the Commons does… I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2025; Vol. 846, c. 773.]

The noble Baroness is right. In the end, only one House is elected; only one House constitutes the Government of the day; and, especially where a Bill was adumbrated in a general election as this one was, the unelected House treads carefully. That is all the more important when the governing party has barely a fifth of the members of the other House. We have listened to the other House and taken action. There may be disagreements about the measures we have taken, but it would be wrong to say that we have not listened. It is time for the Houses to agree that the Bill must go forward.

I will say one final word about creativity. We live in an exceptional age. When our parents were young, they were lucky if their family had a television or a record player. They might occasionally go to a gig, concert or play. If they did have a television, they had a choice of just two or three channels. By contrast, today we are surrounded by human creativity in a way that no other generation was. Technology has brought us multiple channels where we can pick and choose whatever we want, whenever we want to see it. We watch more drama than ever. We can listen to our own choice of music on the train, on the bus or in the car. We can play games online with friends on the other side of the world. More books are published than ever. We can read or listen to them. Almost twice as many people went to the theatre last year as went to a premier league match. There are many challenges, all of which we need to address, including that of the interaction of AI with human creativity, but creativity is a quintessence of our humanity. It requires human-to-human connection, and I do not think for a single instant that that will change. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Ben Spencer: It feels like we are going from “Groundhog Day” to “Lost in Translation” because the Government clearly are not getting the message.

Today I will try something different and tell the House a story—the story of this debate:

A story was read in the deep dark wood,

AI saw the book, and the book looked good.

“Where are you heading to, original tome?

Come here with me, and I’ll give you a home.”

“That’s awfully sweet of you, but no,

I’m meeting my author, and they say where I go.

Now I like you, and I don’t want to cause strife

But they made me with love and words shaped by life.

So if we’re to partner, please do ask them first,

To not would be naughty,” he said with lips pursed.

Perhaps I owe Julia Donaldson an apology, while also thanking her for the national treasure that is “The Gruffalo”—I look forward to the third book in the series. We did not use AI, which was useless, to draft it, just the skills of one of my team members Jacqui Gracey—human skill, talent and transparency over sources and work.

Transparency is fundamental to protect creative endeavours. No one can doubt that the Minister has done his best to demonstrate the enduring nature of the creative spirit in the face of adversity and to avoid committing to a timescale and to legislating on transparency. This week, it is a new parliamentary working group. Last week, it was reviews. Next week, it may even be a citizens’ assembly, but the creative industries are not buying it. Our noble colleagues in the other place are not buying it. Members of Opposition parties, and indeed some Members on his own Benches, are not buying it. They are not buying it because the Government have lost the confidence of their stakeholders that they would bring forward legislation to enact effective and proportionate transparency requirements for AI models in the use of their creative content—AI companies need to buy it.

It is this loss of confidence in the Government’s will to take decisive action that means that nothing short of a commitment to bring forward legislation will be enough to allay the fears of the creative industries. \p Emily Darlington: I thank the hon. Member for his creativity in his speech. The heart of the debate is whether creatives are asked before we steal their material or style, but also that they are remunerated for that. That is a commitment we have heard from the Minister and from the Secretary of State in his media performances on the weekend. This problem predates this year. It dates back to stuff being stolen over a considerable number of years. Why did the last Government not take any initiative to ensure that creatives receive their just rewards for their creativity? \p Ben Spencer: What the last Government did not do is release a consultation that had a ministerial foreword to say that the position of copyright was uncertain. What they did not do was say their preferred option was opt-out, which spooked the creative industry and caused all these problems in the first place. It is this Government’s ham-fisted approach that caused so many of the problems that they are now trying and failing to fix. The Government have played a large part in creating this problem. \p Pete Wishart: I am not going to let the hon. Gentleman get away with that. The last Government did not do anything on this issue, basically because they did not understand what was going on, and the little they did understand about some of the threats from AI, they did not care. As he asked the Labour Benches to do yesterday, the hon. Gentleman should apologise for the last Government’s inaction over the past few years because a lot of this is down to them. \p Caroline Dinenage: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady should allow the hon. Member to respond to the first intervention before he takes a second. \p Ben Spencer: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said, this is clearly a tricky area to legislate—I have said that at the Dispatch Box and in Committee many times—but what is not helping is the uncertainty that has been created throughout the debate, whether it is the position of copyright law, preferred third options or the status of opt-out, which is how we got into this pickle in the first place. \p Caroline Dinenage: There seems to be mass amnesia breaking out across the Chamber because the last Government did do something on this: they set up a working group between AI companies and the creative industries. \p Peter Kyle: They cancelled it. \p Caroline Dinenage: No, the AI companies walked away. We are almost at risk of recreating history by this Government wanting to set up exactly the same working group and thinking that by doing the same thing again, the outcome will somehow be different. \p Ben Spencer: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, who is also trying to break us out of the groundhog day that we seem to have found ourselves in.

The Lords amendment does not fetter the Government’s policy options, nor does it prescribe how proportionate transparency should be achieved. It simply puts a line in the sand for the Government to act on this hugely important issue.

To return to the AI and the Gruffalo,

So on went the story through the deep dark wood

To be loved by its readers, as a good book should.

Yet the AI pondered, as it wanted it now.

“I’ll simply just scrape it”, the AI did avow.

When he was musing, he stumbled across

The author reclining on a patch of green moss.

They had glasses and notebooks and ideas galore.

They had printed five books, but were working on more.

Their eyes came to meet—they were in for a fight.

Both wanted the story, but who was right?

The answer is both, if reasonably sought

For content, not stolen, but licensed or bought.

Be clear what you’re taking, be transparent and true,

And recognise the content and its real value.

Then there’s no monster nor bad guy, just an allegorical rhyme

And a plea to listen and take action in time. \p James Frith: I hope that the shadow Minister sought permission to misappropriate Julia Donaldson’s wonderful work. It is hardly an example that any of us should follow.

We are back here again. I put on record my thanks to Government Front Benchers for their engagement on this issue. It was particularly welcome to see the Secretary of State, in his appearance on “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg”, take such a human approach to recognising  the concern that exists in the creative industries and give a commitment to the nation about the seriousness of what comes from this place.

I also welcome the Minister’s comments that the creative and tech sectors will be involved in the next phase of this work, because that is essential. However, I would like to stress two further points. First, that involvement must reflect the breadth of the creative industries, from music and publishing to games, film and beyond—the necessary mix of expertise. That means the creative sector rights holders and business affairs professionals being involved, alongside the tech experts who understand the complexities of data flows, metadata structures, and the practicalities of any opt-out system or tech solution that is to be developed, notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s clarification that the Government no longer have a preferred position.

We look forward to the consultation and its findings being open and transparent, because while all the creative sectors share in the value of copyright as a principle that is tech and sector neutral, the way that commercial licensing models develop in practice will differ, and it is not for the Government to second-guess that. That is not a problem; in fact, it is a good thing. The emergence of bespoke commercial partnerships is precisely how the Government can achieve their objective of driving effective licensing, but to get there, we need sector-specific insight and specialist input, not a one-size-fits-all approach. I welcome the commitment to include Back Benchers, stakeholders and leaders of industry.

Crucially, the Government must consult and liaise with all of us on the formation of these groups, including their terms of reference—this cannot be presented again as a fait accompli. Too often, we hear of officials thinking or mulling things over, but not sharing what those thoughts are or what the implications of their latest thought could be. With the best will in the world, they cannot know the business as clearly as industry does. I believe that the prospects for both industries have improved as a result of this ping-pong process and the arguments we have been having, both in this House and in the other place. \p Alison Hume: My hon. Friend says that the prospects for both industries have improved. I have spoken in this place about my previous role as a screenwriter—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and this week, the British Film Institute reported that AI threatens the British film industry, with over 130,000 scripts having been plundered. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we fail to take this opportunity to deal with transparency and put powers to legislate on the face of the Bill, we will be leaving screenwriters and other creatives high and dry until we legislate in the future? \p James Frith: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which as ever is rooted in the first-hand experience and professional success that brought her to this place. She should be listened to, and her warnings about the implications of not taking transparency seriously should be heeded.

Secondly, I will return to a subject that I have raised before, because it warrants more scrutiny. That is the recurring suggestion that copyright is out of date. On the one hand, we have heard the Government talk  about copyright being clear and well established, and of course we agree with that. Only this weekend, the Government clarified again that if no licence or permission is in place, that is theft or piracy. That clarity is precisely what gives rights holders the confidence, control and legal basis to license their works, which the Government also rightly want to encourage.

However, in the same spirit, we sense that the Government still feel that copyright somehow needs to be reformed or ignored. I ask the Minister to take what I hope is the last opportunity during this process to indicate exactly what reform is being proposed, and what it will achieve that copyright does not already do, because the creative industry believes copyright to be best in class as a respected and enforceable measure. If the answer is transparency, personality rights, or anything that sits around copyright rather than within it, let us call that what it is, but can we please avoid vagueness, constructive ambiguity, and language that sets hares running or undermines confidence in what is frankly a best-in-class system?

Finally, if the Government are still entertaining the idea that the stability of UK copyright law could be weakened in pursuit of an idea of innovation, many will feel that the shift in tone and position in recent weeks —which has been deeply welcome—has been counter-productive, and they will be left concerned. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Victoria Collins: I would like to either disappoint or reassure the House that, sadly, I do not have a story for Members today. I will dive straight into the amendments that are before us.

Just three months. After all the discussions and the cries for fairness from the creative industries, which have seen the daylight robbery of their life’s work, the Government are sending back an amendment that, in essence, changes the economic assessment from 12 months to nine months, with a progress statement and some expansion. I understand that this is the data Bill, and that this legislation contains many important elements relating to the future of our data, which we must secure. In response to the point made by the Minister, I absolutely understand the importance of securing data adequacy with the European Union. However, the creative industry is at a critical juncture with AI. Many feel that it is already too late, but they are doing what they can, fighting for transparency and fairness for a £126 billion UK industry.

The Creators’ Rights Alliance has already started to see the impact for creators. 58% of members of the Association of Photographers have lost commissioned work to generative AI services, with an increase of 21% in the past five months alone, totalling an average loss of £14,400 per professional photographer—approximately £43 million in total. Some 32% of illustrators report losing work to AI, with an average loss of £9,262 per affected UK creator. There is an uncomfortable truth that economic gains from AI—of which I am sure there will be many—will also be met with economic losses that must be addressed. Indeed, at Old Street tube station, there are signs everywhere at the moment saying “Stop hiring humans.” Some 77% of authors do not  know whether their work has been used to train AI, 71% are concerned about AI mimicking their style without consent, and 65% of fiction writers and 57% of non-fiction writers believe that AI will negatively impact their future earnings. At this point, the creative industry feels betrayed, and is asking for solutions.

I also welcome the Secretary of State’s statements this weekend. He talked about looking comprehensively at the challenges creatives will face into the future and about bringing legislation in at the right time, but that time is now. Last week’s Lords amendment 49F highlighted that the Lords understood the need for separate legislation and asked for a draft Bill looking at copyright infringement, AI and transparency about inputs, which is something that creatives have been clear about from the start. I have always highlighted the positive impacts of technology and innovation, and I have no doubt that creatives will also use AI to aid their creativity. However, from musicians to film makers and photographers to writers and painters, the works of this massive industry have been swallowed up, and creatives are left wondering what that means for them—especially as they are already starting to see the impact.

In my constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted I see the creative spirit everywhere. There is: Open Door, a caring oasis with walls covered by local artists; the Harpenden Photographic Society, established more than 80 years ago, where generations have learned to capture light and moment through their lens; the Berkhamsted art society, where painters and craftspeople gather to nurture each other’s artistic journey; and the Berkhamsted Jazz group, who get us up and dancing. These creators are the threads that weave the rich tapestry of British culture, and the creative industries permeate our towns, including the filming of box office hits such as “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” at Ashridge. Who will be the guardians of this creative galaxy? Why does this theft feel a little less heroic than Robin Hood?

What is more, AI is also a business opportunity. Having spoken to the UK industry and businesses actively seeking to adopt AI solutions, they are also looking for transparency for their due diligence. BT serves around 1 million small business customers, and it sees a big opportunity to better serve them with AI solutions, but it says that transparency would help them do so with confidence. With the working groups with creatives and AI, we should also bring in the wider industry to unlock the opportunities.

From businesses to creators, the Bill should be seen as an opportunity for the economy. Creators are asking for something reasonable: partnership, not appropriation. They want to be asked, not simply taken from. As we all vote today, I urge Members to keep that in mind. It is a bittersweet irony that this week in Parliament there is a display celebrating the art of Parliament. There are more than 10,000 pieces of work in the archives, from Adebanji Alade to Céline Baumann. They tell the story of our democracy, culture and country. I was struck by one of the latest acquisitions, “The Magic Hour” by Katharine LiBretto. It is a bewitching screenprint that has the silhouette of Parliament. I hope that now is that  magic hour, when the Government can find a way forward to value creatives and set a new path for the future. \p Samantha Niblett: I draw the attention of the House to my being the founder of Labour: Women in Tech and the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial technology, and to my career in data and technology prior to becoming an MP. I welcome the Government’s new approach to innovate and expedite the process and to leverage the expertise of both Houses and key stakeholders. I thank them for their work on that.

Just under a month ago, the UK hosted FinTech Week and the global fintech forum, where businesses and Government leaders from around the world came to participate in critical conversations about the importance of the trusted global financial services ecosystem for the physical and digital worlds. Attendance was so senior and strong because after the global financial crisis the UK had to move quickly to a new model, and hence fintech was born. A lot of great work was done in this space by the Conservatives when they were in government, even if they could not get their act together over AI and keep the attention of AI companies. Government regulators, incumbents, entrepreneurs and investors worked together with alacrity to create an ecosystem that led the world into fintech. We created tens of thousands of new jobs, brought in tens of millions in inward investment and created more than 20 billion-dollar companies.

We are in the middle of London Tech Week, which is happening a few miles away at Olympia and was attended by the Prime Minister. There is a technology challenge in the creative industries that needs addressing now, which is why it is great to hear the news today. This is an emergency, and the emergence of AI in recent times has created opportunity and new threats for creatives, who rightly worry that their work is often appropriated by AI without reward or recognition. However, we can be a pioneer in this field, developing trusted solutions that protect creatives and set the standards that others will follow. We have demonstrated our ability to do that in the past with fintech, in which the UK holds a 10% global market share.

The UK’s secret sauce is a unique blend of not just our brilliant talent, light-touch regulation, common business language and soft power, but our common law, which is used by other countries. We are an exemplar. Other countries look to us to lead the way. A crisis is at the door, but we have an opportunity to be on the front foot, ahead of other countries experiencing the same challenges and watching us closely. This country always steps up in times of crisis. The UK can and must take a leading position on the fair use of AI in the creative industries and help to protect our creatives and their work, which are rightly celebrated across the world.

Engagement with global players in the ecosystem is important, but we should also be far more focused on the UK’s home-grown talent and inventive mindset to solve the biggest puzzles. We can move quickly when we need to, and my message to the Secretary of State and to this House is that we really need to, and have to. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. \p Caroline Dinenage: First, I thank the Secretary of State for sending our Committee a letter on Friday evening setting out the Government’s intentions for AI and copyright. Reflecting what the Chair of the Liaison Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), said, both the nature of the letter and the method with which it was received were almost symbolic of how this whole process has been conducted from beginning to end. It was fairly haphazard and chaotic, and it was not entirely clear what the Secretary of State or the Minister intend to happen next, but I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to have a chat to talk us through it.

Specifically, the Secretary of State and the Minister set out their amendments to the Bill and a plan to set up this parliamentary working group, and we would like to know a lot more about that. I understand exactly what the Government are trying to do: they are trying to placate peers and bring the Data (Use and Access) Bill to a conclusion, as the Minister says. The problem is that they are still not engaging with the fundamental existential issue, which is the concerns expressed by people across the creative industries.

The Government’s amendment would expedite the economic impact assessment of the options in the AI copyright consultation. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee jointly wrote about that in February. Another amendment would expand the scope of the report to include training outside the UK and enforcement, which obviously should have happened from the start. The amendments are all welcome, but they miss the point of the creative industries’ concern that their work and intellectual property are being exploited wholesale, without permission, without payment and without practical means of recourse and redress.

I note that the Minister told the House on 14 May:

“I do not think that what is on the amendment paper today would deliver anything now.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 417.]

The Government giving themselves nine months rather than 12 to conclude what we already know—that their favoured consultation option is completely unworkable—is much less likely to deliver quickly the kind of transparency and enforcement for creators than the amendments proposed in the other place.

The Secretary of State’s letter also mentions that the Government intend to set up a parliamentary working group to ensure that

“Parliament has a voice directly into DSIT throughout this process”.

The big fear is that this working group will simply be a channel through which the Government will report back on their own engagement with AI developers and rights holders. The Government instead need to be listening to the concerns of Parliament and industry stakeholders. Maybe then they will realise that this stakeholder engagement exercise between rights holders and AI developers has been tried before, as I said earlier, including in the last Parliament. It was scrutinised at the time by the Committee I chair, and each time things have got nowhere. Talks have collapsed because the status quo suits rogue developers acting in bad faith. They think they have nothing to lose by looting the work and value of our creators and our rights holders.

If the Government press on with this working group, we will of course engage and do what we can to support, but let us call it what it is: a distraction technique to divert attention away from the fact that the Government have got themselves into a terrible pickle over this legislation. They started a consultation on AI and copyright when they already had stated a preferred outcome, and they have been cloth-eared to the legitimate concerns of the world-leading creative industries for month after month. They have been virtually dragged kicking and screaming to this position now, where they bring forward a couple of tiny amendments. They have been gaslighting Members of all parties and at both ends of this building who have attempted to draw attention to the situation. They have been somehow pitting our world-leading creative industries against AI, almost presenting them as luddites who are allergic to innovation and technology, when actually these are some of the most groundbreaking and innovative sectors out there. They are using AI every single day to produce world-beating pieces of creative content. The very nature of how the Government have conducted this legislation pits our creative industries against AI, and that is deeply unfair.

It is all not good enough. This is simply a thinly veiled attempt to kick the can down the road—and if kicking the can down the road were an Olympic sport, the Minister would have to add “sport” to his portfolio. If he thinks that any of us are fooled by this, or that it will quieten those who want to stand up for our world-leading creative industries and against the existential threat that they face, he has another think coming. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We have a hard stop at 2.56 pm, and I know that the Minister will wish, with the leave of the House, to respond to some of the questions that have been asked. Mr Wishart, you have several minutes, but please do not go all the way to 2.56 pm. \p Pete Wishart: I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not detain the House, as I have just a few comments to make. Let me begin by saying that it is an absolute pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). I had my criticisms of the previous Government, but they did not extend to her. She was someone who understood the issues, and someone who was prepared to try to find a solution. Whereas the previous Government were appalling in the way they dealt with these matters, she at least made every effort, through the work of her Committee, to get to the heart of the debate.

This has been an extraordinary episode, and I cannot believe that we are back here for the fifth time. The issues are usually resolved and dealt with in circumstances such as this, and a meaningful compromise is reached between the Lords and the Commons, but that has failed to materialise during what has been a remarkable session of ping-pong. The whole episode has been as interesting and dynamic as it has been entertaining. The Minister and I were elected at the same time—I think we celebrated our 24th year of continuous membership of the House over the weekend. I am sure he will agree that he has never seen anything quite like the way in which we have reached this stage, but if he can give an  example to the contrary, I shall be keen to hear it—I know that, given his almost photographic memory, he would be able to provide the details.

What disturbs me is the Government’s failure to attempt to secure some sort of meaningful compromise. Their inability to do that is quite baffling. I am trying to think of a few ways in which we might get round this. It might be an idea to get the Secretary of State and Elton John in the same room and lock the door: perhaps when the two of them emerged, we might be able to come up with some sort of solution. We are in the realms of trying to find a way forward, and that might be one way in which we could do so.

By refusing to listen to the strong view of the Lords and respect the convention that ping-pong is a process at the end of which a workable compromise generally appears, the Government risk undermining their own legislative process. Having looked at the Lords amendment again, and having listened carefully to the debate the other day, I cannot see anything wrong with an amendment that simply asks for a draft Bill containing provisions

“to provide transparency to copyright owners regarding the use of their copyright works as data inputs for AI models”.

I thought that was what we were all trying to achieve, and I am surprised at the Government’s intransigent resistance to a fairly modest attempt to find solutions.

I have looked at the Government amendments as well, and I welcome them. As I have said to the Minister, the one that excites me most involves this House, parliamentary resources and the ability to play a meaningful part in these matters. I hope that he will be able to extend that to all parties across the House. \p Chris Bryant: Even to you. \p Pete Wishart: I am thrilled and excited by the prospect of being part of that work, and I look forward to joining the Minister, but I think that it must be as open as possible so that every single aspect of this can be harnessed and used as part of the Government’s work. What the Government amendments do not do, however—and this is a key issue—is pay attention to the transparency issues.

The peers have rejected amendments that the Government have tabled previously. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the Government are bringing these amendments back to try to distract us and give us the impression that they listened to the House of Lords and were near to reaching a compromise, but nothing of the sort is the case, because the key issue is the transparency that the House of Lords, the creative sector and artists across the UK want to see. The existing law should be enforced to protect the wages of 2.4 million creative workers, and the Government must produce a “meaningful compromise” amendment.

It is also entirely possible for the Government to take powers to introduce transparency via regulations, recognising the urgent need to prevent mass theft by AI firms at the earliest opportunity, and I do not know why they have not explored that option. The wages of those 2.4 million UK creators are at stake, as is the principle of the rule of law. The creative industries have made it clear that inaction on the Government’s part is giving  “big tech” the freedom to break our laws and destroy jobs. Copyright is not an abstract concept; it is what secures our creative success.

The Government will win in this House today, and they will probably win the whole debate—they will get their way. However, they have lost the battle. One good thing that has come out of this is the fact that people now understand that our copyright laws—our gold-standard copyright regime—underpins the success of the UK’s creative industries across the board. Some of the greatest artists in the world are from these islands, and they have achieved their success because of intellectual property rights and our copyright laws. To muck about with those as we have over the past few months undermines all that, and undermines the ability of those artists to continue to lead in their sectors. I hope that, even at this late stage, some sort of compromise can be found with transparency at the heart of it, and I appeal to the Minister to consider that seriously. \p Chris Bryant: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a few comments, because it is important to respond to some of the questions that have been asked. Two of my hon. Friends referred to the report that the BFI published yesterday. I warmly commend it to all Members, not least because it makes points that others have made about AI, but also because it makes the point that if films and high-end television in the UK are to be successful in the future, we cannot have this critical shortfall in AI education, which is entirely piecemeal at the moment. We know about that in the Department, and it is one of the things that we want to change.

Several Members have asked who will be involved in the various different groups. I want to draw on all the expertise in both Houses to ensure that we can find the right answers. I do not want to undermine anything that the Select Committees might do, jointly or separately, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), I am keen for all the parts of the creative industries to engage in this process. The difficulty is that we might end up with a very large roundtable, and people might have to bear with us when it comes to how we structure that. \p Chi Onwurah: Will the Minister give way? \p Chris Bryant: Okay, although my hon. Friend was not here earlier. \p Chi Onwurah: I apologise for not being here earlier. I commend the Government for engaging in a cross-party discussion about AI, which is what the country needs to do, but the key issue is ensuring from the beginning that the tech companies understand that transparency in copyright and AI is not a “nice to have” but an absolute requirement, and that if they will not deliver it, the Minister will. \p Chris Bryant: We have said from the very beginning that transparency is absolutely key to our ability to deliver the package that we would like to put together, and I do not resile from that, but it is only one part of the jigsaw that we need to join up.

I point out to the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) that some of the items on the amendment paper are things that the two Select Committees asked us to do. She is normally more generous to me, and to others, than she has been today. She has clearly forgotten that the last Government introduced plans that would have produced a text and data mining exemption for commercial exploitation of copyrighted materials without any additional protections for the creative industries. That seems to have slipped her mind.

We have moved a great deal since the introduction of the Bill. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—who is sitting beside me—and I have moved. We have listened to their lordships, and, more importantly, we have listened to what the creative industries have had to say. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) asked me whether I had ever known anything like this situation. Other bills have gone to five rounds of ping-pong, but in the past the row has always been about what is in the Bill, not what is not in the Bill. This is not an AI Bill, and it will not change the copyright regime in this country. I want that regime to be as robust as it ever has been, so that those in the creative industries can be remunerated and earn a living, as they deserve to. That is precisely what we intend to achieve, but we want to get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. That is why I need the House to vote with us this afternoon, and I hope that their lordships will agree with us tomorrow.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 189.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 49F and proposes, in lieu of the Lords amendment, amendment (a) to Commons amendment 45, amendments (b), (c) and (d) to Commons amendment 46 and amendment (e) to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on 29 April, on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, HC 855.] \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance on what is to be considered a compelling case in the public interest in relation to the use of compulsory purchase powers.

(2) The guidance must make clear that—

(a) the use of compulsory purchase powers for the purposes of developing or facilitating active travel routes are to be considered in the public interest;

(b) when proposing the use of compulsory purchase powers for the purposes of developing or facilitating active travel routes, local planning authorities are—

(i) required to demonstrate that best efforts have been made to consider alternative route options, but

(ii) are not required to demonstrate that the proposed route is the only or best route.

(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘active travel’ means modes of travel which involve a level of activity on the part of the traveller.”—(Freddie van Mierlo.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to update guidance on the use of compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes.

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Judith Cummins: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 42—Alignment of basic and occupier’s loss payments—

“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.

(3) In section 33C (occupier’s loss payment: other land), in subsection (2)(a) omit ‘2.5%’ and insert ‘7.5%’.”

This new clause, being an amendment of the Land Compensation Act 1973, would align the occupier’s loss payments with the basic loss payments at 7.5% of the value of the party’s interest.

New clause 85—Compensation payments—

“(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 30 (amount of home loss payment in England and Wales)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) omit ‘10 per cent of’;

(ii) omit ‘subject to a maximum of £15,000 and a minimum of £1,500.’

(b) omit subsections (3) and (4).

(3) In section 33A(2) (basic loss payment), omit from ‘payment of’ to the end of subsection (2) and insert ‘the market value of his interest in the dwelling’.

(4) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land)—

(a) in subsection (2), omit from ‘payment of’ to the end of subsection (3) and insert ‘the market value of his interest in the dwelling’;

(b) omit subsection (3).”

New clause 107—Disposal of land held by public bodies—

“(1) Section 209 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Power to direct bodies to dispose of land) is amended as set out in subsection (2).

(2) In subsection (2), at end insert—

‘(C1) Steps taken in response to a direction under subsection (A1) must—

(a) include a duty to consider disposal of land for the public good, and

(b) provide that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal does not exceed £3,000,000 or 40% of unrestricted market value, whichever is greater.’

(3) Section 209 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) The Local Government Act 1972 is amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).

(5) In section 123 (disposal of land by principal councils), after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2ZA) But the Secretary of State must give consent if the disposal is in accordance with subsection (7) of section [Disposal of land held by public bodies] of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.’

(6) In section 127(3) (disposal of land held by parishes and communities), after ‘(2A)’ insert ‘, (2ZA)’.

(7) Subject to subsection (9), a disposal of land under is in accordance with this section if it is in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 published in Department for Communities and Local Government Circular 06/03, as amended by subsection (8).

(8) Those amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 are—

(a) in paragraph 2(a)(iii), leave out ‘and’ and insert, at end—

‘(iv) the development and availability of affordable housing, and’

(b) in paragraph 2(b), for ‘£2,000,000 (two million pounds)’ substitute ‘£3,000,000 (three million pounds) or 40% of the unrestricted market value, whichever is greater’;

(c) after paragraph 3(1)(xii) insert—

‘(xiii) a combined authority;

(xiv) a mayoral combined authority;

(xv) the Greater London Authority;

(xvi) any successor body established by or under an Act of Parliament to any body listed in this subparagraph.’

(9) The Secretary of State may, to reflect inflation, further amend the cash value that the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration for the disposal must not exceed.”

New clause 114—Development corporations to provide green spaces—

“A development corporation must provide or facilitate the provision of—

(a) green spaces, including private gardens, balconies, and community gardens;

(b) the care and maintenance of the green spaces provided for under this section.”

This new clause would ensure development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments.

New clause 127—Repeal of section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961—

“In the Land Compensation Act 1961, omit section 14A.”

New clause 128—Community benefit scheme for compulsory purchase—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme for the purposes of providing members of a local community with certain benefits when a compulsory purchase order has been granted within the relevant area.

(2) Regulations under this section must—

(a) require that, where a compulsory purchase has taken place, the equivalent of 20% of the amount for which the compulsory purchase was made must be paid into a community benefit fund;

(b) describe the—

(i) governance of, and

(ii) purposes for which sums may be payable from the fund;

(c) specify the meaning of—

(i) ‘local community’, and

(ii) ‘relevant area’

for the purposes of a scheme established under this section;

(d) specify the circumstances of compulsory purchase to which the scheme should apply; and

(e) specify the proportion of the sum to be payable into the fund by each party to the relevant compulsory purchase.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a community benefit scheme in relation to compulsory purchase. The scheme would require the equivalent of 20% of the sum for which a compulsory purchase is made to be paid into a community benefit fund by parties to the compulsory purchase.

Amendment 151, in clause 93, page 122, line 2, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after a period of twelve months from the passing of this Act has elapsed, publish a report assessing the impact of this clause on—

(a) the achievement of sustainable development, and

(b) the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”

This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State must publish a report into the success of development corporations in achieving their duty to have regard for sustainable development and climate change.

Amendment 153, page 145, line 10, leave out clause 104.

Amendment 68, in clause 104, page 145, line 22, at end insert—

“(za) after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Subsection (2) also applies if an acquiring authority submits a compulsory purchase order in relation to furthering the purposes of delivering housing targets set out in a local plan.’”

This amendment would provide that, where a compulsory purchase order is applied for to acquire land or property for the purpose of delivering housing targets set out in local plans, the prospect of planning permission being granted can be disregarded when calculating compensation (also known as “hope value”).

Amendment 88, page 145, line 22, at end insert—

“(za) in subsection (2), at end insert ‘unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of  provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case subsection (5) shall not apply.’”

This amendment would enable hope value to be disregarded in calculating the compulsory purchase value of land, where it is being purchased for recreational facilities.

Amendment 89, line 23, at end insert—

“(ab) in subsection (5), at end insert ‘unless the acquiring authority states that the whole of the land is being acquired for the purpose (or for the main purpose) of provision of sporting or recreational facilities in which case this provision shall not apply.’”

This amendment is linked to Amendment 88 above. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 22. Active travel—cycling, walking and wheeling—is hugely beneficial for health and happiness, and I know there is wide agreement on that point in this House. I welcome the investments being made by this Government in active travel through increases to the budget for Active Travel England, but even when there is willingness and funding to progress a scheme, it can be hard to get a plan off the ground, because landowners can refuse to co-operate. Compulsory purchase orders are regularly used for road transport projects, but when it comes to active travel, local authorities are reticent.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), for responding to my written parliamentary questions on this matter. On 15 May, he informed me:

“The Department for Transport has not made an assessment of the effectiveness of compulsory purchase order powers in progressing active travel schemes”.

That is somewhat surprising given the scope of this Bill, which aims to speed up infrastructure project delivery, but he did reassure me that local authorities can use CPOs for active travel. However, there is a difference between what is theoretically possible and the reality.

In Committee, this issue was raised by my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who is a powerful advocate for cycling. We were informed then by the Minister for Housing and Planning that updated guidance was published in October last year, and that it will be updated following the passage of the Bill. I have been through that guidance, and I can tell the House that nothing in it refers to active travel; it is covered only in so far as it falls under the umbrella term “highway”. The problem is that those rules work fine for roads, but are insufficiently adapted for the challenges of an active travel project. Furthermore, this guidance is non-statutory and is an interpretation of current law.

The Minister also signposted me to upcoming guidance from Active Travel England. This will support local authorities in the design and delivery of active travel routes, but it does not include consideration of CPOs. Again and again when the Minister states that there is already guidance, we see that it is insufficient and does not cover CPOs.

It is welcome news that, in response to another of my written questions, the Government have shared that future Active Travel England guidance will include case studies of the use of compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes. However, this is not enough. Active Travel England does good work, but it is not the Government and will never carry the same weight as  statutory guidance. That is why new clause 22, which specifically requires such guidance to be published by Ministers, should be part of the Bill. All other options have been exhausted.

Before going further, let me make it clear that I do not believe that CPOs should be wielded lightly. It is far better to have a constructive relationships with landowners. CPOs should be a last resort, but without the threat of one in the back pocket, we are sending local authorities into negotiations with both hands tied behind their backs.

My county of Oxfordshire is hugely ambitious in its desire to reduce car journeys and roll out a county-wide strategic active travel network linking towns and villages together. In my own corner of the county, there is a clear case for the Thame to Haddenham greenway, which would link the town of Thame with the train station in Haddenham, and allow villagers in Haddenham to get safely to Thame and enjoy the town. There is widespread cross-party support for it, and I am pleased that Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire are working closely together to progress the project. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), another of my constituency neighbours, for his support.

When I was a councillor, residents of the beautiful small town of Watlington told me just how valuable a cycleway between Watlington and the village of Lewknor would be. Lewknor sits just off junction 6 of the M40, and it enjoys good bus connections to London and Oxford through the Oxford tube and airport buses. An informal park and ride works well enough, but would it not be so much better if there was a cycle route covering those 2.5 miles? Yet I learned early on that the landowner has no intention of co-operating, even though an old railway would be a perfect route, and the project was stopped dead in its tracks.

It may surprise Members that the issue this new clause seeks to address has already been considered closely by our colleagues in Wales. In 2019, the Welsh Assembly, as it was still called, looked in detail at the issue. The Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee made some observations within the context of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 that I think are relevant to building the case for better guidance. The committee was cross-party and chaired by an AM for the Welsh Conservatives. It received evidence from Sustrans that:

“without effective support to ensure that land is made available, key sections of route which could make everyday journeys viable could take years to be delivered, or not be delivered at all.”

Sustrans suggested that the CPO process is a block on active travel routes, as objections to CPOs may be made on the grounds that there is one or more alternative—albeit lower-grade—route options, leaving local authorities vulnerable to challenge. As a result, local authorities are discouraged from beginning a lengthy and costly CPO process. The committee received further evidence from Sustrans that:

“Greater guidance and support is needed for local authorities”.

It concluded with a recommendation that the Welsh Government should work with local authorities and other stakeholders to find ways to “unblock” the process of using CPOs to develop cycle routes.

Perhaps recognising this problem, in response to another written question, the Minister yesterday pointed me in the direction of public path construction under the Highways Act 1980 for the creation of active travel  routes. Although I am grateful for his response, it raises more questions than answers, and I am sure he will be pleased to hear that I will be submitting those questions through MemberHub. I have previously worked with local groups who wanted to get rights of way registered, and it is simply not possible for the highway authority to create public paths where none already exist. The application process requires statements from multiple people showing continuous use over at least 20 years, which does not work for a route that already cannot be used due to private ownership.

Before I wrap up, let me give another shout-out to the work of the Welsh Government, who have recognised that funding for active travel can be hard to find and is often assembled piecemeal. This gives rise to a chicken-and-egg situation: why seek a CPO if there is no funding, and why get funding if there is no viable route assembled? In Wales, guidance therefore requires a compelling public interest in acquisition, but not immediate financial readiness; in contrast, in England, guidance emphasises the importance of demonstrating financial readiness. Will the Minister therefore consider following in Wales’s footsteps? I ask the Government not to dismiss my concerns around the inadequacy of the current guidance or the good work of their colleagues in Wales. A Government serious about active travel would engage with these issues, as I am sure this Government will want to do following this debate.

Finally, I will spend a few moments on other new clauses and amendments, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). The Bill removes hope value to improve the use of CPOs for some projects, but there are further projects that would benefit from a similar policy. Amendments 88 and 89 would ensure that hope value is not added to the cost of recreational facilities such as playing fields when an authority purchases the land with the intention of keeping it as a playing field. Removing hope value is particularly important in an area like Oxfordshire, where any whiff of development massively increases costs. In fact, it is one reason that so many small and medium-sized farms will be caught by the Government’s changes to agricultural property relief. If this House accepts the principle of disregarding hope value, that should also apply to the value of land for the purposes of inheritance tax for farms that remain farms.

I also support new clause 107, which would create a duty for any public body to consider the public good when selling land or property. I am aware of local organisations and good causes in my constituency that are looking for space to support their activities where land is disposed of by local authorities. It is right that local organisations benefit when public bodies sell land or properties, such as the men’s sheds movement, which seeks to improve mental health by offering practical hobbies in a space where people can meet and share skills.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak to these new clauses and amendments. I humbly ask Members across the House to support new clause 22. \p Mike Reader: It is fantastic to speak in the Chamber on a subject that has been part of my career for the better part of 20 years. I started  working in the construction sector as a civil engineer and finished my time working on major programmes around the world.

Planning, and particularly planning in respect of national programmes and major infrastructure, has been a headache for me for a long time. The prolonged wasteful consultation that happens on major programmes, which stops the urgency and prevents an outcome-focused approach to delivering the major infrastructure that we need, is almost like death by a thousand cuts for a lot of communities. It is death by consultation and fatigue; it means that people do not engage in the process, and it drives a culture of nimbyism rather than a culture of wanting to deliver the homes and schools—the civil and social infrastructure—that we desperately need, and that everyone across this House calls out for in their constituencies.

I am excited that the Bill has generated so much interest in the subject of planning and infrastructure. I was amazed to read through all the fantastic amendments that were tabled, many of which I suggest sit outside the core scope of the Bill, which is about speeding up delivery and delivering on the key missions of the Government, but it is fantastic none the less to see so much debate on the nuances, whether it is swift bricks, active travel or those other matters that are critical to creating lasting communities that people want to live in. I look forward to the continued activism from those across the House who have tabled amendments and spoken so passionately about planning—I am sure it was not just for clips for social media.

I recognise what the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) said about new clause 22. My big concern is that forcing change—compulsory purchase being one such example—does not change behaviour. That is something we have seen before. As the subject of Conservative leaflets that said I was going to run ULEZ in Northampton during the election, I know it is something that can become weaponised when we try to force it through, rather than bringing communities along with us. I do not think the approach that has been set out today is the right one, but I look forward to hearing further debate on that.

I want to talk a bit about development corporations. Having worked around the world in a variety of different scenarios and seen how different countries set up delivery vehicles to deliver major programmes for housing and new cities—the infrastructure that we need—I am really pleased to see the introduction of additional powers to enable us to deliver more quickly and to put urgency back into delivery, whether we are developing new homes or towns. The increased powers in the Bill will be critical to ensuring that we have flexibility in the way we deliver those homes, so that they reflect the local community, and that we have sustainability at the heart of a development, so that local communities and bodies can work together to ensure that the places we deliver through the new towns programme in particular are green and sustainable in the long term.

Those powers will also ensure that we can incorporate local need—I am particularly excited to see the transport provisions in the Bill. Often, even in Northampton, I see too many smaller communities disconnected by the lack of transport, because of a lack of thinking  about how people are going to get from place to place, which is so critical when we create new towns. Ultimately, that is about creating place, because we are not just creating new towns; we need to create places where people want to live, work and stay.

We cannot do that without development corporations. I have seen the power for good that such corporations can be in places like east London. I spent a small amount of time living in Newham, where I saw the power that the London Legacy Development Corporation had post the Olympics to transform a deprived area of London, which was fantastic. I wonder now what more it could have done with the additional powers introduced in the Bill.

For me, it is critical to create that local ownership and that drive to deliver, and it cannot just come from the top down. The change in the development corporation arrangements are one of the most undersold parts of the Bill, and will enable us to deliver the homes that are desperately needed by the hundreds of thousands of people living in temporary accommodation in hotels right across every single one of our constituencies.

I do not think this is the end, but I would just reflect that there is plenty more to do on this subject—I have had this conversation privately with the Minister. There is a whole host of things we can do around digital planning, for instance. I was pleased and surprised to see that we are already trialling AI in the planning process in the UK, which could radically improve the way that we deliver projects across the UK. It could mean that communities are not living in uncertainty for weeks and even months as overstretched, under-resourced planning authorities try to work through the backlog that has been left after austerity and the many cuts the Conservatives made to local government.

There is also work to do on building regulations. It was great to hear swift bricks debated yesterday, but there are better ways to deliver on that. On the delivery of major programmes, there is definitely further work to do around consenting and how that is delivered through nationally significant infrastructure projects.

This is a fantastic Bill, but the next stage really is about delivery. The Government must now move from policy focus to delivery focus. We need to look at how we make Natural England and the nature restoration fund work. How we ensure that we work with partners from across the sector, from non-governmental organisations through to development organisations, will be critical in making the Bill work. I look forward to working with the Minister and the Department to ensure that it comes to fruition. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Paul Holmes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader). He was very generous in congratulating many Members on their amendments and very constructive when he outlined his position on this piece of legislation.

I know that Members across the Chamber will be devastated to hear that this will be my last contribution on the Bill before the shadow Secretary of State makes his Third Reading speech. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I know! I wish to thank the Minister for his hard work, all the Members who contributed to our discussions, and the  Clerks and the staff who gave us such amazing support throughout what I thought was a long, challenging and often frustrating Bill Committee. As a Committee, we all lived through the emotional journey of whether Charlton—a team that the Minister passionately supports—would be promoted. As I said to him during the Committee, he is welcome down to the Den for Charlton’s next match against Millwall. I will even let him sit on our side of the stadium.

As I have said, I wish to thank all members of the Bill Committee for their contributions. I also congratulate those, such as the hon. Member for Northampton South, who have tabled amendments to the Bill—we have had a weird, wonderful and varied number of new clauses and amendments. As the hon. Member said, finding them to be in scope of the legislation was quite challenging at times, but I trusted the Clerks to make the right decision and therefore most of them stood.

I look forward to briefly outlining the position of the Opposition on some of the new clauses and amendments before the House this afternoon. Only a small part of the Bill will be discussed this afternoon. The majority of mainstream clauses that we are opposed to were in the frustrating and rather emotive session last night. I look forward to challenging the Minister, who might, I think, look slightly less grumpy than he did last night, and to pleading with him to accept some of our amendments. Then again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I may be dreaming in that regard.

It is clear that the Minister and the Government have a driving mission in this legislation. The Opposition recognise that, but he knows that we have many disagreements on how to achieve the ambitions he has outlined. We have been very clear throughout the passage of the Bill—through the Bill Committee, Second Reading, Report and, later this afternoon, Third Reading— that we have many core, fundamental and principled disagreements with some of the measures the Minister has proposed. Although we agree that we need to build more houses, that we need to see an infrastructure-first approach and that we need to unlock some development, we have a fundamental disagreement with the centralising zeal of both the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to get us to where they want us to go. We also believe that the Minister could have looked more favourably on some of the new clauses and amendments that were tabled not just by my party, but by other parties in the House and by some of his own Back Benchers, who have proposed well-intentioned and well-meaning measures. \p Wendy Morton: Like others, I sat in the Chamber yesterday listening to the Government voting down so many amendments. We had an opportunity to do something really good with this Bill, and we have missed it. Does the shadow Minister agree that, if we are not careful, we will end up with a piece of legislation that will drive a coach and horses through our communities and our green belt and that does nothing for nature, for farmers, for communities and for the very people who want those things? \p Paul Holmes: My right hon. Friend, not uncharacterist-ically, has made an excellent point and I entirely agree with her. As I said yesterday, the Minister has had a unique opportunity with this Bill—a detailed and potentially groundbreaking Bill—to fundamentally change the  planning processes in this country for the better. He told us many times on the Bill Committee that he was reflecting on some of the genuine points and key concerns that Members from across the House brought to him. However, those reflections amounted to nothing. He consistently said that he would reflect on the genuine principles that we brought forward, but we have seen no changes in the legislation. We have seen no acceptance of our thoughts and no efforts to change this legislation to reflect the genuine concerns that so many of us brought to this place.

The Liberal Democrats tabled many amendments and new clauses. As the Minister knows, I very rarely praise the Liberal Democrats on the Floor of the House or in my constituency of Hamble Valley, and I am not likely to do so going forward. However, what I would say is that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and his colleague, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled some really good and principled amendments that would have this improved this legislation, particularly on chalk streams and on some of our other concerns. \p Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend will be aware that Governments of all stripes tend not to accept amendments in this House, enormously to the frustration of colleagues from across the Chamber who put them forward. Will he join me in encouraging the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to take the opportunity to think again on some of the amendments if the Bill is delayed in the other place? All of us want to see more houses built, but in a way that works with communities. As my hon. Friend said, there is an opportunity here to do something historic, so let us make sure that when the Bill goes to the House of Lords—if that is what is required—the Government listen and act. \p Paul Holmes: I have put it on the record, both here and in the Public Bill Committee, that I think this is a principled Minister who knows his stuff. Therefore, he should not be afraid to open his arms and embrace collective responsibility across the House to make sure that this legislation is better, and that it serves everybody in this country. He needs to make sure that the key principles that he wants to achieve are actually achievable. I say very strongly, as I did yesterday, that the key things that he wants to achieve, such as these housing numbers, will not be achieved through this legislation. He still has the opportunity to work with Members of all parties to make sure that this is a really important piece of legislation. \p Julian Lewis: Emeritus Professor Sarah Nield, the chairman of the New Forest Association, writes:

“The current planning and environmental frameworks have played a crucial role in protecting the New Forest’s special qualities. However, the proposed changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, particularly those aimed at streamlining planning approvals, accelerating infrastructure projects and weakening environmental safeguards, would seriously undermine those protections.”

This is not a political statement; it is a statement of concern for our most delicate and valuable rural areas. \p Paul Holmes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The expert he quotes is from Hampshire, so as a Hampshire MP I am bound to say that she is spot on. My right hon. Friend is spot on too.

Many Members made contributions yesterday in which they raised concern about the Minister’s response to some of the environmental concerns that were raised, particularly by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), but also by the Liberal Democrats and Conservative Back Benchers. There are concerns that environmental protections will be diminished under this legislation. The Minister seemed, quite frankly, to not take those seriously. The quote my right hon. Friend read out is a very good example of why there are many people who are experts through their professions and who day to day live their ambitions to ensure that the environment is improved.

I note that the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), has said, “When did you start caring about the environment?”. [Interruption.] She can intervene on me if she wants to, or if she wants to contribute to the debate she might want to bob.

As I said, Members across the House have made very well-intentioned appeals to the Minister. I hope that between now and when he winds up he will open up his arms and ensure that he looks seriously at the amendments, not just from my party but from all parties, that seek to strengthen this legislation.

Today we turn to parts 4 and 5 of the Bill. The Minister will know that we have long-standing concerns over CPOs. The Conservatives have always stood against what seems to be a sustained campaign against the rights and working practices of our agricultural and farming communities. Through this sustained campaign against farmers, the Government have removed of their subsidies and raised inheritance tax for our farming communities, who already do not make huge profits and who struggle in their day-to-day lives. The Government have also made their working practices harder.

Yesterday the Government voted against our amendment to improve protections against solar farms on agricultural land, and I suspect that later today the Minister will speak against our very sensible amendments that would make the lives of our citizens who work in the agricultural sector easier. Looking at the record of this Government, there has been a sustained attack on the agricultural community, and we see that carrying on through the Bill.

Under this Bill, the rights of that community are being removed or harmed further. We have tried to put that right through our amendments, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) will speak to in his role as shadow Minister for farming. He has done an admirable job in this role of raising the plight of our farming community across the whole of the United Kingdom in the face of what I would say are detrimental impacts from this Bill and other actions of Government. \p Greg Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that where CPO powers already exist, there is a massive lack of trust between landowners and the acquiring authority? All too often a proposal will be  put on the table, and an agreement will be reached, but then the legal agreement that actually comes along is totally different. Does he agree that there needs to be a CPO code of practice that gives landowners much greater protection? \p Paul Holmes: My hon. Friend is right. I would also say that there needs to be a code of practice for our tenant farmers. Two of our amendments, which I will speak to shortly, seek to meet the challenges that our farming and agricultural communities face with CPO. I will elaborate on that later, and my hon. Friend is welcome to intervene on me then if he does not find my explanation satisfactory. \p Richard Holden: I totally agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has just said. So many of our constituents, particularly those in the farming community, are already feeling totally let down by this Government, and they feel that this is a further steamroller on their assets. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government might want to show our farming community, who they are already putting under immense pressure, that they are on their side on some of these issues, and probably for the first time in a very long time? So much has already been done to this community—and it does feel like things are being done to them rather than that they are being listened to as part of any process? \p Paul Holmes: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pleaded with the Minister at the beginning of my remarks to meet the concerns of not only Conservative Members or the Green party or Liberal Democrats but key people who have communicated through consultations on this legislation that this will harm their livelihoods and make their lives worse.

New clause 85, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), would deliver a fairer, more just system of compensation for individuals who are forced to give up their homes or land through compulsory purchase. The current framework under the Land Compensation Act 1973 sets arbitrary caps and percentages on home loss and occupier’s loss payments, which often fail to reflect the true value of what is being lost. By aligning compensation more closely with the full market value of a person’s interest in their property, the new clause acknowledges the deep emotional, financial and practical disruption that compulsory purchase can cause. It would ensure that those displaced by development were not left worse off or unfairly penalised. In doing so, it would uphold the principle that the burden of public interest projects should not fall disproportionately on individual homeowners or landowners, helping to maintain trust and fairness in the planning system. The Minister could easily get behind that, as could other parties. Given some of the real challenges we have talked about that CPOs bring to people, the Minister should be slightly more open to amendments to the Bill that would make their lives easier.

I turn briefly to new clause 42, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), which would align compensation payments more fairly and transparently for occupiers affected by compulsory purchase by amending the Land  Compensation Act 1973. It would increase occupier’s loss payments for agricultural and other land from 2.5% to 7.5%, bringing them more in line with basic loss payments. Additionally, it would remove arbitrary caps and fixed percentages on home loss payments and instead base compensation on the full market value of the interest in the dwelling. The change would ensure that those displaced or impacted by compulsory purchase would receive equitable and just compensation reflecting the true value of their property and losses. By modernising and standardising compensation provisions, we would argue that the new clause would support fairness for land-owners and occupiers, making the compulsory purchase process more balanced and respectful of individual rights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) rightly mentioned in his intervention.

I turn briefly to other new clauses. New clause 114, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would require development corporations to provide or facilitate the provision of green spaces in their developments, including a variety of green areas such as

“private gardens, balconies, and community gardens”.

Furthermore, it would impose a duty on development corporations to ensure the ongoing care and maintenance of such green spaces. I hope that the hon. Member realises that I am doing him a favour by reading out his new clause.

The Opposition recognise the well-intentioned motivation behind the new clause, but I gently say to the Lib Dem spokesman, who yesterday rightly—this is no criticism—made a big play about the role of local authorities, elected councillors and local plans, that we believe that this area should be dealt with purely by our local government colleagues, councillors and planning committees. We should continue to give them the power to serve and react to our constituents’ wishes. We are keen that local authorities such as mine in Fareham and Eastleigh as well as those across the whole of the country have the power to do that for the people they serve. That was a key disagreement between us and the Government—the Liberal Democrats agreed with us—on that provision in the legislation. The Opposition believe that new clause 114 is not required in the legislation because local authorities can provide for that themselves.

I turn briefly to new clause 22 tabled by the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). Although it is a well-intentioned new clause to promote active travel infrastructure, it risks weakening the careful balance that compulsory purchase powers must maintain between public benefit and individual property rights. By pre-emptively deeming such projects to be in the public interest and lowering the evidential threshold  for route justification, the new clause could enable the use of compulsory purchase orders without sufficient scrutiny or community consent, which raises legitimate concerns about fairness, proportionality and transparency, particularly in cases where landowners could lose property without rigorous demonstration that the chosen route was necessary and the best option available. Given the Conservatives’ long-held position on CPOs and the overreaching powers that the Secretary of State and  the Minister want to award themselves in terms of CPOs, we do not think it would be right to give those same powers to local authorities or some of the new authorities outlined in the legislation. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: Is the shadow Minister in favour of using CPOs for road projects? The new clause would simply equalise the opportunity to use CPOs to deliver active travel with their use for road projects. \p Paul Holmes: I understand, and I say this with respect to the hon. Gentleman: I think the new clause is well intentioned, but roads are absolutely necessary. Sometimes, on the CPO powers currently allocated in existing legislation, even though we disagree with some of the overreach that the Minister wants to put forward, we believe fundamentally in the rights and responsibilities of local government to decide how they want to allocate routes in localities. We agree that in some cases, as in my constituency, which covers half of Fareham and half of Eastleigh, there needs to be better co-ordination between local authorities. However, we fundamentally disagree with the extension and provision of powers, which we do not believe should be allocated, in new clause 22. \p Gideon Amos: Will the shadow Minister explain why the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 created vast new powers for development corporations, if he believes that all such powers should be discharged by local authorities? \p Paul Holmes: I knew that was coming from the hon. Gentleman. The last Government put forward many things in legislation that we are looking at again. We have been very clear about that, and I have been clear about what this new Conservative party stands for. We said throughout the Committee stage that we do not support the extension of powers within CPOs.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware that you are looking at me to move on. I will do so and restrict the number of interventions I take, as I am about to wind up. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I knew I would bring universal acclaim once again, including from my Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). I thank him.

We have had a robust debate in this House on this groundbreaking piece of legislation. As I have said repeatedly, much to the Minister’s embarrassment— I hope he takes this in the genuine spirit in which it is said—even though we have fundamental disagreements on the measures that he is taking to get what he wants later on, we know that he has a well-intentioned and principled approach. The Labour party won the election and we know that. However, that will not stop us having principled and robust arguments around our disagreements with the methods by which he wants to get there.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) indicated in her intervention, the Minister had—and still has—a chance to listen to some of the well-intentioned, educated and intellectual amendments and new clauses that have been proposed by all parties to strengthen the legislation and make it better. \p Luke Murphy: Will the shadow Minister give way? \p Paul Holmes: I will briefly, but he will let me finish this point. The proposals have been put forward by all parties to ensure that the legislation is better and more efficient, but fundamentally serves the people who send  us here and who want to see differences in the way in which their country is run. We argue that this legislation does not do that, we argue that this is a massive centralising overreach advocated by the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and we stand fundamentally against it. \p Rachel Taylor: rose— \p Paul Holmes: I will give way to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) first because he is a sparring partner from the Public Bill Committee—I hope he does not have another quote—and then I will give way to the hon. Lady. \p Luke Murphy: Unfortunately, I have another quote, which is from yesterday. With regard to the Opposition’s amendments, can the shadow Minister point to a single measure that would increase the number of homes? All the changes directed at the Bill seem to be designed to impede development. I also want to ask him what he meant yesterday in his opening remarks, when he said,

“The last Government built the largest number of houses in history.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 693.] \p Caroline Nokes: Order. It might be helpful if I emphasised that we are not here to relitigate yesterday’s debate; we are here to debate the amendments that have been tabled today. I am sure the hon. Member will restrict his comments to that. \p Paul Holmes: I was expecting so much from the hon. Gentleman, given how he intervened on me consistently in Committee with an encyclopaedic knowledge of my previous quotes. I did not know that he took such an interest in my career up until this point. I know, as a county neighbour, that he is a dedicated and assiduous Member of Parliament who genuinely stands up for his constituents. I will say to him that my comments yesterday were absolutely accurate. Over 1 million homes were approved, and many more first-time buyers were given the chance of owning a home, under the last Government.

Now, for the first time in history, there is no incentivisation in our housing system for first-time buyers, because measures including the stamp duty relief and some of our Help to Buy measures were scrapped by this Government. This is the first time that we have had that situation. We could have done more, but I am very proud of the last Government’s record on housing. The Minister and the Government need to look at our record on first-time buyers and private buyers, because if they emulated some of our incentivisation methods, we would have a better success rate than the just over half of those 1.5 million homes that independent experts are now claiming they will be able to deliver. \p Rachel Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the entertainment he provided throughout the Bill Committee’s proceedings, and for his generosity in the Tea Room. Talking about reflection, however, would he agree that when one looks in the mirror, one does not always like what one sees? The Minister has reflected on many of the proposals that were brought forward in Committee   and he has clearly decided that those things would be better left in the national planning policy framework, as opposed to being in this legislation. Would the hon. Gentleman also agree that we do not have more young people buying and owning their own homes now than we did in 2010, and that the reason for that is— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Lady will have the opportunity to contribute later. Interventions really do need to be shorter than this. \p Paul Holmes: I know that many of my hon. Friends were concerned to hear about my generosity in the Tea Room. It was simply that we were very tired and I bought an espresso for the Minister, just once. I did offer one to the Lib Dem spokesman, but I have not delivered on that promise— \p Gideon Amos: Shocking. \p Paul Holmes: I expect to see a “Focus” leaflet—or whatever the Lib Dems put out in Hamble Valley—saying that is a Tory broken promise, but when did we ever take notice of the accuracy of Lib Dem literature? But I will buy him one, I promise. With regard to looking in the mirror and not liking what we see, I wake up daily basis and consider how much weight I have gained in this House over the past four years.

What I will say to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) is that in Committee the Minister consistently said that he would reflect, so she is right; she has accepted the premise of my argument on this. However, not once in this legislation has the Minister made any attempt to take into account our serious concerns. He has not changed this piece of legislation once. This is a parliamentary democracy and there is not a monopoly on brilliant ideas, despite the fact that the Minister likes to think he has one.

If the Minister wanted to make the Bill better, he could look openly at some of our amendments and accept them. I know that when he stands up to make his winding-up remarks, he will not accept them and that this legislation will therefore not be able to be supported by all parties in this House. If he had made some changes that could have delivered to the people of this country, we would have been able to support it. This is a shame, because some of his genuine and well-intentioned attempts to change the housing market in this country will now not be achievable because of the Labour Government’s intransigence.

As I have said, the Minister could have made some decent changes to the Bill. We and the Green party and the Lib Dems had serious concerns on environmental standards—[Interruption.] I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary for a very long time, and I thought that PPSs were supposed to sit and ferry notes for their Minister, and not to contribute to the debate. I am having real difficulty with this consistent heckling from the two PPSs. They are aspiring to high office and I really do not think they should be carrying on in this way; I never did—then again, I was never a Minister, so there we go. I am a big fan of them both, of course.

I shall finish on this point. The Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party had a real disagreement on environment standards, and it is still our contention that environment standards will not be improved under this legislation. The hon. Member for  North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) tabled a number of amendments because experts had clearly stated their concern that environmental standards would be reduced under this legislation. The Minister did not make any concessions. On the centralisation and erosion of local powers for planning committees, we tabled a number of sensible amendments— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The shadow Minister will know that we are debating the amendments that have been selected today, on development corporations and compulsory purchase. Perhaps his final minute could be restricted to those subjects. \p Paul Holmes: I heed your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Development corporations are an over-centralisation of the measures that the Minister is proposing, and planning committees will lose some of their powers to them. The Minister has not moved once on that. The Bill will do more harm than good to the power of local councils and our constituents, and it will diminish environmental standards.

We stand against the legislation because of the Government’s intransigence. We will continue to stand up for environmental standards and for local authorities; it is a shame that the Minister has not done so. That is why we will not support the legislation. \p David Smith: I am delighted to speak to this monumental piece of legislation, which is so necessary and so important. I cannot help but notice that many times in the debate a false dichotomy has been presented of a choice between nature and biodiversity net gain on the one hand and planning, infrastructure, housing and development on the other. As someone who comes from the most beautiful constituency and county in England—[Interruption.] You all know it’s true. I stress that that natural beauty is vital, but that the people of North Northumberland also want more development.

Too often the debate has been about nature versus development. I note, for example, that amendment 151 assumes that development corporations will come into conflict with the need to tackle climate change. I believe that the Bill will be good for our natural world in so far as it unlocks the “little and often” developments that will help Northumbrians to revitalise their rural communities and protect natural landscapes. As the MP for a constituency with a natural landscape, including a dozen sites of special scientific interest and half a national park, I cannot help but be awed by that beauty.

As amendment 151 acknowledges, our natural world faces an uncertain future, with climate change and other pressures. Organisations such as the Northumberland National Park Authority and the Northumberland Wildlife Trust do excellent work in stewarding Northumberland’s unique ecological inheritance. I encourage the Government to continue having a genuine dialogue with environmental groups as the Bill progresses and is implemented in due course. Our language and approach must honour our commitment to environmental stewardship, and we need to thread the needle of sustainable development together.

Perhaps the greatest threat to the ecological treasure trove that is my constituency is more straightforward: dwindling rural communities and the challenges that  the next generation face in building a future for themselves in rural Britain. North Northumberland, for example, is ageing. Only 16% of its residents are children, while 30% are over 65—10% more than the national average. \p Robbie Moore: To bring the hon. Member back to the compulsory purchase measures in part 5 of the Bill, which we are discussing today, many residents along the A1 corridor have been severely impacted by the Government’s decision not to continue the development of the A1. Will he consider supporting our new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.4% to 7.5%? That would help many of his constituents along the A1 corridor. With the new clause in place, they would receive bigger payments for compulsory purchase orders along the A1 corridor. \p David Smith: All I can say is simply that I have been working with constituents who have been affected by the compulsory purchase orders, and I will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagree about whether that project should ever have gone ahead under the previous Government.

On rural development, where are the future rangers, conservationists and gamekeepers? Where is the next generation of farm hands to deliver environmental land management schemes? \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I will keep reiterating the point: we are not going to relitigate yesterday’s debate, and we should be discussing the amendments that have been tabled on compulsory purchase orders, development corporations and extraterritorial environmental concerns. The hon. Gentleman might like to think of a way to weave those topics into his remarks, rather than rehashing either yesterday’s debate or a Second Reading speech. \p David Smith: I am simply trying to make the point that many of the amendments proposed seem to set up a false dichotomy between the ability to develop our country, including with housing, and to protect the natural environment.

I will give one example of that. Norham parish council in my constituency is trying to open up a plot of land for a small development, because it sees the value of young families moving into the village. That development would go some way towards securing the future of the first school and the community at large. It is not helpful for the parish council to be caught up in red tape, which diminishes the possibility of that development happening. A recent local report said that nearly one in two businesses in rural Northumberland cited a shortage of affordable local housing for staff as a key barrier to business. \p Christopher Vince: Does my hon. Friend recognise the value that development corporations have brought to new towns such as Harlow? New towns are a great example of where we can have affordable housing but also the environmental aspect, with green fingers and green wedges. \p David Smith: Absolutely. There need not be this false dichotomy between what development corporations can do and the protection of our natural environment.

Rural Great Britain is crying out for “little and often” development. We can get this right, and the Bill is trying to deliver that by cutting through labyrinthine planning rules so that we can have more homes and more infrastructure. If there is no one left in rural communities, the natural world will be without the stewards and protectors that it requires. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Gideon Amos: I reiterate my thanks to all members of the Bill Committee and to the Clerks and officials, who I know had plenty to be getting on with during our sittings.

I am grateful for the support of my colleagues for the amendments I have tabled. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 22 on active travel, and new clause 114 on open spaces in new towns and other development corporation developments, and our amendments 88 and 89 on recreational land, form our key proposals for this part of the Bill. All of them urge the Government to go further when it comes to releasing land value for infrastructure that meets community and environmental needs.

On part 5 of the Bill generally, our compulsory purchase proposals included that where major permissions of over 100 homes are not built out, greater powers to acquire that land for housing would be given to councils in a new “use it or lose it” planning permission. I was delighted to hear in the news that the Government are taking up that idea—although I gained a slightly different impression in Committee—even if the promise of more conditionally approved compulsory purchase orders will not give councils the same strong “use it or lose it” power that our amendment would have.

Wary of your strictures to stay on topic, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will briefly allow me to add my welcome to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) of the fact that, following the introduction of his private Member’s Bill, the Government, to their credit, have agreed that all new homes will be fitted with solar panels as standard—his sunshine Bill really is “winning here”—bringing zero emissions a step closer, after all the hard work of Liberal Democrat and Labour Ministers on zero-carbon homes, before the Conservatives cancelled the programme in 2015.

I turn to our amendments on compulsory purchase and development corporations. Our community-led approach is about the essential infrastructure people want to see being put in place ahead of the building of new homes. Clause 104 could support that by helping the building of council and social homes. It would reward landowners with a fair value, rather than inflated prices from an imaginary planning permission no one has ever applied for, as set out in section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Our manifesto supports that for the delivery of council houses, and we are supportive of steps that ensure that landowners are awarded fair compensation, rather than inflated prices, for specific types of development scheme.

However, at my meeting with farmers in North Curry on Friday, there was concern about the idea—possibly as a result of rumours—that under the clause, farmers would lose land to Natural England so that it could carry out its environmental delivery plans, and in return would get only a reduced payment. I am not convinced that is what the clause does, but family farms have had a tough time recently. They provide food for our tables, and they have been hit hard by risky trade deals with Australia and New Zealand under the last Government, followed by a new inheritance tax on small family farms, the underspend of the agricultural budget, and the closing of the sustainable farming initiative.

Given all that background, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the compensation proposals in clause 104, which removes hope value, will extend no more widely than the public interest categories, such as social housing, that were inserted into the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and into schedule 2A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 by the last Government. I am happy to write to the Minister on the detail, but in the light of the rumours that are circulating, I hope that he will give that reassurance to those running small farms in Taunton and Wellington, and across the country.

I respect the experience of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), in this area, so we have reviewed his proposed new clause 107, which would remove caps on the payments for compulsory purchase. However, our reading of it is that it relates not to the amounts paid for the value of the land or property being compulsorily acquired, which under law must be a fair value, but to payments made on top of the land value. Home loss payments, for example, are made, quite rightly, in addition to the property value to reflect the upset involved, but the proposed new clause would remove all caps and upper limits on how much would have to be paid for that by taxpayers.

Under new clause 107, basic and occupiers’ loss payments, which are made to recognise inconvenience, would be increased to the market value of the property, with the result that landowners would be paid the market value twice over for their property, under provisions intended only to recompense inconvenience. We cannot support the new clause because it would result in a reduction in the number of new social homes that it would be possible to provide, as hard-pressed councils, including town and parish councils, would have to pay so much money for these over-the-odds compulsory purchases, and taxpayers would effectively be clobbered to make sky-high extra payments to those with landed interests. \p Greg Smith: The hon. Gentleman just said that CPO powers are, to the landlord, an inconvenience. I would say that having a home, farm or business taken is absolute devastation, not an inconvenience. \p Gideon Amos: The hon. Gentleman knows he is talking absolute rubbish because those are not the words I said at all. What I said was that the occupiers’ loss payments “are made to recognise inconvenience”. He may have misheard me. I did not say that farmers were an inconvenience or anything of the kind, and Hansard  will reflect that. As the proposed payments would clobber the taxpayer by making them pay double the land’s value, we cannot support the new clause.

On the contrary, we say that people are fed up with money going to private developers, leaving local people with little to show for the sacrifices that they are making for new construction projects. There are further areas where the maximum commercial value of land should not have to be paid by public and community bodies. Under amendments 88 and 89, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), hope value would not have to be paid in CPO cases where land is being acquired for sport or recreation. Her new clause 107, relating to disposals of land by public bodies, would ensure that top dollar did not have to be paid where the Secretary of State certified that the disposal was for “public good”; in those cases, a discounted price could be paid.

As we have heard, another Liberal Democrat amendment, new clause 22 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), would provide a “compelling case” justification for compulsorily purchasing land for new footpaths and cycle paths. Knowing the location of Haddenham and Thame parkway station as I do, I congratulate him on this key proposal, which would really help his constituents. \p Richard Foord: Local authorities could really do with compulsory purchase powers for cycling and walking paths. The Devon local cycling and walking infrastructure plan that came out last December said that

“certain private sector development…may come forward sooner, or later, than anticipated”.

Local authorities do not have any control over when they can put in walking and cycling paths. Would my hon. Friend’s amendment correct that? \p Gideon Amos: The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame would definitely provide a much stronger justification for a CPO that enabled footpaths and cycle paths to be made. As he said, it would create a more level playing field with the compulsory purchase powers already in use for highways. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). New clause 22 is a very logical amendment, and there is no logical reason why Ministers should reject it, although that has not stopped them so far; I hope that they break the habit of a lifetime.

We are clear in our amendments that communities should lead, and should be in the driving seat, when it comes to development and land. When people see the infrastructure for which they have been calling, it drives more community consent for the homes we need and the communities that we want to build. We need infrastructure for nature as well. Good places to live have gardens, open spaces, parks and meadows, so our new clause 114 would charge development corporations with ensuring those things.

I remind the shadow Minister that development corporations discharged planning powers under Conservative Governments, just as under Labour and coalition Governments. It is not always local authorities that deliver development. It is therefore right to ensure that development corporations discharge their duties as  effectively as possible. If and when they build new towns and major developments, as the Government want them to, they must ensure open spaces for nature—spaces that work for people and our environment. Amendment 151 would require them to report regularly on their environmental and climate duties.

The first garden cities were supported by a Liberal Government and built without felling a single tree, as the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) confirmed yesterday. Their successes were emulated, and they are still emulated in the best developments, right up until today. The vision was a radical one of bringing people and the environment, town and country, and nature and humanity closer together. Those pioneers ensured healthier places to live in, an objective that our new clause 6, promoted by the Town and Country Planning Association, would insert in the planning objectives. Today, however, we face the much greater challenge of saving nature, as well as community cohesion and consent, before it is too late.

These amendments may not pass, but make no mistake: there are no greater threats to our way of life than the breakdown of trust, which risks destroying communities, and the breakdown of our environment, which is destroying nature. Those are the challenges that our amendments would tackle head-on, and I humbly urge Members to support them. \p Chris Hinchliff: Once more unto the breach. I rise to speak in favour of amendment 68 in my name, and I hope to find as much common ground with Ministers as possible. I fully agree with the Government that we need bold reform of the planning system to tackle the housing crisis, and that is what even stronger reform of CPOs would deliver.

We have substantially more homes per capita than we did 50 years ago, yet over that time, house prices in the UK have risen by 3,878%. The Minister for Housing and Planning was right to argue that housing supply is not a panacea for affordability. There have been 724,000 more net additional dwellings than new households in England since 2015, so the Deputy Prime Minister was right to argue that there is plenty of housing already, but not enough for the people who desperately need it. The fundamental planning reform we need is an end to the developer-led model, which Shelter estimates is on track to deliver just 5,190 social rented homes per year, despite those being the very properties that we need to reduce waiting lists and get families out of temporary accommodation.

The housing crisis is one of inequality. We must move away from reliance on the vested interests of private developers, whose priorities will never align with the public good. Amendment 68 is intended to ensure just that. Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population. Between 1995 and 2022, land values rose by more than 600% to £7.2 trillion, which amounts to more than 60% of the UK’s net worth. The amendment would build on Government proposals to give councils the land assembly powers necessary to acquire sites to meet local housing need at current use value, and so would do away with speculative hope value prices, which put taxpayers’ money into wealthy landowners’ pockets.  That would finally make it affordable for local authorities to deliver the new generation of council homes that is the true solution to this nation’s housing crisis.

If we coupled strengthened compulsory purchase powers with a more strategic approach to site identification and acquisition, we could not only increase the amount of affordable housing built, but achieve genuinely sustainable development, and would no longer be beholden to whatever ill-suited proposals developers chose to bring forward.

The failings of our developer-led planning system are writ large across my constituency. In the 10 years from 2014 to 2024, North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire delivered a significant expansion of housing supply—3,973 and 7,948 net additional dwellings respectively. What happened to local authority housing waiting lists over the same period? They rose from 1,612 to 2,449 in North Hertfordshire and from 2,005 to 2,201 in East Hertfordshire. There have been more than enough new homes in my area to clear housing waiting lists, but the affordable homes we need are simply not delivered by a profit-driven model. A further fact stands out: over that decade, during which housing supply and waiting lists grew simultaneously in North and East Hertfordshire, not a single council house was built in either authority.

It is time for a genuine alternative to this farce. I urge the Government to look closely at the amendment, and to push onwards to create a planning system that once again puts people before profit. \p John Lamont: I will speak to the amendments relating to compulsory purchase powers, and to my new clause 128. I note that much of the Bill and most of the clauses will not affect Scotland, but, unusually for a planning Bill, there are components that do affect it.

Before I talk about the detail of my concerns about compulsory purchase powers, I want to set out a little of the context, and say why the issue is exercising so many of my constituents. I am privileged to represent the Scottish Borders—the place I call home. It is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, but it is under attack. The net-zero-at-all-costs agenda of this UK Labour Government, backed by the SNP in Edinburgh, is causing huge concern to my constituents. Massive pylons, solar farms, wind farms and battery storage units are ruining the Scottish Borders as we know them, and compulsory purchase powers are a key part of delivering many of those projects. \p Wendy Morton: When it comes to infrastructure, such as battery energy storage systems, it is not just the Scottish Borders that are affected, but areas like mine, Aldridge-Brownhills in the west midlands. I support what my hon. Friend says about this feeling like encroachment, and about increasing compulsory purchase powers. Where will it end? \p John Lamont: I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns. Ultimately, this is about choices. The choice that this Government and the Scottish Government are making is whether we protect our natural environment, and the rural communities that have sustained food production for many years, or turn them into an industrial wasteland. The compulsory purchase powers in the Bill that affect my constituency in Scotland will affect many similar communities in England.

My constituents in the Scottish Borders have had their fair share of new developments. In the Scottish Borders, the countryside is where we live. It is not some distant, remote area that is occasionally visited by tourists from Edinburgh or London; it is the place we call home. Compulsory purchase powers must be exercised with appropriate checks and balances in order to protect our communities, whether in Scotland or in other parts of the UK.

I now turn specifically to the amendment that stands in my name, new clause 128, which deals with compulsory purchase and the community benefit related to it. We all know that when compulsory purchase takes place, it is difficult and often devastating for those who are directly affected. Too often, though, we fail to recognise the impact on the wider community, especially when it comes to new energy infrastructure. We have to improve the relationship between those affected and those acquiring the land. Compulsory purchase can be a complex and intimidating process.

New clause 128 would have required the Secretary of State to establish a community benefit scheme in relation to compulsory purchase, so that the equivalent of 20% of the sum for which a compulsory purchase is made would be paid into a community benefit fund. I am conscious of time, so will not detain the House for much longer. I know that there will not be a vote on my new clause tonight, but if there is any way in which the Government could improve the support provided to communities affected by these sorts of developments through a community benefit scheme, the Bill would be significantly improved. \p Robbie Moore: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about choices, but this is also about fairness. The compulsory purchase powers contained in part 5 of the Bill disregard any hope value over and above agricultural value, which is not fair at all for those landowners who are having their land compulsorily acquired. If my hon. Friend’s new clause were accepted, the 20% to which he refers would be 20% of the agricultural value rather than the market value, as the Government have stipulated, so less money would be going into the benefit scheme. Would it not be better if the Government were advocating market value for compulsory purchase, rather than disregarding it in favour of agricultural value? \p John Lamont: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I agree with him. I am sure he will speak to those points further when he contributes later. We should be protecting the market value and not doing anything to interfere with the market—not least because if my new clause were accepted, it would improve the community benefit fund, which in turn would benefit the local residents who are directly affected by these types of projects. If the Bill could be improved in this way, it would be better for the people who live in rural communities, such as those in the Scottish Borders.

As we saw again yesterday, this UK Labour Government have U-turned a lot over the past few months. I hope they will take this opportunity to listen to right hon. and hon. Members from across the House so that we can protect our beautiful environment, protect nature, and do better for rural communities. \p Munira Wilson: It is an honour to speak in this important debate. I will address three amendments that stand in my name: amendments 88 and 89, which go together and relate to hope value,  and new clause 107, which relates to the disposal of public land.

Amendments 88 and 89 are linked and represent a simple yet important change to the Bill. They would extend the circumstances in which hope value may be disregarded in the event of a compulsory purchase order to include playing fields and recreational facilities. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues warmly welcome the important changes in the Bill. Ministers have brought forward measures to reform the CPO process for the purpose of building more affordable homes, so that hope value no longer over-inflates land prices for acquiring authorities. However, I believe that a prime opportunity has been missed. As such, my amendments seek to include recreational facilities such as playing fields in these provisions when an acquiring authority—for instance, a local authority—is using a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for use as a sports or recreational facility. They would ensure that hope value would not be applied, thus making the cost more affordable and helping to boost grassroots sports provision in communities up and down the country.

We in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons, St Margarets and Whitton are incredibly fortunate to have a thriving grassroots sports scene, from football to cricket, rugby, hockey, tennis and much more. Girls’ and women’s football is just one example of the continued growth in grassroots sports in my constituency; my own daughter plays with the growing number of girls’ teams at Whitton Wanderers, and Twickenham Cygnets now boasts over 300 girls and has 40 women—Twickenham Swans—on its books. However, they are at the point of turning more away because they simply cannot get the pitch space to train and play matches. This problem affects many clubs across the country, and certainly right across the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. At the same time, we have the absolute scandal of Udney Park playing fields in Teddington lying derelict for more than a decade, with successive developers paying over the odds for the site, only to be rightly prevented from developing it; that precious site has numerous protections attached to it.

The brilliant Udney Park Community Fields Foundation —a community group in my constituency led by Jonathan Dunn, who has been a tireless campaigner for grassroots sports—has repeatedly bid for the site to bring the playing fields back into community use. The current owner has given notice that he wants to sell the playing fields, but has not engaged with the foundation at a realistic playing fields valuation. Trying to recoup a high purchase price for this precious and well-protected site does not look feasible. Extending the Bill’s provisions to playing fields to allow hope value to be disregarded for a compulsory purchase order could allow such sites to be acquired by the local authority or another public body.

Richmond council, like many other local authorities, is hardly awash with cash, but simply having that provision in law would provide leverage for community groups when they have to negotiate with developers, as we have seen in the case of Udney Park. I am certain that Udney Park is not the only example where this is happening.  I was therefore extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response to these amendments in Committee, which, with all due respect, was contradictory. He rejected them on the following basis:

“Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the provisions would be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities.”––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2025; c. 489.]

I say that sport and physical activity are critical to physical and mental health, and he said that health is an important public benefit for the purposes of disregarding hope value.

Just yesterday, Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that the Government

“are committed to supporting the growth of grassroots sports across the UK.”

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made a brilliant speech last night at an event attended by many Members in this place to launch the inspirational Lionesses’ campaign to defend their European crown. She was passionate about the importance of grassroots sports and extending opportunity to every community. She has announced £100 million of investment in grassroots sports facilities, which is extremely welcome.

The change proposed through my amendments would help Ministers to achieve the important objective of expanding sports and recreation grounds without costing them a penny. It would not encroach on the principle that the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and justified in the public interest, given that Ministers have so strongly and correctly championed the growth of grassroots sport across the UK as being in the public interest. The amendments would apply solely to land that is already sports field or recreational land, where there is local need for that sports and recreational facility and it is at risk of loss to speculative development.

It is entirely proportionate and justified in the public interest that CPO powers and the removal of hope value should apply in such circumstances, so it defies all logic that Ministers have not embraced this change and that they continue to oppose it. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Minister. I hope he will at least commit to engaging further on this issue as the Bill moves to the other place. Perhaps he will meet me to discuss it, rather than dismissing it completely.

Let me turn to new clause 107, which is also in my name. There is cross-party consensus on the dire need for more housing across our country. The Liberal Democrats have a strong commitment to delivering desperately needed social housing, so it was disappointing to see Labour Members vote against our amendment 15 last night to write a social housing target into law. One important way to secure sites for social and affordable housing is when public bodies dispose of land and buildings. In constituencies such as mine, with its royal park, a river and other important protected parks and spaces, sites are few and far between, yet week in, week out I see cases in my inbox and at my constituency surgeries of families on the social housing waiting list for years, with little hope of getting out of desperately overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation.

I am incredibly proud that Liberal Democrat-run Richmond council has consistently sought to repurpose, and sell below market value, sites that it owns but no longer needs to provide for more social homes from which families in my constituency can benefit. The council has done this despite the immense pressures on local government funding, but sadly other public bodies do not feel able to do the same, whether they are national Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence, key public services such as the Metropolitan police, or arm’s length bodies such as NHS England. They all want to achieve as high a price as they can when selling assets that they no longer need in order to be able to invest in frontline public services. That is a laudable and important aim, but it prices social housing providers, and other public service providers, out of the market, while losing assets from the public sector balance sheet at the same time.

New clause 107 would fill the gaps in the existing patchwork of legislation and regulation that is somewhat piecemeal in the public bodies included and is not properly used to allow all public sector bodies to sell assets below market value for public benefit, whether that is for social housing or for much-needed community infrastructure like health facilities or a community centre. Not only would it extend that provision to all public bodies; it would go further still by imposing a duty on all public bodies to at least consider disposing of assets for public good.

This wide-ranging new clause builds on my successful campaign in the last Parliament, when I worked with a succession of Conservative Housing Ministers to secure a change in the then Bill, which became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, that included police authorities under existing provisions to sell public assets below market value for public good. My campaign was born of frustration about the fact that the disused Teddington police station lies derelict in my constituency. A local housing association and the Park Road GP surgery are desperate to obtain the site to expand and provide state-of-the-art GP facilities on the ground floor, as well as much-needed social housing on the floors above. This Government think that all members of the public are blockers, but I can tell the Minister that the Teddington community are right behind my campaign, and we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that when the Met puts the site on the market we can obtain the GP surgery and housing that our community desperately need at a reasonable price, which will almost certainly not be as high as private developers can offer.

I secured the legislative basis to achieve that ambition in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, but in many other cases the provision is not there or is not used. Furthermore, the amount below market value for which some public sector bodies can dispose of their assets has not been updated since 2003. New clause 107 seeks to address that anomaly, although I note that the Conservative Government made a commitment to consulting on and reviewing the amount—something that did not happen before they left office, and something that the present Government have not implemented since they took power last year.

The Chancellor herself has previously said that surplus Government land is a

“huge untapped resource that could create opportunities for the next generation of homeowners.”

I warmly welcomed the news in March that Network Rail would set up a property company to use surplus land for house building. There is so much more than just Network Rail land, but we need both the legislative basis for public sector disposals below market value and the incentives to achieve those sales. I do not blame the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for wanting to get top dollar for Teddington police station, especially when I read about the cuts that he is having to make to frontline policing and the intransigence of the Treasury when it comes to proper funding for the community policing that the Government have promised.

I say to Ministers that this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need a duty on all public bodies, and financial incentives from the Treasury for them to repurpose or sell their assets for community good. We can achieve the homes and public services that our country desperately needs, not by ripping up our green belt and precious open spaces but by thinking creatively about how we repurpose existing sites, including those already owned by the taxpayer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. \p Robbie Moore: I rise to speak about new clause 127 and amendment 153, both of which are in my name.

Compulsory purchase is a highly emotive and highly controversial subject. Indeed, much of yesterday’s debate was taken up by discussion of precisely the new CPO powers that the Bill will grant to Natural England and local authorities. The fact that under the Bill a farmer in Keighley can be told how to use his land, on pain of a CPO, as a result of a development in Kent is complete and utter madness, but that is exactly the intention of the Bill. No matter where someone owns land, they may be put at detriment by a scheme that is taking place elsewhere. That is exactly what the Government intend to do through the additional CPO powers: to give Natural England—an organisation with which I have huge frustration and which, dare I say it, is not accountable robustly to a Minister—more power to use compulsory purchase orders. \p Wendy Morton: I share my hon. Friend’s frustrations with Natural England. Does he agree that it is a bit strange that we have a Government who say they want to reduce the number of quangos, but who have reduced it by one and introduced 27? In this Bill, they are giving more powers to an unelected quango, which risks doing further untold damage to our green fields, our open spaces and our farmland. \p Robbie Moore: That is exactly why I am so frustrated by the intent of the Government’s Bill. It gives Natural England more compulsory purchase powers, more funds through environmental delivery plans, and an ability to scrutinise and, indeed, to dictate to landowners how their land or farm may be utilised. That is wrong, especially when, as I say, a farmer farming in my constituency of Keighley could be subject to a CPO as a result of a development elsewhere in the country.

The Government and I absolutely disagree on the right to use CPO, and I really struggle with the expansion of section 14A orders, which will allow an acquiring authority to discount the hope value of a seized property. Property rights matter, because they are the foundation  of our society. If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate the property of a law-abiding person, stipulates how that land must be used, and then tells the landowner how much they are entitled to receive, that is wrong—in my view, it is an absolute theft of private property. So-called hope value is not a capitalist trick, a racket or unfair; it is simply the true market value of the property. That is why I fundamentally disagree with the purpose of the Bill, which entails the Government’s stipulating that hope value must be disregarded over and above the agricultural value that is to be paid. It should not be the law that decides the value of something; it should be down to negotiation and the market.

That brings me to fairness. Although I admire the Government’s aspiration to increase development, the Bill is fundamentally flawed on the issue of fairness, because it takes away the property rights of landowners—the very landowners who will have been encouraged by their local authorities to put forward their land to be zoned as part of a local plan, and encouraged through a service level agreement process to have their land zoned for housing, employment or whatever it may be. As a result of this piece of legislation, the local authority,  or indeed Natural England, will have the ability to compulsorily acquire the land not at market value, but at agricultural value. \p Matthew Pennycook: The powers to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and which his amendment seeks to remove— I will come on to speak about it in more detail—were set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he voted for that Act? He voted for these powers. \p Robbie Moore: But the Government are going way beyond that and giving more powers to local authorities and, indeed, Natural England. If the Minister has gone out and spoken to anyone in the agricultural world, he will realise that trust in Natural England is shot, yet the Government are giving it more powers to compulsorily acquire land and then effectively dictate to our farmers and landowners how their land is to be managed. I am not in favour of that. That is why I urge the Government to consider my new clause 127 and amendment 153. It is frustrating that, despite this issue being raised in Committee, the Government have not given it due consideration, and I therefore urge them to rethink their position.

Section 14A orders represent an attempt to run roughshod over our landowners. We can debate the merits of that approach, but we must start by calling it out for what it is. This Bill extends the section 14A powers to parish councils and Natural England, and applies the cut valuation of occupier’s loss, which is a separate payment meant to reflect the disruption to the occupier, not the loss of an asset. That is exactly why I wholeheartedly support Opposition new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.5% to 7.5% of what is paid for the land. It adds to my frustration that the valuation will be based on the agricultural value, not the market value. \p John Lamont: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that one of the flaws of the Bill, which his amendments attempt to address, is that it   overreaches not only in attacking property rights in this country and interfering with the market, but in taking away key aspects of democratic accountability? That is why so many of our constituents across the United Kingdom are so concerned about what the Bill attempts to do. \p Robbie Moore: That is exactly why I urge the Government, as I have throughout the passage of the Bill—I know this point was also raised in Committee—to realise the huge level of disenfranchisement it represents for landowners. This Bill is not introducing fairness into the system, because it does not enable the state to pay the market value that should be attributed to anything that is compulsorily acquired. That is why I do not support the Bill, and I will be proud to vote against it on Third Reading. \p Gideon Amos: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his speech against all the things he voted for under the last Government, but I am confused by Opposition Members. Is there no limit to the amount of taxpayers’ money they would give to landowners, rather than to councils so that they can build social housing, roads and the other public facilities we need? \p Robbie Moore: Here we have the Liberal Democrats setting out their position, and it is a good that they are doing so because I fundamentally believe that if a farmer owns land and the state seizes control of it through compulsory purchase powers, it is absolutely right that that farmer should be rewarded with the market value, not the agricultural value. I know the Liberal Democrats have set out their position that they fully support just agricultural value being paid, not what the land is really worth at market value, and I hope all farmers across the country understand the Liberal Democrat position, which is to disregard that hope value.

I want to know whether the Government have undertaken an impact assessment on the Valuation Office Agency. As we go through the compulsory purchase process, there will be many a challenge—quite rightly—by land agents or valuers acting on behalf of those many landowners to understand the true value of their land. I fear that the Valuation Office Agency will not be able to cope with the level of scrutiny there will rightly be of the Government’s position. \p Wendy Morton: My hon. Friend has set out some of the challenges the Bill presents for the farming community. Part 5 provides authorities with significant compulsory purchase powers, but with no definition or limits whatsoever. For our farming community, this all comes on top of the changes to agricultural property relief, business property relief and inheritance tax, and the increased national insurance for employers. What is it about the farming community that this Government do not like? \p Robbie Moore: The farming community faces so much uncertainty not only as a result of the Bill, but because of all the additional pressures, whether it is the family farm tax or the increases in overheads, that are hitting cash flow this year.

That is why my new clause 127 and amendment 153 —and, indeed, Opposition new clause 42—are so important. It is frustrating that the Government are just throwing out these amendments and are not willing to consider them, because they have been put forward in the best interests of our farming community and our landowners, so that the state does not have the control that this Government are willing to give it. I urge the Government to consider these very practical, sensible amendments to the Bill. \p Steffan Aquarone: I am happy to speak today in support of amendment 151, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Our planning system needs reform, but the approach the Government are taking in the Bill is sadly all wrong and desperately needs to be amended.

Amendment 151 would compel the Secretary of State to produce a report that addresses a key principle of my concern with the current house building regime, which is good design. I am pleased that in drafting clause 93, the Government have recognised that good design goes hand in hand with sustainable development, but we need to see evidence that the houses we are getting are actually being designed and built better if we are to be confident that we are not just getting more of the same from the big developers.

No one has ever told me that they want more energy-inefficient chocolate box homes, buried deep in rabbit warren estates and built to maximise developer profit. What we see too often in North Norfolk is homes that people do not like and cannot afford, but which they must queue up to buy because there is no other option. I was horrified recently to find that developers had put covenants on an entire estate to ban branded vehicles from parking on private driveways—they might as well have marketed those homes as for rich second home owners only. That is not how we want to design our communities of the future.

The Government are already taking steps towards good design by accepting the provisions of the sunshine Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which mandates solar panels on new builds. It can sometimes seem that politicians ignore good ideas if they come from Opposition parties, so I am particularly pleased that the Government have come to share the Liberal Democrats’ view that having solar panels on new builds is just common sense.

It is not just about the homes themselves; good design is also about how and where we build new houses. People are growing tired, rightly, of estates that are designed around car use, rather than putting public transport or walking and cycling at the heart of design. We can encourage more people to walk or use public transport if we design developments in a way that makes it easy and attractive to do just that. When we use scheme design to encourage walking and cycling rather than car use, access to public transport rather than car parks, and routes that take people to town centres rather than bypasses, we see the benefits right across society: in reduced pressure on health services, in better natural environments and in more cohesive, resilient communities.

Good design will also support the second key aim that amendment 151 seeks to have the Government report on, which is tackling the climate emergency. It is  simple: a development that means fewer fossil fuel-powered cars are required to be on the roads will be better for the planet than one that does not.

I do not think that people in North Norfolk are unreasonable in asking for developments to be affordable to buy or rent and sustainable and low cost to heat and power, and to feel connected to communities and not a burden on them. My constituents want to end the housing crisis, but they do not want it done through unaccountable, top-down targets. They want a design-led approach to planning and infrastructure development. I hope the Government hear our proposals to achieve that and support them today. \p Manuela Perteghella: In my constituency, we have seen the consequences of house building without the infrastructure to match. This Bill is such a missed opportunity: the Government are repeating the same top-down, developer-led approach that has already failed, sidelining communities, undermining local plans and cutting local councillors out of key decisions. That is why I rise today to speak in support of some amendments.

The current system often sees vital infrastructure lagging or not being delivered for years after houses have been occupied because the delivery of infrastructure is left to developers that submit viability studies and variations of conditions. We need a planning system that puts people and places first, and that includes high-quality active travel infrastructure.

We are lucky in Stratford-on-Avon to have the much cherished Greenway, a traffic-free five-mile cycle path and bridleway, but we also need cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in high-volume streets in our towns so that children and young people can travel to school safely and families can access services, while reducing car journeys and keeping people fit and healthy.

In the rural areas of my constituency, the Two Shires Greenway group is campaigning for an ambitious cycling route along a disused railway. These will link villages to the towns of Stratford and Alcester in my constituency and then further afield to Evesham. But beyond the feasibility studies, the fragmentation of land ownership is an issue. That is why I support new clause 22, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), which strengthens powers to compulsorily purchase land for active travel routes. \p Richard Foord: That sounds similar to the Otter Trail in my patch, which would link Feniton to King’s School at Ottery St Mary. Does my hon. Friend agree that these new active travel paths will enable young people to get to school safely? \p Manuela Perteghella: Yes, absolutely. We need to ensure that our new generation of young people are fit and healthy and able to cycle. That would also reduce carbon emissions in our towns. We need high-quality cycling infrastructure to ensure that all this happens. \p Paul Holmes: The hon. Lady is making a principled speech. Can she explain to the House why she does not think the current local plan regime is adequate to ensure  that we have sustainable travel routes? Bringing CPOs into such areas would be regressive to people’s rights and responsibilities. \p Manuela Perteghella: I thank the shadow Minister for his question. Let me take the case of the disused railway in my constituency. It is not in public ownership any more, and it is fragmented. We can fund as many feasibility studies as we want to invest in cycling infrastructure, but an incidental green space is not used by landowners at all. If we compulsorily purchased such land—obviously we would offer compensation—we could have high-quality cycling infrastructure that would link up villages to the major towns, so that people can attend GP appointments, schools and so on. The paths are also off-road—away from our gridlocked roads.

Development must come with green and wild spaces, not just tarmac and bricks. That is why I strongly support new clause 114, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), which would ensure that development corporations include green space provision in all new developments. Green spaces are not a luxury; they are essential for mental health, biodiversity, wildlife, flood prevention and community cohesion. Like green spaces, playing fields and recreational facilities are fundamental for the development of grassroots sports and for youth opportunities, and therefore I support amendments 88 and 89 of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).

We also need serious, measurable action on climate. Development corporations are being handed significant powers, yet the Bill fails to guarantee that they are delivering in line with the UK’s climate targets. That is why amendment 151 is so important. It would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes a report on whether development corporations are meeting their legal duties on sustainable development and climate change. With so much at stake, we need transparency and accountability built into the system.

Finally, we need new homes that are genuinely affordable, warm and built to high standards. In Stratford, many families and young people are priced out of their own community. It is not enough to build houses; we must build the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, green spaces and recreational and sports facilities that create communities.

I urge the Government to back these amendments and take this opportunity to deliver a planning system that is fair, sustainable and community led. \p Matthew Pennycook: It is a pleasure to respond to what has been a thoughtful and, largely, well-informed debate about a piece of legislation that is, to quote the shadow Minister, “groundbreaking”. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. Can I take the opportunity to thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for their robust but civil and fair approach to scrutiny in Committee?

I want to respond to the key amendments and the arguments that have been made this afternoon. Among other reforms and interventions, the Government are clear that significantly boosting our housing supply requires a renewed focus on building large-scale new communities across England. Development corporations  are vital vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. The Bill creates a clearer, more flexible and more robust framework to ensure that they can operate effectively. While there is clearly widespread support across the House for the effective use of development corporations where appropriate, a number of amendments have been tabled that seek to impose specific requirements on them.

New clause 114 in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would ensure that development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments. The Government absolutely agree that delivery of large-scale development and regeneration projects must include the provision and stewardship of green space, which has a wide range of benefits, including supporting health and wellbeing, climate mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity and wildlife.

We do not believe that the new clause is necessary to deliver on these objections. First, development corporations have a strong track record of providing suitable green space. Ebbsfleet development corporation, for example, has a target for the delivery of parks, open spaces and recreation areas, providing almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces.

Secondly, development corporations that take on local plan-making powers are already subject to national planning policies, including those concerning green infrastructure. This means that where development corporations take on local planning authority powers, any planning decisions made should be informed by the national planning policy framework, which, as hon. Members will be aware, is a material consideration when determining planning applications.

As the House will know, the NPPF sets out policies to encourage the provision of green infrastructure and outlines that plans should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, making sufficient provision for the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including green infrastructure. The NPPF also sets out that planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision that plans should seek to accommodate. It is the Government’s view that the duty proposed in this new clause may unhelpfully constrain some development corporations—for example, where development corporations are designated specifically for the redevelopment of smaller commercial spaces.

On the stewardship of green spaces, each development corporation has a designated oversight authority, which is either the Secretary of State, a mayor, or local authorities, and it is for them to set specific frameworks for stewardship arrangements. Although I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for once again highlighting this important issue, I hope that with the explanation I have provided he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

I turn to the reforms to compulsory purchase in the Bill, which are designed to improve the CPO process and land compensation rules to enable more effective land assembly through public sector-led schemes. New clause 127 and amendment 153 tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) would repeal section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961.  Let us be clear: the amendments propose to repeal a power introduced by the last Conservative Government, in which the hon. Member served and in which he voted for the specific piece of legislation containing the power.

The power allows acquiring authorities to take forward certain types of scheme by compulsory purchase and to pay a reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest. The hon. Member’s amendments do not seek, as proposed in the Bill, to limit the extension of the power to parish and county councils or to the use of compulsory purchase powers as they apply to Natural England. The amendments seek to repeal a power contained in a piece of legislation that he voted for, and it is frankly embarrassing to listen to him try to explain that sharp U-turn.

To support the delivery of the housing and infrastructure that this country desperately needs, we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans are often frustrated by unrealistic compensation expectations on the part of landowners. This can result in significant amounts of developable land remaining unused and overpriced, with the result that the building of homes, transport links and schools becomes prohibitively high. \p Chris Hinchliff: In the debate today, Conservative Members have robustly defended the principle of paying landowners the uplift from the current-use value to the value that land would have with planning permission. Given how Winston Churchill said such unearned increments in land are “positively detrimental” to the general public, are they not attacking their own best traditions? \p Matthew Pennycook: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a shame that the Conservative party has seemingly changed its view. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State said, “Yes, that’s right. We’ve changed our view. It was a bad piece of legislation.” Many provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 were some of the best introduced by the previous Government. There is lots in the previous Government’s record that Conservative Members should rightly feel embarrassed about; these powers are not among that. Far from removing that power, we want acquiring authorities to use the power. For that reason, we cannot possibly accept the hon. Member’s amendment. \p Gideon Amos: The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) suggested that market value would not be paid for such land in compulsory purchases. Will the Minister confirm that the amount paid in compulsory purchases is the market value for the existing use of that land? \p Matthew Pennycook: The Liberal Democrat spokesman tempts me to stray beyond the specific measures in the Bill and how that power can be used. We are clear and have recently issued guidance about how that power can be used.

That leads me helpfully to amendments 68, 88 and 89, which would expand the LURA power in question. Sympathetic as I am to the more frequent removal of hope value from the assessment of compensation, the use of the relevant power must be proportionate and  justified in the public interest so that it does not fall foul of article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. Seeking to expand the use of the power beyond that test and apply it much more widely is problematic for that reason. I cannot accept the amendments on that basis.

However, I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that use of the direction power can be sought on mixed use schemes that include sports or recreational uses, but within those schemes there must be education provision, health provision or affordable housing provision to justify the use of the power in the public interest. On that specific point, and to respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I confirm that clause 104 does not extend the LURA power to other uses or social objectives; it merely enables parish and town councils to make use of the existing power. \p Munira Wilson: Will the Minister give way? \p Matthew Pennycook: I will not give away any more. I want to bring our remarks to a close because, as hon. Members are aware, there is a statement to follow our proceedings on the Bill.

I turn to new clause 85, which would change the lost payments regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. To be clear, lost payments are an amount of compensation paid to eligible claimants to reflect and recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused by CPOs. They are an additional payment to compensation claimable under the Land Compensation Act 1961 for the market value of land or property taken by compulsory purchase. The new clause would allow claimants to claim compensation for the market value of their interests twice, and result in over-compensation being paid. That would be disproportionate. It would also run counter to the established, overriding principle of equivalence in compensation law where a person subject to compulsory purchase should be left no better or worse off in financial terms after an acquisition than they were before. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause.

I will touch briefly on new clause 42 in the name of the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), regarding loss payments. It would introduce a change to the  loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973, increasing the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to and placing them on an equal footing with owners. As we discussed at some length in Committee, the Bill already achieves in part what the hon. Gentleman is seeking in the new clause as it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land.

The purpose of loss payments is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. It is occupiers, rather than investor-owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect: they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses. Loss payments are a separate head of claim from compensation paid for land taken under compulsory purchase. The Bill rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that the rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach and will benefit, for example, groups  such as tenant farmers, for which Opposition Members have made a case in this afternoon’s debate. On that basis, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment and I request that the hon. Member does not press it.

Lastly, the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) made a case for greater support for active travel schemes that are to be considered in the public interest for the purposes of CPO. We are extremely keen to support local authorities to use their CPO powers in the public interest and have already published guidance on the compulsory purchase process, including advice on how local authorities can demonstrate the compelling case, in the public interest, for use of their CPO powers. We will also publish updated guidance to reflect the reforms being implemented through the Bill.

In addition, CPO powers can already be used, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, for active travel routes and can be executed by local authorities as part of their wider statutory functions. To assist authorities in deploying those powers more effectively, Active Travel England, which as he knows is an executive agency sponsored by the Department for Transport, is developing guidance to support local authorities in the design and delivery of active travel routes. That will be published in consultation with local authorities in due course.

Even though the hon. Member for Henley and Thame seemed to suggest that he knew the content of that publication, let us examine the details in due course when it is brought forward and published. Given that the guidance on the CPO process already exists and, as I have said, further guidance is set to be published by Active Travel England, I believe the amendment is unnecessary and I cannot accept it.

To conclude, the amendments proposed today are, in the Government’s view, either unnecessary or detrimental to the objectives of the Bill. More widely, on other parts of the Bill and areas on which we have received fair challenge, we will of course continue to reflect on whether the legislation can be further strengthened and improved. When it comes to development corporations and compulsory purchase order reforms, we think that the Bill, as amended in Committee, is robust and effective. On that basis, I hope the whole House can get behind the Bill this afternoon.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 73, Noes 312.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Land Compensation Act 1973 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 30 (amount of home loss payment in England and Wales)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) omit ‘10 per cent of’;

(ii) omit ‘subject to a maximum of £15,000 and a minimum of £1,500.’

(b) omit subsections (3) and (4).

(3) In section 33A(2) (basic loss payment), omit from ‘payment of’ to the end of subsection (2) and insert ‘the market value of his interest in the dwelling.

(4) In section 33B (occupier’s loss payment: agricultural land)—

(a) in subsection (2), omit from ‘payment of’ to the end of subsection (3) and insert ‘the market value of his interest in the dwelling’;

(b) omit subsection (3).”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 314.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: “A development corporation must provide or facilitate the provision of—

(a) green spaces, including private gardens, balconies, and community gardens;

(b) the care and maintenance of the green spaces provided for under this section.”—(Gideon Amos.)

This new clause would ensure development corporations include provision for green spaces in new developments.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division. \p Judith Cummins: Could the Serjeant at Arms investigate the cause for delay in the No Lobby? \p UNKNOWN: The House having divided: Ayes 78, Noes 309.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Commencement and transitional provision

Amendments made: 120, page 148, line 31, leave out “7” and insert

“(Examination of applications for development consent)”.

This amendment provides that the new clause inserted by Amendment NC69 comes into force by regulations.

Amendment 121, page 150, line 24, leave out “section 49 comes” and insert

“sections 48 and 49 come”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This amendment provides that section 48 (which enables regulations to be made imposing a surcharge on planning fees) comes into force two months after Royal Assent.

Third Reading

King’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified. \p Matthew Pennycook: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It has been a real privilege to take this crucial piece of legislation through the House—“groundbreaking legislation”, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), described it earlier. I thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage. I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for her unwavering support throughout the Bill’s passage; I thank the Department’s Bill team, led by Alex Bush, for their prodigious efforts over many months; I thank my consistently excellent private office, including its head, Grace Doody, and my brilliant private secretary Gabe Allason; I thank the Clerks, Chairs and parliamentary counsel for facilitating the Bill’s progress;  I thank the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee; and I thank the hon. Members on both sides of the House who provided valuable input and challenge, today and at earlier stages.

This landmark Bill will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth, and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the Government to achieve their ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England during the current Parliament, to making planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects, and to supporting the clean power 2030 target and transforming Britain into a clean energy superpower.

As the House will know, the Bill will deliver five key objectives. First, it will deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This is a crucial part of the Bill. Upgrading our country’s economic infrastructure—electricity networks, clean energy sources and public transport links—is essential to basic services and a growing economy. The Bill makes a number of changes. It will ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date by providing for a reflective amendment process so that the Government can quickly make minor policy changes or factor in legal impacts.

Secondly, the Bill adopts a more strategic approach to nature recovery that will unlock a win-win for development and the environment. As we discussed at length yesterday, the status quo is not working. It is not working for development, and—let me be clear—that is because constraints such as nutrient neutrality are stifling development and disincentivising planning applications across the country, which is having an impact on house builders, particularly small and medium-sized house builders. We need to remove those constraints. The status quo is also not working for the environment: all too often, the site-by-site process of assessment and meeting obligations is not driving nature recovery. Instead of retaining that suboptimal status quo, we want to take forward a new strategic approach across wider geographies, ensuring that Natural England presents plans that go beyond offsetting harm to driving nature recovery as well as unlocking development.

Thirdly, the Bill will improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. There has been widespread support for the measures on mandatory training for local councillors and on fee localisation. Local planning authorities, which we know have been hard-pressed in recent years, will be able to set their own fees and ensure that more of the burdens that they face in processing applications can be covered by those fees. The House has welcomed that.

We have taken the decision to introduce a national scheme of delegation. I appreciate that that is controversial, but we think it is an absolutely necessary means of introducing more certainty and clarity into the decision-making process. We have launched a technical consultation on the measure, and I urge hon. Members from across the House to engage with the detail of that consultation. I think that when they do so, they will understand that a category of planning applications should be delegated to expert local planning officers. However, with the agreement of the relevant chair of the committee and the lead planning officer in the authority, it will always be possible for the most serious and controversial  applications to come before elected members, just as it should be the case that they take decisions on the most significant applications.

Fourthly, we are unlocking land and securing public value for large-scale investment. Today we have debated changes to development corporations, which will play an essential role in driving the delivery of more large-scale communities across this country, and we have discussed CPO powers. We want to see those CPO powers, including the very important CPO reforms passed by the previous Government, which I am sad to hear the Conservatives regret they passed—the shadow Secretary of State said very clearly from the Dispatch Box that it was a mistake. We think those powers are useful, and we want to see their application taken forward. The Bill makes targeted changes to those powers to ensure that they can be used by parish and county councils and, when it comes to nature recovery and the production of environmental delivery plans, by Natural England in certain circumstances.

Fifthly, the Bill introduces effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. We must do planning on a larger than local scale if we are to get the best outcomes, and the Bill introduces new spatial development strategies. These are not big local plans; they are higher-level strategies for different sub-regions of the country to come together and decide, in co-operation, the most appropriate places for housing growth and the best way for infrastructure to be delivered across those areas. In response to feedback, we made a series of targeted changes in Committee: we are removing the statutory pre-consultation requirements from the NSIP regime, which we know are driving perverse outcomes, and we have introduced targeted improvements to the nature restoration fund and a new funding mechanism for statutory consultees.

When it comes to delivering new homes and critical infrastructure, the status quo is patently failing the country and the British people. We can and must do things differently, and this Bill will enable us to do so. It is transformative. It will fundamentally change how we build things in this country and, in doing so, help us to tackle the housing crisis and raise living standards in every part of the country. This Labour Government were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this Bill, we will do just that. I wish Baroness Taylor and Lord Khan all the best with progressing the Bill in the other place, and I commend it to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Kevin Hollinrake: May I thank the Minister for all his hard work? He is an incredibly decent and polite man. He may be misguided at times, but we cannot agree on everything. I thank him and his team for all their work, and I thank my shadow ministerial team who did a fantastic job of subjecting the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny, the other Front-Bench teams, the Committee and the Clerks. I also thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their contributions.

We are told that this Bill is about accelerating house building, unleashing growth and meeting a national target of 1.5 million homes in England alone in this Parliament.  On the face of it, those aims are worthy, but what price are we prepared to pay for the Deputy Prime Minister’s ambition? Make no mistake: what is being proposed could fundamentally and irrevocably alter the character of our towns, our villages, and the green and pleasant land that makes Britain what it is.

This is not an attack on new homes—I am unashamedly pro-business and pro-development. Unlike the Secretary of State, the Minister and half the Cabinet, I have never objected to a housing development in my constituency. Let me be clear: we need homes. We need homes for first-time buyers, for young families, for key workers and for the next generation, but we need the right homes in the right places, shaped by the right principles. Instead, we are being offered a top-down model driven by arbitrary targets and central diktat. The result is soulless settlements, identikit developments and rows of uninspiring concrete boxes that bear no relation to the history, the heritage or the hopes of the communities they are built in.

Crucially, in the Government’s “centralising zeal”—as the excellent shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), calls it—local voices are being sidelined. Local councillors, and those who live in, love and understand their communities best, are being cut out of the process, with their role reduced and their judgment overlooked. The individual has been subordinated to being a cog in the machine. The Bill in its current form is not just flawed, but dangerous. It risks eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between the Government and the governed.

The Bill must be considered in conjunction with the changes to the national planning policy framework. The Government’s approach of shifting housing targets from urban areas to rural areas is cynical and economically illiterate. While I welcome the restoration of mandatory targets in principle, raising targets by up to 400% in rural areas while simultaneously reducing them by over 11% in London, 30% in Birmingham and Newcastle, and over 50% in Coventry is unfair and wrong-headed. Their grey belt policy—presented as a few disused garage forecourts and wasteland in green belts—is a con. What they have actually done is remove important protections that prevent villages from merging into nearby villages and towns.

Of course, there is also the matter of the environment. Anyone who cares about our natural world knows that once a habitat is destroyed, a woodland torn up or a biodiverse landscape bulldozed, no cheque can bring it back. There is zero confidence on this side of the House that Natural England can successfully mitigate the significant environmental harms that will ensue through the environmental delivery plans. That is why we propose that they be delivered locally through local or strategic plans.

The truth is that we cannot concrete our way to community, we cannot meet our housing needs by overriding the very people we are building for, and we cannot call it progress if the Bill leaves our countryside degraded and our communities disempowered. \p Louie French: Residents in Bexley village in my constituency—it is one of London’s outer villages—are particularly concerned about the erosion of their green areas around the village.  Does my hon. Friend share my concern and surprise that, when the outer London green belt issue was discussed in the London Assembly last week, Reform backed Mayor Khan in building over the green belt? Reform backed Khan against the interests of Bexley residents. \p Kevin Hollinrake: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and the failures of the London Mayor to build more houses are well documented. What is perhaps not a surprise is that Reform would take the further step of supporting the London Mayor in the pursuit of Labour votes.

We have grave concerns about the enhanced compulsory purchase order powers for councils, mayors and even Natural England, without hope value or market value. This undermines one of the most important principles of our economy: property rights. Not only is this unfair, but it will face legal challenge after legal challenge in the courts.

During the passage of the Bill, we attempted to work with the Government to make sensible changes to make it fit for purpose, but to no avail. Let us not be seduced by false choices. We do not have to choose between development and democracy, between homes and heritage, or between ambition and accountability. We can build and we must build, but we must do so in a way that listens, respects and safeguards.

I urge the Government, yes, to be ambitious, but also to think again. They should rethink the Bill, and restore the local voice and reinstate environmental protections. Let us chart a path to progress that honours our need for homes, our obligation to communities and to the environment, and our duty to future generations. In its current form, we cannot support this Bill. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Gideon Amos: It has been an honour and a privilege to represent the Liberal Democrats at the pleasure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill in Committee and at all stages of the Bill. I thank my staff team for their work and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches for their spirited amendments across all topics; in fact, we put forward 78 amendments in Committee, which I can only imagine was an absolute joy for the Minister and his officials to respond to.

I pay tribute to Members across the House for their work on this Bill. It has stimulated amendments from all corners of the House, as well as great debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) working with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on their amendment on rural housing exception sites, to give just one example of the cross-party approach from different corners of the House towards improving the Bill.

On Second Reading, where the Liberal Democrats were the only party—except Plaid Cymru—to vote against the Bill because of our principled concerns about it, we set out to address our concerns about people’s rights, communities and fairness, and the effects the Bill will have on nature. We sought to address all those topics with our amendments.

First, on rights for people and individuals, as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), pointed out yesterday, what greater right could there be than the right to a decent, affordable home to bring up one’s family? We championed our proposal for 150,000 social homes a year to be built as a key target for this Government, and continue to encourage them through all means, including votes in this place, to move towards a target for building social homes, rather than simply a target for building millions of homes; without that, the target will be led by private market housing, which, on its own, is no solution to the problems we face.

We sought to address communities and fairness by seeking to remove the power that the Government will grant themselves, and all future Governments, to interfere in the running of councils and to give decisions to employees and planning consultants over and above the heads of the councillors who employ them, and who are meant to be accountable for those decisions. For the first time, decisions could be made by council officers and consultants, and, though every single elected councillor of that authority may disagree, those decisions will stand in their name, and councillors will not have the power to do anything to change them. That cannot be right.

It will undermine communities’ trust in politics and our planning system—a system in which people engage more at a local level than perhaps any other aspect of local government. The more people see the centralisation of planning powers, the standard method and guidance written by Whitehall, the appeals process dominated by Whitehall, and now even their own councillors not allowed to make decisions, the more we will damage communities’ trust in politics and their belief in the planning system and the system of local democracy, which is so important to our country. That is the principal reason that we object so strongly to the removal of powers from councillors in the Bill.

We support a number of the measures in the Bill; there are many good measures. In passing, I pay tribute to the Minister for his work on bringing back strategic planning, on which he has worked for a number of years. However, we are gravely concerned about its effect on nature. The National Trust has called the Bill a “licence to kill nature”. It is right, of course, to bring in a system for phosphates, for instance, which could be mitigated at a strategic level through environmental delivery plans, but it is wrong to completely remove from that process the principle of “first do no harm” on the site on which we are developing. We should enshrine the mitigation hierarchy in this new system in the Bill, so that, first, we seek to avoid harm to the site, then to mitigate it and, finally, to offset it, but only where that is absolutely necessary. Our new clause 1 would have put that protection of nature into this new system. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: I am sure my hon. Friend knows his legislation very well, but the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 stated that Ministers have a duty to further the purposes of protected landscapes such as national landscapes. Does he think that we have missed an opportunity in this Bill by not giving national landscapes a seat at the table as statutory consultees, like, for instance, Chichester harbour in my constituency? \p Gideon Amos: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has done so much work to champion national landscapes and the need for them to have a seat at the planning table. In my own national landscape, the mellow and beautiful Blackdown hills of Somerset also deserve a seat at the planning table. We do not believe that cutting out consultees, consultation and voices such as Sport England from the planning process is the way to deliver more homes or better communities. We need to bring in voices such as those who support our national landscapes, and we would dearly like to put forward amendments to achieve that.

On the rights of people to genuinely affordable homes, the rights of communities to fairness in the process, and rights to nature, we do not believe that the Government have gone far enough and we cannot support the Bill as it stands. \p Wendy Morton: Fear not, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall keep my comments very, very brief. I cannot let this Planning and Infrastructure Bill go without saying that it was an opportunity to create the homes that we need, to support our communities, to support our farmers and farming, to support the environment, and to ensure that good development is supported by good infrastructure. I have sat in this Chamber for two days listening to amendments and debating amendments, including my own on battery energy storage systems. Time and again, the Government have just rejected them. What we have ended up with is legislation that drives a coach and horses through accountability. It seeks to steamroll over local people and to concrete over our precious green belt. It gives local people no rights, no voice and no say over how their communities are shaped for the future. On that basis, I will be voting against the Bill on Third Reading. \p Richard Foord: I, too, will keep my remarks brief, but I wish to put it on the record that Devon, which is rightly celebrated across Britain for its rugged coastline, its rolling farmland, its spectacular moorlands and its ancient woodlands, is subject to the diggers of developers who are encouraged by this Government. Although we all need houses and we all need the protection that they afford, this Bill, if enacted, will only damage nature. Nature in Devon is part of who we are and we face a nature crossroads. The Devon Local Nature Partnership tells us that the loss and decline of Devon’s wildlife has accelerated rapidly over the past 50 years. The wooded valleys of the Blackdown hills and the wildflower meadows of East Devon are priceless, but once they are gone, they cannot be brought back.

Yesterday in the Tea Room, we were talking about the darkening clouds of the international system and how this Government are having to deal with such grave matters of state. Somebody then pointed out that, never mind grappling with wars and conflict, we cannot even create a system where a £44 swift brick is put in a new house to encourage nature in our rural areas.

Healthy natural systems underpin our economy and our communities, but unless we restore nature, we will have nothing left. Building homes does not need to come at the cost of nature. We must build in the right places with nature embedded at the heart of planning.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 174.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed. \p Hamish Falconer: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The two-state solution is in peril. There is catastrophic conflict in Gaza and a shocking deterioration in the west bank. This is an affront to the rights of Palestinians, but it is also against the interests of Israelis; against their long-term security and their democracy. Today I will update the House on new actions we are taking to uphold human rights and defend the vision and viability of two states living side by side in peace.

In 2024 we saw the worst settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank in the last two decades, and 2025 is on track to be just as violent. Between 1996 and 2023, an average of seven illegal settler outposts were established annually. In 2024, settlers erected 59. These outposts are illegal under both Israeli and international law. Two weeks ago, the Israeli Government themselves announced 22 new settlements in the west bank. Every outpost and every building the settlers erect is a flagrant breach of international law and disregards the views of Israel’s international partners. There are now in excess of 500,000 settlers living in the west bank and over 100,000 in East Jerusalem, the territory that must form the heart of a sovereign, viable and free Palestine.

The sharp growth in settlements alone is dangerous enough, but it has been accompanied by a steep rise in settler violence and extremist rhetoric. Itamar Ben-Gvir has led seven provocative intrusions into Haram al-Sharif since 2022. In 2023, settlers rampaged through the village of Huwara, in what Israel’s own west bank military commander described as a “pogrom done by outlaws”. Last month, the villagers of Mughayyir al-Deir fled their homes in fear after the construction of an illegal outpost 100 metres away. This month, settlers attacked the town of Deir Dibwan. They set fire to houses and injured residents. This violence and rhetoric are deeply concerning. They are an assault not just on Palestinian communities but on the very fundamentals of a two-state solution. This is an attempt to entrench a one-state reality where there are no equal rights.

The two-state solution remains the only viable framework for a just and lasting peace—and I know that it is supported on every side of this House—with Israelis living in secure borders, recognised and at peace with their neighbours, and free from the threat of terrorism; and with Palestinians living in their own state, with dignity and security, free of occupation.

We are steadfastly committed to defending that vision, not just with words but with action. That is why we have pledged £101 million in additional support to the Palestinian people this year, and why we are working to strengthen and reform the Palestinian Authority. It is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary signed a landmark agreement with Prime Minister Mustafa, and why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcomed him to Downing Street. It is why we are clear that Hamas must release the hostages immediately and unconditionally, and that Hamas can have no role in Palestinian governance. It is also why we are committed to working with civil  society, Israeli and Palestinian, to support those who believe in peace and coexistence. However, the gravity of the situation demands further action.

The reality is that these human rights abuses, the incitement to violence and the extremist rhetoric come not just from an uncontrolled fringe but from individuals who are Ministers in this Israeli Government. We must hold them to account and protect the viability of the two-state solution. So today we are sanctioning Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. We are acting alongside Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway, which have also announced their own measures today.

These two men are responsible for inciting settler violence against Palestinian communities in the west bank—violence that has led to the death of Palestinian civilians and the displacement of whole towns and villages. That violence constitutes an abuse of Palestinians’ human rights. It is cruel, it is degrading, and it is completely unacceptable. We have told the Israeli Government repeatedly that we would take tougher action if this did not stop. It still did not stop: the appalling rhetoric has continued unchecked; and violent perpetrators continue to act with impunity and encouragement.

Let me tell the House that when we say something, we mean it. Today we and our partners have shown extremists that we will not sit by while they wreck the prospects of future peace.

Our actions today do not diminish our support for the security of Israel and the Israeli people. The agendas of those two men are not even supported by the majority of Israelis, who recognise that those individuals are not working in their interest. As the Foreign Secretary said to this House last month, we want a strong friendship with Israel based on shared values and our many close ties. Our condemnation of Hamas—a proscribed organisation —and of the appalling attacks of 7 October is unequivocal. Our commitment to the security of Israelis and the future of Israel is unwavering. We will continue to press for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, for the release of the hostages still held so cruelly by Hamas, and for a ramping up of aid to those Gazans in desperate need. The repeated threats by Hamas to the lives of the hostages are grotesque and prolong the agony of their families and loved ones. Hamas should release all the hostages immediately and unconditionally.

The situation in the west bank cannot be seen in isolation from events in Gaza. Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians, the denial of essential aid, and the creation of new Israeli settlements in the strip, is equally appalling and dangerous. This Government will never accept the unlawful transfer of Gazans from or within Gaza, or any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip. The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains catastrophic. As Israel’s ground and air operations expand, Gazans have now been pushed into less than 20% of the territory. Hospitals have been damaged and destroyed. The entire population of Gaza is now at risk of famine.

Meanwhile, Israel’s newly introduced measures for aid endanger civilians and foster desperation. They are inhumane. The Red Cross field hospital in Rafah reported last week that it has responded to an unprecedented five mass-casualty incidents in the two weeks prior. In each case, Palestinians have been killed or injured trying to   access aid in Gaza. Desperate civilians who have endured 20 months of war should never face the risk of death or injury simply to feed themselves and their families.

We need further action from the Israeli Government now to lift all restrictions on aid, to enable the UN and aid partners to do their work, and to ensure that food and other critical supplies can reach people safely wherever they are. We will continue to support the UN and other trusted non-governmental organisations as the most effective and principled partners for aid delivery. Our support has meant that over 465,000 people have received essential healthcare, 640,000 have received food, and 275,000 have improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene services.

We of course support the efforts led by the United States, Qatar and Egypt to secure an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. We welcome the initiative of France and Saudi Arabia to chair an international conference next week to advance a two-state solution. A two-state solution is the only way to bring the long-lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians deserve, but it cannot remain an empty slogan repeated by generations of diplomats and politicians while increasingly divorced from the reality on the ground. Mr Smotrich has said there is no such thing as a Palestinian nation. Mr Ben-Gvir has spoken of his rights in the west bank—a territory that his Government are occupying—as being more important than the rights of millions of Palestinians. Their own words condemn them.

To defend those Palestinians’ rights, to protect the two-state solution and to see Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in safety and security, this Government are taking action. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Priti Patel: I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. As he said, the situation in the middle east and the suffering we see is serious and completely intolerable, and I reiterate what I said in response to the statement last week about this desperation and suffering being completely unacceptable. We continue to see violence, deaths and casualties, including near aid distribution centres, which is incomprehensible and should simply never happen.

Britain has continued to leverage its influence with Israel and our international allies at every opportunity to change the course of the events that the world is witnessing—to ensure that the remaining hostages are released, that aid reaches those who need it and that a sustainable end to this conflict is achieved. We all want a better future for the Israeli and Palestinian people, and the UK must continue to play a leading role in achieving that. To do so, the UK needs to have constructive channels of communication open with all our partners in the region, as we work towards peace and an end to this conflict, and that includes dialogue with Israel.

The sanctioning of individuals is always under review, which is the right policy, and in the case of Israel, that was previously considered by Lord Cameron, who spoke about it in the last Government. Will the Minister explain the timings of this decision, and can he give an assessment of the impact that the sanctions will have? I have read the Foreign Office statement on asset freezes,  travel bans and director disqualifications, and these measures will have the right effect only if we work with allies. The statement refers to action being taken with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway. Can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had on this issue with other partners, including the United States of America, and their response?

Given this decision and others that are being taken, can the Minister give his honest assessment of the UK Government’s relationship with Israel? What direct communication have he and the Foreign Secretary had with Israel on securing the delivery of vital, lifesaving humanitarian aid to people in desperate need of help?

As the Minister heard last week, the Opposition have been clear that settler violence is not helpful at all; it is taking things backwards when it comes to delivering the two-state solution. We again urge Israel not to take steps that could make the two-state solution even more difficult. We have consistently been committed to a two-state solution, delivered in the right way and at the right time, and we will work constructively to support every effort to achieve this.

Can the Minister provide an update on the progress being made with the Palestinian Authority on reforms, following the memorandum of understanding that was signed in April? The House will understand that credible governance is needed for long-term stability in the west bank and Gaza, and of course, that means no future role for Hamas.

More widely, the reports on the latest rounds of negotiations on hostage releases and bringing an end to the conflict are frustrating for us all; there has not been the progress that we all desperately want to see. Can the Minister provide an update on the direct discussions he is involved in, including with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar and other allies in the region? The remaining hostages, held in captivity by the Iranian-backed terrorists, have faced over 600 days of suffering in horrific conditions, and securing their release continues to be critical to seeking an end to this conflict.

We all want to see aid get into Gaza, to the innocent Palestinians who are suffering. We have discussed the need for vital food, medicines and shelter in previous statements, and I completely recognise and understand the difficulties associated with getting aid in. Can the Minister provide an update on the amount and types of aid that the UK continues to support and fund directly through partners, where that aid is, and the efforts to get it in?

The House will know, as I said in response to the Minister’s statement last week, that my noble friend Lord Cameron previously worked with the Israeli Government and with allies to secure aid, and to open up crossings and ports, and so increase the number of trucks and the volume of aid entering Gaza. Will the Minister confirm that, working with our partners, he has spoken to or presented a clear plan to Israel that supports more aid going in, and an increase in the volume of aid? Will we make use of our long-standing experience? Obviously, Britain leads the world on getting aid; we have expertise and a strong track record.

Finally, will the Minister give an update on the actions being taken to restart dialogue and discussions on the viability of the Abraham accords, and on progress in delivering the Cairo plan? As the House knows, the Cairo  plan is important because it is backed by local and regional allies, and it gives the Egyptian Government a pivotal and vital role in securing peace in the region. Those are essential conditions that we need to meet to create peace, stability and a better future for Israel and Palestine. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. She raises important points about work with allies. Let me address what she said about Egypt, which is vital. The Egyptians have conducted important work, and I am pleased that I will be with them next week at the two-state solution conference to discuss the reconstruction of Gaza. She is absolutely right that we need to focus on working with partners in the region and beyond to ensure that vital building blocks are put in place for a reformed Palestinian Authority and a rebuilt Gaza. We can all see how acute that need is.

I am grateful to the Speaker and to colleagues for their flexibility this evening, as we deliver this statement in a slightly unusual way. We have sought to work with partners, and to co-ordinate closely with those who are part of this statement. We are also co-ordinating with others. We have had direct discussions with a range of partners, including the United States, about some of these questions.

We have spoken to the Israeli Government directly today. The right hon. Lady invites me to comment on the state of the relationship between the UK and Israel. The state of disagreement is clear. I regret the tone of some of our exchanges most recently. We do not wish to have such a profound disagreement with the Israeli Government, but when we disagree as profoundly as we do, then I am afraid that as Minister for the middle east, I have to say so both publicly and privately, and that is what I have done. \p Richard Burgon: I have long called for comprehensive sanctions on Israel in response to its crimes against the Palestinian people, so the sanctions against two far-right Ministers are a step in the right direction, but Israel’s war crimes are about far more than a couple of bad apples, so much, much more needs to be done. When Russia invaded Ukraine, over 2,500 sanctions were rightfully imposed on Russia, so I say to the Minister, is it not time for Russia-style sanctions on Israel to help stop the genocide? \p Hamish Falconer: I want to be really clear that the two men against whom we have announced sanctions today do not represent the majority of Israelis. There are so many connections between the UK and Israel, and we hear about the extent to which the decisions, rhetoric and language of those two Ministers cause concern in Israel as well. We are taking action on extremist rhetoric and extremist actions that threaten the human rights of Palestinians, and that continues to be the threshold for these sanctions, which we will keep under review. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: I also thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I welcome the step taken by the Government to sanction the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. It is only right that they face consequences for their relentless calls for the forced dispossession of Palestinians, which  have so egregiously undermined prospects for securing a just and sustainable peace in the region. My party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), was the first to call for these sanctions last February, when the Ministers’ extremist views were already clear. My only disappointment is that the Conservatives refused to act when they had the chance to do so, and that it has taken this Government nearly a year to take this important step.

It is essential that the Government keep taking steps towards a just resolution of the conflict. That must include getting aid in, getting the hostages out, and agreeing an enduring ceasefire. In the last week, we have seen the product of the extremism advanced by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich: the death of more Palestinians, who were queueing in desperation for food from the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Calls for Palestinian displacement can no longer be tolerated, so will the Government build on today’s progress by urgently considering sanctions on other extremist Ministers who continue to call for the blockade of Gaza and for expanded military action in the strip, starting with Israel Katz?

The time has come to listen to Members in all parts of this House and officially recognise the independent state of Palestine. Will the Government commit to taking that vital step at next week’s summit in New York? Recognition will demonstrate the UK’s commitment to self-determination, and will make it clear that, building on today’s announcement, the UK will do all it can to wrest control away from the extremes and give both Israelis and Palestinians hope of a lasting peace. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The two-state solution conference next week is an important moment. We are discussing with our friends and allies our approach to that conference, and no doubt I will return to this House next week—with your permission, Mr Speaker—to discuss that further. I will not speculate on further sanctions from the Dispatch Box. We have taken these steps because of the extremist rhetoric and the damage that these two men have done to Palestinian human rights, and we will keep further sanctions under review. \p Jonathan Pearce: I very much welcome the statement from the Minister. It is absolutely right to target the enemies of peace in the Netanyahu Government; their will is entirely separate and different from the will of the Israeli people. I very much welcome the Minister’s reference to supporting civilised society in Israel and Palestine, and it is true that there can be no top-down two-state solution without building those communities. Will the Minister update the House on the UK’s proposals for an international fund for Israeli and Palestinian peace? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend from the east midlands. He has long been committed to these issues, and particularly to the difficult but vital work of ensuring that civil society in Israel and Palestine works on peace-building projects. I know that he was in the region recently, and I commend him for his approach. We hope to set out our approach to the international fund in due course, following the announcements of the Prime Minister. We want to make as full a contribution as we can to bringing peacemakers on both sides of this conflict together. \p Roger Gale: As you know, Mr Speaker, I have tried for two days to raise this issue through an urgent question. When the Minister came to the Dispatch Box, I expected to hear something constructive; what we have actually heard about is the sanctioning of two people. The United Kingdom Government could unilaterally recognise Palestine and show the world that they are taking the lead. Above all, they could, as an absolute priority, negotiate the delivery of food, water and medicine to women and children in Palestine who are starving through the route from Larnaca directly into Gaza. I asked the Minister last week, and I will ask him again: when are the Government going to do something? \p Hamish Falconer: In this House, we have to be focused on what the real options are for getting aid at volume into Gaza. The truth is that it must be done via land routes, and even when aid gets into Gaza by land, that is still incredibly dangerous for aid workers. Ultimately, deconfliction mechanisms for aid workers in Gaza will be vital, should a full aid operation be again allowed in the strip. I met this week with the bereaved families of the victims from the World Central Kitchen operation. There were three British veterans lost while trying to deliver aid to the people of Gaza, and three British families are still mourning the loss of their loved one at the hands of the Israel Defence Forces. If there was some other option to get aid into Gaza safely, we would take it. No such option exists. We have to negotiate access with the Israeli Government, and that is what we seek to do. \p Abtisam Mohamed: I welcome the sanctions announced today, which are long overdue and signify an important step forward. I thank the Minister for his hard work and strong statement on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and I were denied entry by Israel into the Occupied Palestinian Territories precisely because we spoke out against war crimes in Gaza and against annexation in the west bank. Annexation is real—it is happening. Partners in the region are calling for recognition before it is too late.

Today the US ambassador to Israel reiterated what many fear: that the US will not prioritise a Palestinian state becoming a reality in our lifetime. Does the Minister agree that we must not throw recognition into the long grass, that failure to recognise next week at the UN conference implies that Israel does have a veto, and that the Israeli Government will continue to annex and terrorise Palestinians in the west bank? If we do not recognise now, there will be no Palestinian state to recognise. Does the Minister agree that we must recognise a Palestinian state at the UN conference next week? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for her commitment to these issues. Clearly, recognition is right at the centre of any discussion of a two-state solution. The actions we have announced today are part of the UK’s efforts to ensure that the reality of a two-state solution remains in play. It is clear from the rhetoric of the two Ministers we have sanctioned, as well as others in the Israeli Government, that there is limited commitment on the side of the Israeli Government to advancing that cause. The UK is committed to advancing that cause, and we will talk to our friends and allies in the run-up to the conference next week. \p Greg Smith: I have absolutely no sympathy with the comments and rhetoric of the two Israeli Ministers that the Minister has announced sanctions on. In his statement, the Minister said clearly, “we will not sit by while extremists wreck the prospects of future peace”. If the action he has just announced is not to be seen as a double standard, where are the sanctions against Ministers within the Palestinian Authority who have incited violence and made vile comments of hatred against Jews and Israelis? \p Hamish Falconer: As I am afraid I say with regularity, I will not speculate on further sanctions on either side of the conflict from the Dispatch Box, but the hon. Gentleman is right that the thresholds and tests are the same. We condemn antisemitic rhetoric, we condemn incitement to violence, and we will keep all sanctions under review. \p Marsha de Cordova: The sanctions imposed on the two Israeli Ministers are long overdue, but a welcome first step. I continue to ask the Minister and the Foreign Secretary: why are we still arming Israel, when will we impose an arms embargo and when will we ban goods from settlements? Finally—the Minister has already alluded to this—the conference on the two-state solution in New York next week is a crucial moment in the recognition of a Palestinian state. The Minister has the opportunity at this Dispatch Box to share with the House that the UK Government are committed to recognising Palestinian statehood. Will he do so? \p Hamish Falconer: I feel that I need to take issue with the idea that this is the first step that this Government have taken in relation to these issues. I have been at this— \p Marsha de Cordova: In relation to sanctions. \p Hamish Falconer: It is not the first step in relation to sanctions either; this is the third set of sanctions we have announced in relation to settlements in the west bank. On the two-state solution conference next week, we are talking with our friends and allies. I am sure that—with your permission, Mr Speaker—I will be back in this House next week to talk about that. \p Monica Harding: The president of the International Committee of the Red Cross has said that in Gaza, “humanity is failing”. What is happening in Gaza surpasses any acceptable legal, moral or humane standard. Palestinians are being stripped of their dignity. When will the Minister pronounce that they have a state, and given that Israel continues to blockade Gaza, what more will he do? He talks about first steps—he needs to run. \p Hamish Falconer: It was not me who talked about first steps. We have taken a sequence of measures, and we will continue to take measures. The blockade of aid into Gaza is reprehensible, and I have talked about the famine that faces the whole of the strip. The steps we have taken today will not unlock aid into Gaza. We will continue to advocate, to press, and to take further measures until aid into Gaza is unlocked. \p Yuan Yang: I stand with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed). She and I were denied entry to Israel only two months ago, and one of the reasons given  was our advocacy for the sanctions that the Government have introduced today. I stand by my comments and by the Government’s decisive action today. As the Minister has mentioned, it is important that this action has been taken to uphold the rights of Palestinians. The UK, along with its international allies, can take further action by recognising the state of Palestine. What more can the Minister do—and what more can all of us in this House do—to press our international allies to come to that decision collectively? \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution. She went to the region to see with her own eyes, as she did repeatedly as a much-respected journalist and author before she came to this House. I know her commitment to these issues, and I can assure her that we are talking with the full range of our friends and allies about the approach to the two-state solution conference next week. \p Mark Pritchard: I welcome the Minister’s statement, but can he tell the House whether he thinks these sanctions will save a single Palestinian life? If he will forgive me, ahead of the Palestinian recognition summit—rather than the two-state solution summit; maybe that was a slip of the tongue by the Minister—next week in New York, some observers looking at today’s statement might be suspicious that there is a cynical coincidence in its timing. Can he reassure the House, and all those who are very concerned about this issue, that the United Kingdom Government have not done some grubby deal behind the scenes with the American Administration, trading today’s set of sanctions for saying no to recognition in New York next week? \p Hamish Falconer: I called next week’s conference what it is called by the French and Saudi Arabian authorities. I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that I have done no deals, grubby or otherwise; we take sovereign steps on this issue.

The right hon. Gentleman has asked about timing. As I know many Members will appreciate, working in concert with our allies and making a joint announcement of this kind requires some co-ordination. I was in the Chamber last Wednesday, when I was understandably asked by many Members when I would be in a position to announce further steps. I would have liked to have been in a position to announce further steps earlier than I have been, but we have always taken the view that it is most powerful to act with our allies. As such, we took the time to enable us to work in concert with them. \p Imran Hussain: Many of us have been consistent in our calls for sanctions against those who commit war crimes in Gaza, so the sanctions placed on these two far-right Ministers today are a step in the right direction. But let us be clear: this is nowhere near enough. Palestinians starve and aid is blocked in flagrant violation of international law while the UK continues to allow arms exports to Israel. We cannot condemn the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza while continuing to arm those who contribute to it. The Government must act now and end all arms sales to Israel. Anything less is not just a failure of diplomacy; it is an absolute failure of moral leadership in the face of a genocide. \p Hamish Falconer: Let me be really clear for the House: we are not selling arms—not bombs, not bullets—for use by Israel in Gaza. We have a carve-out in the F-35 programme in order to maintain the programme, which we and so many of our allies benefit from, but where F-35 parts were directly being sold to Israel, that trade is suspended. We are not providing the weaponry that is being used in Gaza. I reassure my hon. Friends that I and the Government do not think that the actions we have taken today will be the golden answer to getting aid into Gaza. They will not be the golden answer for securing a ceasefire. We will continue to work on all those fronts until we achieve progress. \p Brendan O'Hara: Although we welcome the sanctioning of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, that should have happened a long time ago, and we now need to go much, much further. Further to the previous question, today’s announcement highlights the absurdity of the Government’s position. The Foreign Secretary recently described those Ministers’ views as “repellent” and “monstrous” and today’s statement accepts that Israel is guilty of human rights abuses and is in flagrant breach of international law. On what basis—legal or moral—can the Government continue to supply F-35 components, knowing that the end user will be a regime that they themselves have condemned for espousing repellent and monstrous views, and which they now accept is guilty of human rights violations and is in flagrant breach of international law? \p Hamish Falconer: For the purposes of time, I will not address the legal questions, not least given that they are being considered by a judicial review. We are confident that the limited carve-out we have done to maintain the functioning of the F-35 programme, which is vital to our national security and that of so many of our allies, is legal, proportionate and moral, and we will continue to fight that case in court. \p Sarah Smith: I welcome today’s announcement. It is a huge and significant step that sends a clear message to the Israeli Government. However, millions of people in Gaza go to bed every night, if they can even find a bed to sleep on, unsure whether they will wake up in the morning and whether their family members, who might have survived so far, will wake up with them. Does the Minister agree that we must take the next vital step towards the two-state solution, which is for the UK to recognise the state of Palestine next week at the conference that France and Saudi Arabia are leading on? \p Hamish Falconer: I will not repeat my answers about the conference next week, but my hon. Friend has been committed to these issues for a long time, and she is absolutely right when she says that millions of people are in an abject position, facing famine and terrible shortages of all essential supplies, and they weigh very much on the mind of this Government each and every day. \p Bob Blackman: The two Israeli Ministers that the Minister has announced are being sanctioned are no friends of the Israeli people or the Palestinians. I have no truck with them and nor should any of us. The reality is, though, is that there are two aspects to the situation. There is Hamas’s continued control of Gaza, and their refusal to release the hostages  or agree to a hostage exchange, or indeed to allow aid in and let it reach the Palestinian people. There is also the challenge of releasing those hostages, which we all want to see happen. Hamas have refused the ceasefire deal. What action will the Minister take to ensure that Hamas come to the negotiating table and actually negotiate a ceasefire, so that international aid can get in? And while I am on my feet, what is the Government’s attitude towards those who attempt to break the blockade, such as the Madleen ship? \p Hamish Falconer: I called on Hamas to return to ceasefire talks when reports reached us that they were not doing so. I hope that those ceasefire talks are successful, and I of course repeat my call for hostages to be released. We have been clear about the blockade of aid, but I must once again reiterate that it is the land routes on which we must be completely focused; the land routes from Egypt, from Jordan and from Israel itself must be opened at the scale required to get the aid in. \p Naseem Shah: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I thank the Government for the sanctions that they have imposed. I appreciate that allies must work together and that it takes time to hold negotiations and put out joint statements—which are, I agree, more powerful—but I would find it helpful to be able to tell my constituents and the country what the Government’s position will be as they go into the negotiations in America next week. Will their offer be, “Yes, we should recognise Palestine immediately,” and if not, why not? \p Hamish Falconer: I recognise the strength of feeling among constituents throughout the country, including those in the city of Lincoln. We go into the two-state solution conference clear in our commitment to the Palestinians’ inalienable right to a state that is safe and secure, alongside Israel, and we are talking to our friends and allies about the best method of securing that. \p Adnan Hussain: The Government’s decision to sanction two Israeli Ministers is certainly welcome, but does the Minister acknowledge that every limb of the Israeli state is carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza? Sanctions must be extended to the entire state of Israel—not tomorrow, not in a week’s time, not in another 18 months’ time—alongside a full arms embargo and the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador. \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the long-standing position on determinations in respect breaches of international law and crimes. I want to make it clear that our sanctions do not target the entirety of the Israeli people. They target two individuals who have been promulgating extremist rhetoric and action and have breached the rights of the Palestinians, and it is on that breach of rights that we are focused. \p Tahir Ali: We have been here nearly every week talking about these issues. The sanctions are welcome, but every speaker is sending the Minister the clear message that we should recognise the state of Palestine. If we do not recognise the state of Palestine, there will be no Palestine to recognise. My question is this: what is preventing that  recognition from happening, especially given that the UK is among 50 countries that do not recognise Palestine? Do we need the permission of Netanyahu or any member of his Government to recognise it? If not, and if we are independent in making this decision, it should have been made long ago. \p Hamish Falconer: I can confirm that we do not need any permission to make policy decisions. I think that if we did, the Israeli Government would have a rather different attitude towards Britain’s Minister for the Middle East.

The position in relation to recognition is that we wish to provide a state in which Palestinians can live safe and secure, side by side with the Israelis. That looks distant at the moment, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given. Those reasons need to be addressed. We want to see progress, and we will consider our own position as part of the best possible way in which we can make a contribution. \p Desmond Swayne: Sanctions are no remedy when it comes to the imperilled two-state solution. Is the Minister going to the conference with a plan? \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. Gentleman always asks succinct and clear questions. As he will recall, I was a diplomat for a long time. Sanctions are no remedy; they are an expression of a failure in the international system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) said, we have heard week after week about the agonies. We do go to the conference with a plan, but it is a conference called by our friends and allies, and we are discussing our approach closely with them. \p Debbie Abrahams: I congratulate the Minister, and his team and officials, on all that they have done. I do not underestimate the amount of work that has been put in, especially the work with our international allies that has brought us to where we are. As the Minister can see, however, there is always a demand for more, as there should be given what we know is going on. May I add my voice to those of all who have said that hopefully this is the lead-up a successful announcement next week, with our allies, about recognition of the Palestinian state? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words about both me and officials in the diplomatic service, who have worked tirelessly. As I said in response to another hon. Member, I had hoped that we could make this announcement even sooner, but it is through no fault of those in the hard-working British diplomatic service, who have done everything they can to ensure that we make the most impactful sanctions announcement possible. \p Andrew George: The two sanctioned Ministers have been enabled by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is himself subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, and I wonder what the Government will do to make sure that that is properly pursued. When I was in the west bank only a week after the two Labour Members were shamefully deported, it was very clear that the settlements are taking over. What sanctions will the Government take to ensure that there is no trade with those settlements? \p Hamish Falconer: The settlements are not bound by the trade preferences between the UK and Israel, and products must be properly labelled. They attract different tariffs and should be traded as such. Where there are breaches of those regulations, they should be investigated. \p Emily Darlington: I welcome the sanctions announced today by the Minister, which have been taken in conjunction with our allies, and his commitment to a Palestinian state. However, people in Gaza are starving. I want to update the Minister on one such person: Dr Radi, the elderly and frail father of my constituent Mo Radi. A few weeks ago, Dr Radi sought shelter in Al-Awda hospital with over 100 medical staff and patients, as he is a former practising doctor there. No food was allowed in, and the IDF destroyed the main water tanks. The hospital was bombed, and when Dr Radi left the hospital, he was stripped and humiliated by the IDF. He is now hungry, ill and alone, as the rest of his family in Gaza have been killed. What are we doing to protect the most vulnerable from dying? We need to increase aid and evacuations, and to end the killing in Gaza. \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend describes the heartbreaking case of her constituent’s family member, which she has raised with me on a number of occasions. Members from across the House have done the same, and I am usually not in a position to discuss such cases on the Floor of the House. Where constituents and their families are affected, we will do everything that we can to try to support them. We have heard a great deal about the restrictions on aid, and it is candidly not easy to support people to leave Gaza, but where there is a UK connection, I am always keen to do what I can to try to secure people’s safety. \p Simon Hoare: I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister’s statement and the sanctions, but I fear that those who have just been sanctioned will either shrug their shoulders and say, “So what?”, or, worse, wear them as a badge of honour among their cohort.

Casting forward to next week’s conference, is the Minister alert to and seized of what is a very significant development in this place, which is the near-unanimous support for a positive declaration from His Majesty’s Government on moving towards a two-state solution and the recognition of Palestine? That would be a very big step forward, and I hope the nuance of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary is not lost on the Minister. He will know that my right hon. and hon. Friends from across the spectrum of the Conservative party have written twice to the Prime Minister to urge that course of action, and to pledge that we will give wholehearted and full-throated support to such an initiative. I just hope the Minister knows that when he and officials go to the conference, he is armed with the good will of this place to give some dynamism and impetus to the process, to recognise Palestine, to show leadership, and to use our good offices among our allies in the region to bring this utter torture to an end as quickly as possible. \p Hamish Falconer: I am a proud son of the Labour party and I have mostly attended to developments in my own party, but the many forceful interventions from the Opposition Benches on these questions have not escaped me. The many powerful speeches, particularly from  those who previously held other views, are important contributions. I know they are watched widely by our friends and allies across the world, and indeed by many in Israel, and I take full and sober note of them. \p Henry Tufnell: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, and for the work he has done and continues to do on this issue. The people of Pembrokeshire watch in despair the events unfolding on their TV screens—the death, the horror, the humanitarian catastrophe. I add my voice and my constituents’ voices to those urging the Minister that we need two states for a two-state solution, so when will the Government recognise the state of Palestine? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and I recognise the strength of feeling in Pembrokeshire, Lincoln and so many other places. I will not repeat for him the manifesto commitment on which we were both elected. I am sure his interest, like that of so many in this House, will be on the conference next week, and we are of course talking with our friends and allies about our approach to it. \p Adam Dance: An 11-year-old constituent wrote to me, and simply said,

“why are we not doing more?”

That sums up the outrage in Yeovil at the crisis in Gaza. Can the Minister tell my constituent what steps he has taken with allies to ensure that all aid routes to Gaza are reopened, and what consequences there will be if they are not? \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Gentleman’s constituent asks a perfectly reasonable question. I often feel frustrated in this House by my inability to say what we are doing diplomatically with our allies and partners, which I cannot always advertise on the Floor of the House as we are doing it. I am sure it was obvious to many Members during the statement last week that work was ongoing on this package of sanctions, and I understood the frustration of so many Members, which I am sure is shared by his 11-year-old constituent, that I could not say more then. I would like to reassure them and the House that, whenever we are not in this place, we are working with our friends and allies behind the scenes to try to reopen aid routes, secure the release of hostages and ensure a two-state solution. \p Andrew Slaughter: The sanctioning of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir is welcome news, not least because theirs are the loudest voices calling for annexation of the west bank. The settlement building and forced displacement of Palestinians are accelerating, and surely it is time to recognise Palestinian sovereignty over the 22% of mandate Palestine that remains to them, before that too is entirely eaten away. \p Hamish Falconer: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important and powerful contribution. I will not repeat the position on recognition, but we recognise the force of what he says, which is that the situation has deteriorated, settlements have increased very significantly over the last year, as has settlement violence, and it is unacceptable. \p Andrew Murrison: It is a sad day when the UK Government and the Governments of New Zealand, Australia, Canada and  Norway feel it necessary to sanction Government Ministers in the state of Israel, one of our closest allies, but it is the right thing to do. Can I, however, counsel the Minister, if I may be so presumptuous, against performative politics, and ask him how many mouths will be fed, how much violence against Palestinians in the west bank will be avoided or averted, and how much closer are we to achieving the two-state solution that we all want to see as a result of the action he has announced today? \p Hamish Falconer: As my predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman can, of course, counsel me, and I am grateful for his support on the measures we have taken. As I said to another of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), I recognise that sanctions are not a remedy: this will feed no Palestinians. I hope it will deter, but we have no guarantees that it will save any Palestinian lives. However, we think these are important statements of principle and actions that demonstrate not just to the two individuals, but to Israeli society, where we stand on these questions. \p Patricia Ferguson: Many of us have urged this course of action on the Government for some time now, and the imposition of sanctions on these two individuals and others in the Israeli Government is something that is, perhaps, over time. However, I very much welcome the Minister’s statement this evening and the hard work that has gone into getting us to this point. I understand the importance of working in concert with our allies, but if the co-operation of our allies is not forthcoming, will the UK Government, given the strength of feeling across the Chamber, unilaterally recognise the state of Palestine? \p Hamish Falconer: I will not speculate too far on hypotheticals, but I am, of course, a British Minister; I take decisions on behalf of the British Government. We will act alone where we have to, but we act whenever we can with our friends and allies, as that is the way we have the greatest impact. \p Kit Malthouse: The Minister has laid out with some passion the dystopian hell that Gaza has become and the unfolding and ongoing disaster in the west bank. Why, then, as many Members have asked, has he done the absolute bare minimum? We all know in this House, after the previous rounds of sanctions, that there will be absolutely no difference on the ground for the Palestinians. I said last week—I am sorry to be cynical about it—that I thought the House was being played. My confident prediction now, given this announcement, is that recognition, which was being advertised for the conference next week, is off the table. Can the Minister tell me that I am wrong? \p Hamish Falconer: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has made these points with some force for the past year, but I would caution him against being quite as cynical as he is. We are doing everything we can. We recognise that what we have announced today will not be a remedy to the situation we find ourselves in, as I have just said to one of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). However, I encourage the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) not to cast such cynicism around the Government’s motives. This Government care deeply about what is happening in Gaza. We are so  incredibly frustrated by the scenes that meet us and everyone on the Benches behind me. I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that he has no monopoly on the morality of the situation. \p Frank McNally: I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House tonight and for the steps that have been taken, given the despicable actions of the two Israeli Ministers cited throughout the statement. Of course, more must be done. Does the Minister recognise the UN special rapporteur’s characterisation of Israel’s approach to aid delivery as “brutal humanitarian camouflage”? What further measures will the Government take to challenge grotesque attempts to use aid as a cover for ongoing violence towards Palestinians, including further sanctions and, critically, the recognition of a Palestinian state? \p Hamish Falconer: We have been very clear about the nature of the new aid arrangements involving the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. It has proven deadly and incapable of supplying aid at the levels so desperately needed. I have said so repeatedly, and we will continue to make these points with force. \p Sammy Wilson: Regardless of what one may think of the views expressed by the two Ministers who are subject to sanctions today, the fact is that this is nothing new—they have been saying it for a long time without sanctions. The question that must be asked today is: why now? The Minister must know that this will not bring peace to Gaza, and it will not stop Israel pursuing the terrorists it is bound to pursue in order to free the hostages and release its grip on Gaza, with the danger that presents to Israel. Is this a case of the Minister pandering to the increasingly loud anti-Israel voices on his Back Benches, and does he not know that this will only encourage Hamas not to release the hostages and not to agree to a ceasefire? \p Hamish Falconer: I have spoken about the perilous decline of the situation in the west bank and, indeed, the events of the past two weeks. I have also spoken about the importance of co-ordinating with allies, so I do not think that I have anything further to say about the timing of the announcement. \p Melanie Ward: The Government are right to sanction these Israeli Ministers whose encouragement of mass atrocity crimes is an outrage. Further, such action must follow quickly. Also an outrage is the news of starving Palestinians being shot and killed by Israeli soldiers and foreign mercenaries as they try to access aid in Gaza. Let me ask the Minister this: as the fabric of Palestinian life is being destroyed by the Israeli military, and if the two-state solution is not to be an empty slogan, as he says, then is this not the time for our country to unconditionally and immediately recognise the state of Palestine? If this is not the time, when is? \p Hamish Falconer: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work as the chief executive of Medical Aid for Palestinians. I recognise that there is almost nobody in this House who has more lived experience of what this crisis looks like. I will not add to my answers on recognition or on the conference next week, but I pay tribute to her work, which was brave, courageous and important. \p Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Restrictions on aid, fuel, food and even water in Gaza is inhumane and unacceptable. If the Minister cannot get a decision next week to recognise the state of Palestine, will he at least ask for a collective message to be sent to our allies, the Israelis, that these restrictions are unacceptable and that, unless they are reversed, serious consequences will follow? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have delivered that message with our 26 partners on aid and we have been clear that, unless the situation changes, further actions with the leaders of France and Canada will flow. I will not repeat my answers about the conference next week, but I thank him for the important focus that he puts on the humanitarian situation. \p Paul Waugh: I warmly welcome today’s decision by the UK Government to work with other international allies to sanction these extremist Israeli Ministers. Just to remind ourselves how extremist they are, Finance Minister Smotrich promised that

“not even a grain of wheat”

will enter the Gaza strip. This is a man whose extremism and disregard for the Israeli hostages are matched only by his absolute contempt for Palestinian lives. He said that it is “good” that the war has begun but “unfortunate” that it started the way that it did. “Unfortunate”—that is how he described 7 October. In the spirit of today’s international alliance with other countries, will the Government now seize the moment to recognise the state of Palestine next week in New York? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is very committed to these issues. He rightly points to some of the rhetoric and extremist language that has been used by these two men. I will not repeat my answers in relation to the conference next week. We will work with our friends and allies on our approach. \p Vikki Slade: The Foreign Secretary summoned the Israeli ambassador to meet the Minister two weeks ago and we were asked to “wait and see” what positive steps would come from the meeting. Since then, we have seen violence and attacks on vulnerable people increase by the state of Israel. The ambassador has repeatedly rejected a two-state solution. Given that 200,000 people have now signed a petition to expel her from this country, has the Minister given any consideration to further action on the ambassador? \p Hamish Falconer: I summoned the Israeli ambassador and set out the strength of views to the Israeli Government that the British Government feel on these questions. It is of vital importance that we have an Israeli ambassador. Whatever the views of this House, it is important that we maintain relations. We also have an ambassador from Iran in London, and that is important, too. We need to be able to deliver messages to friends, to allies and to those with whom we do not enjoy good relations. We will continue to host ambassadors because of the importance of maintaining those diplomatic relations. \p Andy McDonald: The Minister was absolutely right: our dispute and anger is not with the Israeli people but with their leaders, who use their murderous forces to inflict this  annihilation on the Palestinian people. The Minister has said that sanctions are not remedies, and that they are an expression of our opinion, but the acid test will be whether the measures actually have an impact and bring about the end to the killing.

I also have to respectfully disagree with the Minister, because as a state party to the genocide, Geneva and Vienna conventions, the UK has a binding obligation to: prevent genocide; refrain from recognising, aiding or assistance an illegal situation arising from serious breaches of peremptory norms of international law; and avoid trade, funding or co-operation that enables or legitimises these violations. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give an undertaking to this House to come back in short order to announce further sanctions that will concentrate their mind, because the fear is that these sanctions will not? Will he also indicate whether, in the absence of a firm commitment to recognise the state of Palestine, His Majesty’s Government will support a vote in this House, by other means, to express the will for that recognition of Palestine? \p Hamish Falconer: I have come to this House on a number of occasions to talk about a number of things the British Government have done in relation to this situation. I say that sanctions are no remedy; they are no remedy in this situation. They are so often not a remedy in the many circumstances in which we apply them. I feel much greater satisfaction when we announce positive steps that we have taken—aid that has gone in, partnerships with the region. It is with regret, always, that we announce sanctions. I will not speculate on what further we may introduce in this case or any other, as my hon. Friend will understand. I recognise the limitations of sanctions, but under these circumstances, the Government judged that we had no choice but to express the strength of our feeling through sanctions. On the questions of international humanitarian law, I repeat once again this Government’s commitment to abiding by all our IHL obligations. \p Martin Vickers: I have spoken on a number of occasions in recent weeks about recognition of Palestine, and I put on record again that I think we should proceed with it. Certainly, a vote in this House, as was suggested a moment ago, would strengthen the Government’s position and, I would have thought, be helpful in international negotiations. The Minister mentioned four other countries that have sanctioned the two Ministers today. Is he anticipating that further countries will follow suit, and what negotiations are taking place to achieve that goal? \p Hamish Falconer: We have had discussions with other countries, but I would not wish at the Dispatch Box to speculate on what steps they may take following this. \p Cat Eccles: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I recently visited Israel and Palestine on a delegation and met Opposition leaders, and their top ask of the UK—what they said would be helpful for them—was strong sanctions, so I welcome the Minister’s statement today, but does he not agree that we should be placing strong sanctions on all Ministers in the Israeli Government? This is not just about rhetoric; it is about actions. With thousands of deaths in Gaza, we need to see stronger sanctions on all Ministers in the Israeli Government. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the effort she put in to travel to the area and to meet those in Israel and beyond. To be clear, the sanctions announced are not sanctions on the two Ministries that the men represent. They are sanctions on the men themselves and the extremist rhetoric that they are responsible for. We would keep further sanctions under review on individuals who conducted rhetoric of that kind. \p Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the sanctions that have been announced on these two individuals, but I believe that they should go further. The Minister said in his statement that no arms are now going to Israel, but he was unclear about the component parts for F-35 jets, which are still in the global supply chain and presumably could be bought by Israel, and he was silent on the use of RAF Akrotiri and the flights that overfly Gaza. Is security co-operation with Israel continuing? Is information being given to Israel that it can use to continue the disgraceful and disgusting bombing of starving people in Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to clarify that the British Government are not providing information to enable the bombing campaign in Gaza. The decisions that we took in relation to arms suspension bind the whole Government—they are not just the decisions of the Foreign Office—and represent a sober, reasoned, serious analysis of the risks of breaches of international humanitarian law, and they bind the Government in our approach. I will take brief issue with the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of my remarks, because I have been clear on the F-35 point. We continue to be clear on that point. Indeed, we have explained it at length in court. \p Paula Barker: I thank the Minister for coming to the House to make the statement and for the strong action that the Government are taking to make it clear that we hold no truck with extremists who care nothing for peace, but we must go further. He will know the strength of feeling on the Labour Benches on this issue, particularly on recognition of a Palestinian state. I reimpress that on him and hope that he will be here in a fortnight’s time as the Minister who recognised Palestine. Will he advise the House on what discussions he is having about the appalling interception of the British-flagged yacht Madleen, yet again preventing much-needed aid from reaching the Palestinian people? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. While I am always glad to come to the House, I reassure her constituents and those of many Labour Members that even were I not glad to do so, they would certainly summon me. I am always glad to answer questions from my hon. Friend, and indeed from hon. Members on both sides of the House. In relation to the Madleen, I confirm that the UK pressed the Israeli authorities before its arrival to ensure that any action taken was in line with international law, would be undertaken with restraint and would be resolved safely for the passengers on board. \p Brian Mathew: Next week, I will be meeting the families of some of the remaining Israeli hostages. I am sure that the whole  House wants to see their safe return, and wants peace at last for the Palestinian population of Gaza and the west bank. The killing, the misery, the starvation and the genocide have gone on for far too long. Will the Government do the right thing by recognising the state of Palestine now? For a two-state solution, there must be two states. \p Hamish Falconer: I will not rehearse the arguments on recognition, but I know that so many hon. Members, myself included, have met hostage families who view the events with terrible dismay. I will not put words in their mouths from the Dispatch Box. Their views are varied, their distress and their anger are palpable, and we have them in our thoughts every day. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: I thank the Minister for coming to the House for the statement and the announcement of sanctions. We have all watched with horror the scenes of desperate people trying to access food—the most basic thing that we need to survive. While we can understand why our constituents have a sense of hopelessness, we should not have that in this place, because we have considerable agency. What steps is he taking, with allies and aid organisations, to establish secure maritime corridors for humanitarian aid to Gaza? Does he agree with me and hon. Members across the House that now is the time to recognise an independent sovereign state of Palestine? \p Hamish Falconer: I welcome the tone and spirit of my hon. Friend’s question. We do have agency in this House. The frustrations that are felt by so many, both within and without the House, are completely understandable and justifiable. This Government have sought change and have been frustrated by how slow that change has been, but we will continue to work for a better situation for those in Gaza, for those in west bank and, of course, for those in Israel.

My hon. Friend asks about maritime corridors, which are an important but, ultimately, relatively peripheral part of any aid operation if it is to be at the scale required. There were maritime corridors supported in an earlier phase of the conflict and they did important work, but ultimately the three road crossings into Jordan, Egypt and Israel are the most practical, most viable, and most tried and tested routes to get aid in at the scale and with the flexibility required to meet the needs of those in the strip. \p Ellie Chowns: I welcome the announcement of sanctions on two extremist Ministers. It is long overdue and it is a bare minimum. On its own, it is likely to do little to stop extremist, illegal settlements and violence against Palestinian civilians. When will the Government implement a ban on settlement goods to stop the economy that fuels illegal settlements? Will the Minister today, clearly and unequivocally, call for illegal settlements to be dismantled, as the International Court of Justice has directed? \p Hamish Falconer: I will not repeat the answer about settlement goods that I gave earlier, but I want to be absolutely clear for the House that settlements are illegal under Israeli and international law and they should be dismantled. \p Helen Hayes: I welcome the sanctions on Israeli Government Ministers announced today. Those two Ministers have shown the world who they are for a long time and this step, while welcome, is long overdue. The Minister speaks of the peril for the two-state solution. There cannot be a two-state solution that is realised without two states, so will he take with him to the summit next week the clearly expressed will of this House that this Government take a lead in the recognition of the Palestinian state? Also, is it not time for a full ban on settlement goods, so that we can be sure that consumers in this country play no part in a clear strategic attempt to undermine even the possibility of a two-state solution? \p Hamish Falconer: I have heard the powerful interventions from my hon. Friend and many others across the House on the questions of recognition and settlement goods. The question around settlement goods is one of differentiating between Israeli goods—that is, those from within green line Israel—and those from illegal settlements. Illegal settlement goods are not eligible for the same trade provisions as those from within green line Israel. To breach that labelling requirement and so not be clear where the goods are produced is a breach of the relevant regulations. \p Mike Martin: I want to clarify some of the Minister’s earlier remarks in response to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and in his previous answer. The Minister said earlier that the trade in goods from settlements attracts a higher tariff. Will he therefore confirm that the British Government, by raising tariffs and taxes on that trade, are making money out of the illegal settlements in the west bank, and does he think that is acceptable? \p Hamish Falconer: Not quite—there are trade arrangements between the UK and Israel. We consider Israel to be green line Israel; we do not consider the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the settlements within them to be part of green line Israel. We have separate arrangements with the Palestinian Authority. Goods produced in illegal settlements should be labelled as such. That is not, let me clarify, a money-making scheme for the British Government. \p Alistair Strathern: Having had a number of conversations with the Minister about the importance of the new sanctions, I wholeheartedly welcome today’s announcement. Those two Ministers’ comments go well beyond what could be tolerated, accepted or explained away, and I am really glad that we have played a leading role in pulling together international partners to take a stand on this. However, as the Minister has pointed out, the humanitarian situation on the ground is getting increasingly dire for Gazans, who have been long deprived of the access to aid that they desperately need, so with this renewed call for international action that he has so clearly laid down today, how are we working with international partners to apply more pressure on Israel to finally get those land routes open and uninhibited flows of aid back to the Palestinian people? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues and for his important question. As the House will see, the UK has led with 26 of our allies on a statement on humanitarian issues, and with three leaders  from the UK, France and Canada, and today with five others in relation to the sanctions on those two men. I can assure the House that we will work with a range of our partners in different formats in order to achieve the objectives that I know are felt so keenly right across the house. \p Shockat Adam: Ben-Gvir is so extreme that the Israeli Government themselves banned him from joining the army, and that was three decades ago. So if the Minister will please excuse me, I am not going to extend a warm welcome to this announcement. The fact is that this is a matter of trust. The Government tell us they are going to cease arms sales to Israel, yet F-35 fighter jet parts get to Israel, massacring young children. The Government tell us they are appalled by the actions of the Israeli Government, yet Government Ministers find themselves partying with the Israeli ambassador and Holocaust trivialisers. The Government tell us that they are ceasing trade deals with Israel, yet the very next week a trade envoy is sent to Israel to drum up business. Who are the Government trying to fool? \p Hamish Falconer: It is a shame that the hon. Member does not feel in a position to welcome these announcements. These are important steps taken with our allies. The UK is leading the world on these issues, and we will continue to do so. \p Mary Foy: I welcome the actions that the Minister has announced today, but we can no longer allow starving men, women and children to be murdered in cold blood while scrambling for food or visiting cemeteries at Eid, or to be burned alive in their houses. Will the Minister please be bolder, listen to the voices here tonight and lead the way by calling for a state of Palestine, just to give hope to those Palestinians who are already working for peace and the right to self-determination? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has a long interest in the communities of the region, and I recognise the emotion in her remarks. We have talked this evening about sanctions, about recognition and about aid. Hope will not feed the hungry people of the Gaza strip, and we will not cease until proper aid provision is provided to all those who need it in the strip. I will not repeat the answers I have already given about recognition. \p Munira Wilson: The sanctions on the appalling extremists Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, while extremely overdue, are welcome—we on these Liberal Democrat Benches have been calling for them for some 16 months now. The Minister acknowledged in his statement that there is cross-party support for a two-state solution. He also said

“when we say something, we mean it.”

Yet he has repeatedly refused tonight to recognise the state of Palestine or to commit to recognising it at the summit next week. I remain wholly unconvinced by his reasons for refusing to do so, so let me try a different tack. This evening there are reports that the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has stated that the US is no longer pursuing the goal of an independent state of Palestine. Will this now bring a new urgency to recognising the state of Palestine and to the UK standing up and assuming its historic responsibility in the region, when Trump is abandoning the Palestinians? \p Hamish Falconer: I have answered the question about the approach to the conference. I have sought to be as clear as I can with the House about the importance of conducting diplomacy not on the Floor of the House, but with our allies and friends, in advance of such an important moment as next week. That is the approach that we will take. \p Oliver Ryan: I thank the Minister for his commitment to peace, and for his unrelenting and tireless work towards it. A two-state solution must be protected. We cannot let that light—that hope—be extinguished. He is quite right in his comments. Today’s strong action is right, and it is welcomed by many of my constituents, but will he get even tougher? Will he get more aid in, stop the settler violence, stop the illegal settlements, and take a message from this House and this country about protecting Palestinians and their right to self-determination? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has been adamantly committed to these issues. He sets out all the right objectives, and I confirm to him that I take on board that message. \p Richard Foord: Last October, Lord Cameron said that, as Foreign Secretary, he had been working up plans to sanction extreme right-wing Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. What took the Government so long? \p Hamish Falconer: I hear many reports of what was being done in the Foreign Office on these questions before I got there. I think the House will probably agree that, since we arrived in government, we have taken rather a different approach across a whole range of questions; we restored funding to UNRWA on my very first day as a Minister and took the other steps that we have discussed at some length. It is very interesting to hear Lord Cameron’s recollections, but I am not sure that we will be taking many lessons from them. \p Sarah Owen: A British surgeon in Gaza described it as a “slaughterhouse”, babies are starving, and roads to aid are being described as “combat zones” by the IDF, so I welcome the sanctions on Israeli Ministers, who stated that they are

“destroying everything that remains in Gaza”.

Their actions bear all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing and plausible genocide. It is clear that the majority of us in this place want to recognise the state of Palestine, as do many of the public. Will the Minister feed back to the Prime Minister our strength of feeling on recognising Palestine now? \p Hamish Falconer: I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about these questions, and how strongly Luton feels about them—as do so many in Lincoln, Burnley and elsewhere. I will take that message. \p Robin Swann: A two-state solution requires all sides to see it as achievable, desirable and sustainable, so what practical steps have the Government taken with international partners to rebuild and support the Palestinian Authority, and how will they ensure that Hamas have no role in Palestinian governance, as the Minister said in his statement? \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Gentleman asks a vital question. That was one of the central focuses of the visit of the Palestinian Prime Minister to the UK and the memorandum of understanding that we agreed with him. We welcome the recent statements of the Palestinian Authority on vital reforms, including on the so-called pay-for-slay provisions for welfare, and their statement in recent days that Hamas must have no role in the future governance of Gaza. \p Jas Athwal: I certainly welcome the sanctions against the two Israeli Ministers, but collective responsibility dictates that the whole Cabinet is complicit, and the sanctions should perhaps have gone further. Human rights abuses are happening right in front of us. Settler violence has reached a record high. Illegal settlements are being constructed. Over 55,000 innocent men, women and children have died. Humanitarian aid is being cruelly withheld. Does the Minister agree that the recognition of the Palestinian state must be the next step? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues. I will not add to the answers on recognition that I have already given, nor will I speculate further on where future sanctions might be targeted. \p Susan Murray: People in Gaza are starving. Those people are children, the sick and the elderly. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is unworkable and its operations are insufficient. Will the Government not just press for but develop an alternative plan for taking aid into the strip through a humanitarian corridor sponsored by the UN? \p Hamish Falconer: An alternative exists—an alternative that is tried and tested and has been developed over the course of this conflict—and it is called the United Nations and the international non-governmental organisation community. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. The UK and its partners already have a model available, ready and waiting. Aid from Britain, among many other places, is waiting in places like al-Arish, close to the border with the strip. That operation must be allowed to proceed. \p Tulip Siddiq: Innocent Palestinian civilians face a horrific choice: either they die of starvation, or they risk being killed while they queue up for aid. I welcome the sanctions announced by the Minister, but I want to press him for more detail about his engagement with our international allies on collectively putting pressure on the Israeli Government to allow free-flowing aid into Gaza for those who need it most, and who are in this situation through no fault of their own. \p Hamish Falconer: As I have said, we have worked with 26 partners on a statement on humanitarian issues, with five partners today on sanctions, and as one of three leaders. We will join our friends and allies at the two-state solution conference next week, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work with friends and allies in a variety of formats to press these points. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: I pay tribute to the work of my Oxfordshire neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for her work to try to get Palestine recognised. She has brought forward Bills in this House  for many years to that effect. I also extend my thoughts to all UK Palestinians living here who fear for their families in Gaza.

Has the Minister tonight heard the House’s wish to recognise Palestinian statehood, and will he outline the steps the Government are taking to make sure that baby formula gets through as aid into the strip? Mothers are unable to feed their children, and it is terrifying to watch on TV. I hope he will press on that matter in particular. \p Hamish Falconer: I of course hear the voice of all parliamentarians who have spoken today, and on the many other occasions when we have had to discuss these issues. Like other Members, the hon. Gentleman presses me on one of many lifesaving items that are not currently going into the strip in the volumes required. They include medical provision, baby food, and the basic nutrition to deal with the famine that the IPC—Integrated Food Security Phase Classification—report warns all those in Gaza are at risk of. There is an urgent need for all such items to get in, and I assure him that we press that point. \p Alex Ballinger: I welcome the sanctions against extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, whose dehumanising rhetoric has contributed to the land grabbing on the west bank and the destructive situation we see in Gaza. I thank the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for co-ordinating internationally on this, because together our actions are more powerful. Will he also co-ordinate on the devastating humanitarian situation, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and private military contractors? We see civilians walking miles to get food; indeed, some of them are being killed by the Israel Defence Forces while simply queuing to get a meal, despite the state they are in. Will he co-ordinate with his international partners to apply pressure, and to challenge this illegal and cruel mechanism, and what steps will he take next week to ensure that the UK recognises the Palestinian state? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend rightly points to the limitations of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation; its model has proven deadly and incapable of supplying aid at the scale required. We have co-ordinated with our partners in the way that I have described. Next week, with Egypt, we will co-chair a working group on the reconstruction of Gaza, and I assure him, as I have assured other Members, that we will continue to work with our international partners on these questions until the situation improves. \p Carla Lockhart: This Government appear willing to sanction selected Israeli Ministers, while groups that have openly supported the terrorists who carried out the terrorist atrocity on 7 October are being platformed at events like Glastonbury festival. It certainly screams double standards. Sadly, it is the Jewish people in the UK who are left to face the consequences, and who cannot walk the streets of London without being harassed. How can the UK sanction people who do not live here while those who share their hatred walk freely among us? \p Hamish Falconer: I condemn antisemitism unreservedly, in London or anywhere else. Let me be clear: Hamas—the whole organisation—is proscribed in the UK. When it  comes to Hamas, we do not make the careful differentiation that I have made this afternoon between Israeli Ministers. The whole organisation, lock, stock and barrel, is proscribed by the UK Home Office. That has force under law, and it does not matter whether they are here or not. We continue to call on Hamas to release hostages, to return to a ceasefire, and to have no future role in the governance of Gaza. \p Alex Sobel: On 23 May, I stood in exactly the same spot where I am standing now and asked the Foreign Secretary to sanction Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, so I thank the Government for their action today. The Palestinian people are now in existential crisis. Even this week, we saw the Israeli military board a British-flagged vessel in international waters and confiscate it. Mass starvation events in Gaza continue, and as the Minister has said, there is increasing settlement action on the west bank. I have been to the region and met senior members of the Palestinian Authority, and I am proud that the Prime Minister took the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority into Downing Street, and that we have a trade envoy to Palestine. The Palestinian Authority is a government under occupation, and has all the effects of government, so what is stopping us from recognising them as the legitimate government of a state? What is the Minister’s view of the Palestinian Authority? \p Hamish Falconer: In our view, the Palestinian Authority is central to a two-state solution. We want to see it reformed and strengthened, and in control of both Gaza and the west bank. The MOU that we signed with the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mr Mustafa, was part of those efforts. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I am grateful to the Minister for his personal efforts to achieve some justice, and for the attempts to get aid into Palestine and Gaza in order to save lives. However, as a new Member, I have been coming to the Chamber for 11 months, riding on the coat-tails of many right hon. and hon. Members who have gone before me, and who are here today, who have been fighting for this cause for many years before I arrived. We have heard only words and rhetoric from the Government; there has been no meaningful action to save lives, beyond the aid that was allowed in earlier. What steps are the Government taking to finally get aid into Gaza, so that we can save the babies, the starving children, the mothers and all of humanity? Otherwise, tens of thousands of people will no longer be here in a few days’ time. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The steps that we have taken have been concrete, but he is right that there remain terrible risks of famine and other circumstances that befall people when adequate aid is not allowed in. When proper water and sanitation is not provided, the risks of further humanitarian catastrophe are considerable. We will continue to press those points with the Israeli Government, alongside our friends and allies. \p Rachael Maskell: If the UK Government fail to recognise the state of Palestine next week, what message will it send to the perpetrators of this genocide and to the suffering Palestinians? \p Hamish Falconer: I do not think I have very much to add on our approach to the conference next week. \p Helen Maguire: It is vital that we get a clear and accurate picture of what exactly is happening on the ground. That is absolutely essential to ensure transparency. What are this Government doing to progress access for journalists into Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: That is a vital question. The hon. Lady knows that journalists and most aid workers are not able to operate in Gaza, which provides considerable uncertainty about the events happening there. We are calling both for journalistic access and the access of aid workers and, vitally, for those people to be protected. More aid workers and many more journalists have been killed than anyone in this House could accept. We want people to be able to go in to deliver aid, to report freely and to be protected through deconfliction mechanisms. \p Kirith Entwistle: Every day I wake to news of further atrocities in Gaza, and every week constituents come to ask me to put more pressure on our Government to go further and faster. While I welcome the news of sanctions and I commend the Minister for his hard work, surely this is just the beginning; as he said, the gravity of the situation demands further action. We must ensure accountability for all breaches of international humanitarian law. When will we recognise the state of Palestine? How will we ensure that vital aid reaches people in Gaza, who are beyond desperate? \p Hamish Falconer: I reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents that she does indeed press me on these issues, as do so many Members on my own Government Benches and across the House. I am not sure I entirely agree with her characterisation that this is the beginning, but I assure her that it is not the end until progress is made. \p Ayoub Khan: I certainly welcome the statement from the Minister with the imposition of sanctions on the two Israeli Ministers; although it is late in the day, that none the less requires our gratitude. Given that we have adopted this new precedent, will the Minister agree that any Member of the Knesset using language similar to that of the two Israeli Ministers will receive similar sanctions? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and the tone in which he asks it. I will not set out hypothetical circumstances under which we may take further sanction action from this Dispatch Box, but I reaffirm that the question and issue in these sanctions is the breach of Palestinian human rights. That is the basis on which we will consider further sanctions. \p Navendu Mishra: I thank the Minister for this important statement, but the reality is that 93% of children in Gaza—around 930,000—face the critical risk of famine. He has outlined what the Government have been doing in the past few months and continue to do, but will he tell us what more the British Government could do to ensure that food and medicine reach people who are starving? \p Hamish Falconer: I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing all we can to try to ensure that food and medicine reach children and all those in need in Gaza. I will return to this House when I have further announcements. \p Jim Shannon: The Minister is much respected in this House. He has been at pains to emphasise that these sanctions are being placed on the people, not the Government, yet already media headlines out there are creating the image that Israel is being sanctioned. Will he underline and state the unwavering support that Israel has from him and this Government in its battle for survival against continued Hamas terrorism so that there can be no doubt that this nation remains standing with Israel? \p Hamish Falconer: As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and his courtesy in this House. I can reaffirm that this Government support the existence of the state of Israel, and we will continue to stand on its defence when required. \p Warinder Juss: I thank the Minister for his statement and hard work, and I believe he is genuinely concerned about what is happening in Gaza. We all want a two-state solution, a safe and secure Israel, and a sovereign state of Palestine, and we have already said that the illegal settlements of Israel are something that we condemn. We recognise the state of Israel. Can the Minister please give an explanation as to why we cannot now recognise the state of Palestine? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and his important question. He knows our commitments to a Palestinian state as set out in our manifesto, and I will not rehearse them. It is our job as the British Government to create the conditions in which a Palestinian state can be viable and sovereign and can live in safety alongside a safe and secure Israel. It is to that task that we continue to put our efforts. \p Johanna Baxter: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I welcome the sanctions that have been taken today against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich because their rhetoric and actions towards the Palestinian people are dangerous and extremist. But this is the third set of sanctions imposed by our Government against violent settlers and settlement entities, and they have unfortunately not stopped food being used as a weapon of war. What does the Minister think will stop food being used as a weapon of war, and what more can we do to ensure that humanitarian aid is delivered into Gaza as a matter of urgency? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is exactly right to highlight the importance of aid not being used in service of a military or political objective. It must be delivered in a principled way in accordance with humanitarian principles. The United Nations and our international NGO partners have long experience of delivering aid in that way. That is why I have said over the course of the evening that we have an alternative to the GHF that will work, and that is the UN-supported operation. \p Lillian Jones: I welcome the Minister’s statement to the House and the steps the UK Government are taking thus far.  The humanitarian assistance must not be obstructed, politicised or treated as a threat. What concrete steps are the UK Government taking to ensure that aid reaches all areas of Gaza without further delay or interference by the Israel Defence Forces to allow aid workers to carry out their lifesaving work without fear of injury or death, to secure the release of hostages back to their families and to finally recognise the state of Palestine? \p Hamish Falconer: On aid provision within Gaza, as I know my hon. Friend will be aware, there has been much discussion on the importance of there being multiple distribution sites far in excess of those currently available. That helps manage the pressures and provides more humane conditions for aid delivery, and that is what we want to see in the strip. \p Sam Rushworth: I thank the Minister for his diligence and his patient answers and for an excellent statement. I agreed with every word of it, and I appreciate the actions that the Government have taken to sanction two Ministers, both of whom have expressed genocidal intent. The Minister is also correct in saying that the two-state solution is in peril. It seems from today that there is an overwhelming majority in this place that support the immediate recognition of Palestine, and I sense from his answers that the Government are moving in that direction. What can he also do around the ICJ judgment that the west bank has been annexed, and what more can we do to ensure that others are punished for their crimes in the west bank? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and his important question. I am sure that, with the permission of the Speaker, I will be back in this House next week to discuss recognition and events at the conference in greater detail. On the question of the advisory opinion, which I know he knows is a far-reaching and complex advisory opinion, we will return to this House when we are in a position to give a full response to what is a complex and novel legal opinion. \p Olivia Blake: I thank the Minister for his strong statement today and the sanctions he has outlined. I have listened carefully to his words, and he has spoken about the risk of empty slogans on the path to a two-state solution. I agree, but I fear we will be the last generation of diplomats and politicians for whom the option of recognising the state of Palestine is on the table. Will he reflect on that before next week’s meeting? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks an important question. It is very much on the minds of all those in the Government who work on these issues that the viability of a two-state solution requires physical facts on the ground. It requires territory for two states, and clearly, illegal settlements proceeding at the rate I described in my statement is an impediment and a threat to that two-state solution. \p Claire Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement and warmly welcome the actions that have been announced today. This Government said that they would take concrete actions, and they have. However, given the urgency of the situation facing millions of Gazans, with starvation just around the corner, and  given what we know about what the Israeli Government have done so far, may I respectfully ask the Minister to tell us what next? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend, both for her kind words and her commitment to these issues; I can reassure her constituents that she raises them with me regularly. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure I will return to the House next week to talk about the conference and the next steps. I hope that the situation improves: that we see aid reaching Gaza, that we see a ceasefire, and that we can start to talk about these issues in a more measured way in this House, reflecting that the situation is not as urgent as it is today. Until that time, I am sure I will be returning to the House with further updates, as I have been doing. \p Kim Johnson: I welcome the Minister’s announcement of the sanctions on these two racist and extremist Ministers, but they do not go far enough. They are not going to stop the expansion of settlements or the settler violence, because we know that that expansion is state-funded, state-sanctioned and state-supported. What we need now is recognition of a Palestinian state, and I hope that the Minister will come back to the Chamber next week to inform the House that that has happened. If that is the case, what is the next step once recognition is agreed? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is committed to these issues, although I am sure she would not expect me to speculate at this point about what hypothetical next steps might be. I am sure I will be returning to this House, and I am sure I will continue to discuss these issues with her. \p Mark Sewards: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having visited both Israel and Palestine just a few weeks ago. I welcome the Minister’s statement today, as sanctioning these two extremist individuals is exactly the right thing to do; they are enemies of peace, and no two-state solution will ever be achieved while they are in post. It is also clear to me that Prime Minister Netanyahu has come to rely on these two Ministers for his political survival, and the feeling on the ground in Israel among ordinary Israelis—backed up by consistent polling—is that they do not support their Prime Minister and will change their Government at the first opportunity at the next election. Will the Minister set out how the UK Government can not only sanction those who seek to destroy peace, but support those who champion moderation and peacemaking in the region, both in Palestine and in Israel? \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, both for his question and the travel he has recently undertaken. As I am sure he would expect, I will not be drawn on questions about Israel’s democratic process—clearly, their elections are a matter for them—but I can assure my hon. Friend that we do everything that we can to try to support peacemakers on both sides of this conflict to find common cause. \p Harpreet Uppal: I welcome these sanctions, and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his hard work; I thank him and officials for everything they are doing. As other colleagues have done, I also ask him  to ensure that we can recognise Palestine at the UN conference, which will be a big moment. The US is a key partner in this work, and my hon. Friend—the Minister, I should say—will know that the US ambassador to Israel has said that the goal of an independent Palestinian state is no longer something it is pursuing. What discussions are we having with the US on that? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is kind, and I am grateful for her words. She is very welcome to call me her hon. Friend. The questions that she raises are key. We discuss these issues with our friends and our allies. Not all our positions are the same, but I will always set out with clarity, both from this Dispatch Box and in all my diplomatic engagements, the position of the UK Government. \p Tracy Gilbert: I welcome the sanctions outlined by my hon. Friend today, and I thank him for all the work he has done. I know his commitment to the Palestinian people and the concerns he has, which he shares with us on a regular basis. Action has been required for some time. The up and coming UN conference on a two-state solution is an opportunity to work with allies or alone to recognise the Palestinian state. May I add my voice to that request and ask my hon. Friend: if not then, when? \p Hamish Falconer: I once again thank my hon. Friend for her kind words and recognise her force of feeling on the question of recognition. As I said earlier, I am sure I will be back in this House and continuing to discuss these issues with her. \p James Asser: I very much welcome the recognition in the statement today of what is going on in the west bank. I raised the issue of settler violence and the suppression of Palestinian rights several weeks ago in the House, following the disgraceful events we saw over Easter with the suppression of worship. I very much welcome the sanctions we have seen today. My hon. Friend talks about a two-state solution, but as other Members have said, we need two states for a two-state solution. What we are seeing from the Israeli Government is a clear attempt to stop there being a viable Palestinian state. What my constituents want and what the Palestinian people want is recognition. We need to do more, and next week is the perfect opportunity for us to recognise a Palestinian state. It is needed now. \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend points to his long record, with which I am familiar, of pressing these points. He is right to say that a two-state solution clearly requires two states. It is vital that nobody, not in Israel or anywhere else, forecloses that possibility. \p Polly Billington: I welcome these sanctions, which need to be seen in the context of £129 million of extra aid, the refunding of UNRWA, sanctions on settlers, the suspension of the arms trade and, importantly, the suspension of trade negotiations. That is the context of the action by this Government. However, the suffering goes on and it is not accidental; it is deliberate. The achievement of these sanctions today is a result of this Government working with other Governments. We know that we achieve more together than we do alone. In that context, and with the summit next week, will the Minister take the message from across  this House and from all our constituencies and communities that Britain wants a recognition of the Palestinian state unequivocally, immediately and unconditionally? That is a message from Britain to the summit next week. \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend speaks with real force and authority, and I have heard her message clearly. \p Graeme Downie: This Israeli Government continue to perpetrate horrific and appalling violence against Palestinian people, and that is also against the interests of Israel and Israeli people. We know that Hamas are only interested in death and destruction. I welcome the action today as a sign of willingness to take action against anyone who might be a bar or a block to a two-state solution. The Minister has already heard from Members from all parts of the House and been urged to take specific steps, but will he confirm what options are open to him to support and strengthen the overwhelming majority of Israelis and Palestinians who want a peaceful future? What action can he take against anyone who is a bar to a two-state solution in the future? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has rightly focused on the important questions that are at issue, such as how we can maintain the viability of a two-state solution. That is the only route to peaceful harmony, with two states side by side, and it is on that objective that our efforts are focused. \p Scott Arthur: I thank the Minister for his leadership on this issue.

One of the most regular attenders at my surgeries is a Palestinian woman who has lost both friends and family in this conflict. Her cousin died recently. Each time she comes, it is harder for me to tell her that the Government are doing all that they can to protect the lives and rights of Palestinians. On Saturday she brought a gift, because it was the day after Eid, but she was also angry and tearful. I was ashamed, because I could not tell her that our Government were doing all that they could in this situation.

The Minister has said twice in his responses that delivering aid directly by sea and by air is inefficient, but surely efficiency is not the aim here; saving lives is. Surely inefficient aid is better than no aid. Will the Minister look at this again, with our international partners, to see what aid we can deliver to these people? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend speaks with the painful authority of one who has clearly taken a great deal of time to get to know someone who is facing truly dreadful circumstances in Gaza. I am grateful to all those, on my Benches and beyond, who take part in such engagement and share it with me. I recognise how heavily the responsibilities weigh on us, both constituency Members and, of course, those of us in the Government.

It is not simply inefficiency that makes me counsel the House repeatedly not to focus on air and sea routes. We do keep them under regular review, and we discuss them with our partners, particularly our friends and allies in Jordan, who have conducted important airlifts of aid into the Gaza strip. The reason I counsel the House in the way that I do is that I see so many of these cases, and I am so conscious of the aggregate demands.  If we can get aid safely into Gaza in a way that is consistent with humanitarian principles, of course we will do so. I can reassure my hon. Friend and his constituent that we keep that under regular review, but I must be honest with the House and say that it is road routes that will meet the scale and the manner that are required. \p Dan Tomlinson: I thank the Minister for his work on so many important issues in the region, and for finding the time to answer questions from Members in all parts of the House so thoroughly over the past two hours. I also welcome his important announcement about sanctions that draw an essential distinction between the far-right extremist Ministers and the people of Israel as a whole.

We desperately need a ceasefire, we need more aid to get into Gaza to alleviate the horrendous human suffering, and we need the hostages who are still being held to be released. What further steps will the Government take towards achieving all those objectives? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and for his commitment to issues throughout the region. He has been raising the concerns of his constituents with me since we were both first elected, and I am sure that he will continue to do so. I know that many people in Chipping Barnet are focused not just on the horrors that we have discussed in relation to aid provision and on the violence, but on the circumstances of the hostages, who remain very much in our minds. There is a British mother who is waiting for the safe return of her son. We will not cease our efforts to try to secure the release of those hostages. \p Joe Powell: I welcome the sanctions against Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, and the coalition that was built to exert maximum pressure. It is   very significant, as the Government’s sanctions have been in other contexts around the world relating to human rights, corruption and other issues. Next week’s conference will be critical to, in the Minister’s words,

“defend the vision and viability of two sides living side by side in peace.”

Surely it is time to recognise the state of Palestine and agree a credible timeline with allies to bring this about. Will the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s objective? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has extensive experience of international coalition building and of taking steps against those who support corruption or who, as in this case, breach human rights. I can confirm that we will work with our friends and allies to try to preserve a path to a two-state solution at the conference next week, in the way that he sets out. \p Judith Cummins: I thank both the Minister and Members for their perseverance. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 6 May, be approved.—(Anna Turley.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anna Turley.) \p Joe Powell: On Saturday, we mark eight years since 72 people lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire—eight years of fighting for truth, eight years without justice, and eight years of too often glacial change. This will be the last anniversary before the tower starts to come down, and it will no longer stand as a painful symbol of injustice, greed and impunity on the west London skyline. As the tower starts to be deconstructed, it is even more important that we remember the 72 people who lost their lives, and I am sure that this House will continue to stand united with their families, the survivors and the community until justice is served and systemic change is implemented. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank my hon. Friend for making a powerful opening statement on the really important and tragic anniversary that is coming up. Of the 72 people who lost their lives, 18 were children. Some 37 residents were disabled, and 15 of them died. Does my hon. Friend agree that even though the tower will come down in a few years, the trauma, suffering, pain and anguish will live with the people of Grenfell for many years to come? \p Joe Powell: I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for her intervention. I completely agree with her, and the legacy must be the systemic change that I talked about. Many of the people who lost their lives in Grenfell were disabled, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to laying regulations that will mandate personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled people, which is a crucial step forward. I know that the Minister has recently taken fire safety into his brief and will look closely at the resources to make sure that such plans are implemented and available for disabled people. \p Jim Shannon: May I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue? It is appropriate and right that this House should recall the tragic events of 14 June 2017 and pay tribute to all of the 72 innocent lives that were lost—I think the House is united in thinking of those families. Although the fire happened in 2017, the memories linger long for the families who lost loved ones. The Crown Prosecution Service has indicated that decisions regarding potential charges are not expected until late 2026, which will be almost a decade from when it happened. Does the hon. Member agree that more effort must be made to expedite the process, to ensure that families and friends have justice and the closure that they need to grieve and move on with their lives? \p Joe Powell: I thank the hon. Member for expressing his solidarity, and he is right. The finding of the public inquiry that reported in September was devasting: the simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable. I know we must respect the criminal investigation and avoid saying anything that jeopardises that process, but on behalf of our community, I simply say to our Government that until there is criminal accountability for those responsible, there will be no justice. \p Kim Johnson: I would like to send my condolences to the family, friends and loved ones of all those who lost their lives eight years ago. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, if justice is to be delivered, the Government need to think very carefully about delivering on the Hillsborough law and the duty of candour? \p Joe Powell: I absolutely agree. I applaud the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to bring in the Hillsborough law. At the party conference in September last year, he said that the law is

“for the sub-postmasters in the Horizon scandal. The victims of infected blood. Windrush. Grenfell Tower. And all the countless injustices over the years, suffered by working people at the hands of those who were supposed to serve them.”

Those are the Prime Minister’s words. I agree that we should see that law introduced before we return to Liverpool later this year, and see it accompanied by a national oversight mechanism, so that victims can be independently reassured that inquiry recommendations deliver meaningful change. The sad truth is that we know that if the lessons from the Lakanal House fire in 2009 had been learned, as the coroner intended, it is very likely that the Grenfell tragedy could have been prevented. We cannot allow that to happen again.

For the community of North Kensington, Grenfell will always be in our hearts, and I welcome the hard work of the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission to select a fitting permanent tribute to the memory of the 72, but our community needs continued support today. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for building safety, the Mayor of London and the many other elected officials for their regular visits to North Kensington and their engagement with the community. They will know that, as the tower is brought down, it is vital that community health services, including mental health services, are maintained, and I hope our local NHS leadership, working with the Government, can make sure that those services remain at least for the period of deconstruction. It is also essential that survivors have the monitoring they need to spot and address long-term health conditions that may arise.

For the residents around the tower, change has also been too long in coming. I regularly meet the residents of the Lancaster West estate, the Silchester estate and many others. On the Lancaster West estate, there is now the prospect of an £85 million gap in the budget to complete the major works that were promised by local and central Government after the fire. Clearly, no project of this scale should be overrunning so dramatically,  but that promise to residents must be kept. I call on the Minister to do all he can, working with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, to find a solution.

The challenge goes much wider than Lancaster West. Since being elected, I have dealt with thousands of housing cases relating to poor-quality repairs, damp and mould, and a culture of disrespect, especially for social housing tenants. \p Amanda Martin: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Eight years on, we remember the deep sorrow, and stand with the survivors and families. Grenfell really did expose failures in building safety and massive social inequality. At the time, I was a teacher, and the deaths of those children  were tragic. Now I am an MP, I think it is upon us to do all we can in this place not only to bring those people social justice and the justice they deserve, but to make sure it does not happen again. \p Joe Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do applaud the many steps the Government are taking on this issue—for example, on professionalising the housing sector and implementing Awaab’s law on damp and mould. As she states, the truth is that without real change, all of us in this House know that a tragic case such as that of Awaab Ishak could easily happen again. In my constituency, that means that the purpose of the RBKC, Notting Hill Genesis, Peabody, Octavia and others should be to serve the residents, not to make their lives a misery, as too often ends up happening. We have launched a local campaign on safe and healthy homes to try to address the systemic failure in the community around Grenfell.

There will be no justice until the painfully slow process of remediating unsafe buildings across the country is complete. \p Tom Collins: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Last week, the residents of more than 40 flats in Barbourne Works, Worcester, were suddenly evicted after an inspection of unremediated cladding found such severe fire hazards that an immediate prohibition notice was issued. How that was able to happen is a question that must be answered. In the meantime, does the Minister agree that the building managers—in this case, FirstPort—must put residents first, and must not be allowed to let legal disputes or the allocation of blame slow down the urgent work of making the building safe and allowing residents to return home? \p Joe Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree—it is staggering that hundreds of thousands of people are still living in buildings like the one he describes, with major fire defects. Members across the House from up and down the country will have constituents affected, with people trapped in unsellable properties, leaseholders on the hook for non-cladding defects, and social housing providers sinking funds into remediation that could be spent on building the new social homes our country desperately needs. \p Andrew Slaughter: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for securing this debate, and for realising from the first day he was elected that he is the Member for not only Kensington and Bayswater, but Grenfell. It is good that the Government are implementing all 58 recommendations of phase 2 of the inquiry, but does my hon. Friend agree that the four-year timetable is a long time to wait on top of the eight years that have already passed? \p Joe Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for making that very valid point. It is good news that the Government have accepted all of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations, and I applaud them for taking the time to come back in detail rather than rushing a response. However, it is absolutely vital that timelines are met. The example of the slow pace of change on remediation is a warning to us all that this matter has to be gripped from the centre if we want to see systemic change.

In another example, shared ownership leaseholders in my constituency at Shaftesbury Place—a property managed by Notting Hill Genesis—saw their building insurance soar by more than 2,000% after a fire safety inspection. That is an increase of £5,000 a year in individual service charges. Those residents contest the report and the recommendations, and I hope that Notting Hill Genesis will work out a reasonable solution, but that is an example of what has to be fixed. The building insurance market may require Government intervention, as we did with flooding.

I know the Minister agrees that we must quicken the pace of remediation, and I urge him to consider what more the Government can do to underwrite the major works now, so that people do not have to wait. The best example of such action would be to widen access to the building safety fund to social housing providers so that they can put more capital into maintaining the condition of their current homes and into building new homes. I know the Government are also focused on giving the Building Safety Regulator the resources it needs so that we can rightly enforce higher standards post Grenfell, as well as accelerating house building and avoiding unnecessary delays. \p Scott Arthur: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I hope we will continue to debate this matter in the years to come, and that we can start to talk about the positives that have come out of it in terms of the recommendations and the lives that will be saved and changed. Eight years on, in Scotland—my hon. Friend might be surprised that that is what I am going to talk about—there are 5,500 properties affected by flammable cladding, with 25,000 people living in them. I sense my hon. Friend’s frustration over the pace of remediation in England, and in particular in his own constituency; in Scotland, after eight years, just one building has been remediated. Hopefully in England, the pace is faster than that. \p Joe Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for sharing those statistics. I think the reality is that the money is there; what we need to do is go building by building and solve the problems. That is where I welcome the Government’s emphasis on devolving some of the decision making, for example, to a London remediation board, which might be something to look at for other parts of the country.

I am sure the House would appreciate an update on the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment on 4 September that all the companies found by the inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings will stop being awarded Government contracts. As the inquiry said, the companies that made the cladding and insulation products—Arconic, Celotex and Kingspan—behaved with “systematic dishonesty” and

“engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market.” \p Florence Eshalomi: One glaring matter to arise from the inquiry was this mention of the corporate greed of some of the developers. It is right, as my hon. Friend says, that the Government will be looking to ban those contracts. Survivors have also asked for prosecutions to come forward. Does he agree that, in addition to the Government banning those companies from receiving other contracts, there should be additional funding for the Met police so that they can swiftly bring to justice those who were responsible for this? \p Joe Powell: I know that this is one of the biggest teams that the Met police have in operation, and of course it is right that they keep the funding in place until their work comes to fruition. I also agree with my hon. Friend that we must make sure that taxpayers’ money is no longer going to those companies. I hope the Minister can give us some reassurance on that timeline, and that he can reassure us that, under the new system of construction product regulation, the same mistakes will not be made again.

Real change is hard. I have always believed, as Martin Luther King said, that while

“the arc of the moral universe is long, it bends toward justice.”

For that, we need to act now in a way that will protect people in the future. As I mentioned earlier, the introduction of the Hillsborough law, the national oversight mechanism, and the Government’s own reporting on inquiry recommendations and how they will be implemented, will all give people reassurance that this cannot happen again.

Grenfell was the most devastating residential fire since the world war two and the pain can never be erased, but I want to give the final word to one of the young people in our community who gives me hope. Noha Chentouf is 16 and is the new youth mayor for Kensington and Chelsea. I attended an event with her and other young leaders at Tate Britain last night. These were part of her words:

“They trimmed the budget, not the risk

then signed its safety with the flick of a wrist

but it was fine, they saved a few grand

who needs an alarm when profit was the main plan

we’re supposed to give our trust to people who don’t care about our well being

no matter how many complaints they’re gonna fail seeing

exactly what the residents were foreseeing

and they sit in a meeting full of complaints but they’re disagreeing

ended in disaster with many fleeing

but 72 couldn’t make being

alive

a life lost

is a light lost

but that doesn’t mean the fight’s lost.” \p Alex Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for securing this opportunity to mark this weekend’s eighth anniversary of the tragedy at Grenfell Tower and the loss of 72 innocent lives, including, as we have heard, 18 children. Time has not diminished the horror, the pain or the impact of that day—the lives of families and the community changed forever.

My hon. Friend has raised an awful lot of important points, and I hope to be able to cover them all. They are in keeping with his outstanding advocacy for his community. In the building safety space, there is no Member I speak to more than him; we will be together again tomorrow. I want to put it on the record that he pushes and presses me, quite rightly, in the interests of his community, day in, day out.

The most important tribute, though, is to the community, because for eight long years they have campaigned and fought for truth, justice and change. The Deputy Prime Minister and I are resolute in listening to them. We want to ensure that the bereaved, survivors, next of kin and resident voices are heard, including at the heart of Government. We will continue to work until the lessons from the Grenfell Tower fire have changed the system that led to that tragedy. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister for his words and for attending the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to give an update on behalf of the Government. The Committee heard from Grenfell United and survivors that for far too long social housing tenants were being ignored and dismissed. There is no recommendation or terms of reference in the inquiry on race or discrimination, but does he agree that the discrimination of disabled and black and minority ethnic residents was a contributing factor in the tenants being failed? \p Alex Norris: It has always been clear to me, in my conversations with the bereaved and survivors and with families and next of kin, that the demographics in terms of race speak their own story, and that is similarly the case with disability. That is why it has informed our policy in PEEPs, which I will talk to shortly, as well as our entire agenda around residents’ voice in social housing, which I will also come on to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and I discussed this when we were in the very early stages of our time as Members of Parliament, and I know exactly where I was sitting during the discussions we had then—I can see it but 10 metres from here. As I have said in every debate of this kind since I have been a Minister, if we had said to ourselves then that in eight years we would have achieved as little as we have, we would have thought that a significant failure. It is a significant failure, and I want those watching this debate to know that we understand that. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater said that the progress is glacial. That is exactly right, and it behoves us to change that with real intent. That is my commitment and the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment.

Last September, Sir Martin Moore-Bick published the inquiry’s final report. It is a hugely important staging post and driver for action. The findings were clear: the system failed at every point—public, private, local, national. Families were failed. Residents’ voices were ignored. Dishonest practices were propagated. The Prime Minister has apologised on behalf of the British state for its part in the failures that led to entirely avoidable deaths. I want to repeat the Prime Minister’s words: it should never have happened.

We published our response to the inquiry in February. We accepted the findings and committed to delivering on all 58 recommendations and to going further through a broader approach to reform, including with regard to construction products. Last month we published our progress report on delivery, and we will continue to report on a quarterly basis. The next progress report in September will be a very big one, because we will also publish our full implementation plan, setting out how we will deliver the recommendations. I agree with my  hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater that the legacy must be system change.

I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) says about it being a long time, and I know from speaking to the bereaved and survivors that they are frustrated that some of the recommendations will take time. The commitment I will make from this Dispatch Box is that nothing will take a day longer than it has to take. We are working with urgency and intent, and we will be very transparent as we do. \p Florence Eshalomi: I appreciate that the Minister is working around the clock on this issue. I know that it is very important to him and that there are big challenges in his portfolio. Does he agree that because there are so many competing demands on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, including looking at building safety and the Minister’s new responsibility on fire safety, a clear way to ensure that the Government continue to keep focus on this issue is through a national oversight mechanism? It will help the Government ensure that there are clear deadlines and timeframes for the recommendations, which the Government have rightly accepted. \p Alex Norris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention; she pre-empts my next point. Before I move on, I want to recognise the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who said that he hopes that we will have opportunities to debate our progress. We have committed to an annual debate in this place about our progress, and we will have those debates until we have delivered on the recommendations.

Turning to oversight, we are committed to transparency, accountability and scrutiny. It is entirely right that the community, having been failed in the ways that they have, want to see very clear accountability. We will record all recommendations made by public inquiries on gov.uk by next summer, backdating it to 2024, so there will be public tracking of inquiry recommendations. That meets the commitment under the Grenfell Tower inquiry review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green knows that I will refer to the points I made at her Select Committee. The Cabinet Office, as part of its ongoing inquiry work, is exploring how to improve scrutiny and accountability for all inquiry responses, so that actions can be taken more quickly. I would not want to run ahead of that. To address the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), we remain fully committed to a Hillsborough law, which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and criminal sanctions for those who refuse to comply.

I turn now to justice, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater spoke with real power about. When I talk to the bereaved and survivors about whatever the matter of the day is, they always say to me, “Yes, Alex, but that is not justice yet.” I know that, and the Prime Minister acknowledged last year that the inquiry final report, while exposing the truth, does not yet bring the justice that families rightly deserve.  Again, I am aware of the frustration in this area and the strong feeling that accountability has yet to be achieved. We continue to support the independent Metropolitan Police Service as it conducts its investigations—we know how important that is.

I want to touch on the tower itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater said, this will be a poignant anniversary because it will be the final one with the tower as it is. We will continue to work closely with bereaved families, survivors, next of kin and residents as we prepare work to carefully take down Grenfell Tower, starting in the autumn. They will remain at the heart of this work. As we look to the future, we are committed to supporting the independent memorial commission in its important work to create a fitting and lasting memorial determined by the community.

The Deputy Prime Minister and I will continue—as we have throughout—to meet with anyone who wants that, to listen and act on the issues we are raising and, more importantly, the issues they raise with us. I know that there is a lot of anxiety that as the tower is carefully taken down, the moment for the Grenfell community will be forgotten. Again, I want to give an assurance on that. I know that, with these colleagues behind me, that will never be the case, but for the Government it will not be either.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green said, this is a moment of trauma for individuals, so it is crucial that really good mental health support is available for the community. I and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), are raising that with the integrated care board to ensure that the right mental health services are there, the right screening facilities are there, and there is the right screening for children and young people, which is such a community priority. I will work with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater in that venture to ensure that those healthcare services are there.

It is clear and accepted that the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea also failed. The leadership has committed to change and has taken important steps forward, but we still hear from too many residents that they are not getting the experience they should. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have met the leader of the council, and we have challenged the council to become an exemplar as a fitting legacy for this tragedy. We will continue to hold the council to account until residents feel and see the change.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Lancaster West estate. I am conscious that even before that terrible night in 2017, residents there had lived on a building site for a very long time. They say that to me every time I see them. The council has a huge gap in funding—he said it is £85 million and I would say £84 million, but it is a significant gap either way. I will continue to work with him, the residents’ association—I know that its able chair, Mushtaq Lasharie, will press us at every opportunity, as he rightly always does—and the council on how to take the issue forward.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned PEEPs, which has recently become a responsibility of mine and of MHCLG. As he said, we are looking to lay secondary legislation as soon as we can. I am committed to working with disability groups to ensure that the guidance and the  toolkit in its implementation is as good as possible. We have committed funding this year, and any future funding will be part of the spending review process, which is coming to its peroration tomorrow.

I agree with my hon. Friend’s points on the pace of remediation. I inherited a trajectory that took us into the 2040s. Our remediation acceleration plan—certainly for buildings above 18 metres with unsafe cladding in a Government scheme—concertinas that to 2029. We will be updating our remediation acceleration plan this summer to push even further on what we can do to get quicker remediation.

My hon. Friend mentioned the challenges around social housing and the impact that has not just on remediation but on building. Those points were very well made. We will announce our longer-term plans in that space shortly. \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister for being generous in giving way. One of the issues constantly raised by registered social landlords is that they cannot apply for the building safety remediation. Will we see an update on that in the coming weeks, and perhaps in announcements tomorrow? \p Alex Norris: On a point of fact, RSLs can access the building safety fund and cladding safety scheme, but I have heard from them that the circumstances in which they can do that—basically, declaring a degree of financial distress—are difficult for them, and I understand that.  I cannot be drawn on any events upcoming; all I will say is that my hon. Friend’s suggestion has an awful lot of merit. \p Kim Johnson: Will the Minister give way on that point. \p Alex Norris: I will, but quickly, because I am down to seconds. \p Kim Johnson: I want to recognise that so many lease-holders in my Liverpool Riverside constituency have been affected by the delay in remediation. Their lives are on hold because they cannot sell their flats and they cannot move forward. We need to look at what we can do to try to support those leaseholders. \p Alex Norris: I totally agree. Those trapped are living in intolerable circumstances. As part of the update to the remediation acceleration plan, we will have more about what we can do to provide them with relief.

In conclusion, this has been a hugely important debate. We will have many more, and we will work our hardest to deliver justice for the community as quickly as we possibly can.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.