debates/debates2025-06-04d conversation_24
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-06-04)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-06-04d conversation_24

David Davis:In 1999, the Prime Minister produced a book on “Miscarriages of Justice”, recommending ways of preventing them and of quickly putting them right. In 2014, people who had been wrongly imprisoned and then exonerated were allowed compensation only if they could prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt. This ignored the decision of the court exonerating them, and meant that 93% of people who had been wrongfully imprisoned, and often had their lives destroyed, got no compensation whatsoever. This is an institutional miscarriage of justice. Will he instruct the Ministry of Justice to review this matter, and pay personal attention to getting this travesty of justice resolved? \p Keir Starmer: The right hon. Member raises a really important issue that I am obviously aware of. It is right that victims of miscarriage can apply for compensation and appropriately do so, and I will take away what he says and have it looked at. \p Jesse Norman: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) please find a seat? He cannot just stand there and have a conversation. \p Jesse Norman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House and, indeed, the viewing public have just been treated to the very unfortunate spectacle of a Prime Minister who was completely unwilling to answer questions from the Leader of the Opposition—so much so that he entirely changed the subject. Instead of referring to the two-child benefit cap, he started referring to the Kremlin and Russia. I know that you, Mr Speaker, pay careful attention to the content of supplementary questions to make sure that they are within scope. Could you give us some guidance on whether you may be able to control answers when they are wildly inappropriate? \p Lindsay Hoyle: As somebody who knows how this House runs, the right hon. Member knows that I have no responsibility for the answers given by Ministers. He has put his point on the record, but I have been in this House since 1997 and I can honestly say—we both can honestly say—that the scope has always been that we have questioned the answers, whoever has been at the Government Dispatch Box; so nothing has quite changed, but the point is on the record. \p UNKNOWN: 12.40 pm \p Darren Jones: With permission, I shall update the House on the Government’s work to boost growth across the United Kingdom.

As the Prime Minister set out in the plan for change, economic growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government. It is key to achieving the Government’s goals: higher wages for working people; delivering economic and national security; and investing in our public services. We are already making progress. The most recent figures show that the United Kingdom was the fastest growing economy of any G7 country in the first quarter of the year and that real wages have risen more since July 2024 than over the first 10 years of the previous Conservative Government. But we are keenly aware that this progress must be widely felt in every part of the country. As such, our plan for regional growth will be hardwired into the spending review and infrastructure strategy, which will be set out in more detail in the coming weeks. This investment will be targeted squarely at the renewal of Britain and fixed on the priorities of working people, delivering on the promise of change and improving lives and communities across the country.

This morning, the Chancellor set out her next steps for nationwide growth in a series of speeches across the north and the midlands, and I am pleased to update the House on those announcements now. A key part of the Government’s growth mission is the view that growth relies on dynamic, interconnected city regions, creating clusters of activity where people can get around, communicate, share ideas, commute, find good work, and earn wages that flow back into strong local economies. As most Members know, the majority of our city regions have poor public transport systems, holding back growth and improvements to air quality and making it harder to get around. Stronger transport links are therefore crucial. They create opportunities for individuals to access a wider pool of jobs, for employers to access a wider labour market, and for businesses to expand the market for their goods and services.

If we were to increase the productivity of our largest city regions outside London just to match the national average, it would grow the economy by £86 billion. So I am pleased to say that this Government are making the biggest investment in intra-city transport connectivity that this country has ever seen. The spending review will allocate funding for ambitious local transport programmes across England, including the new transport for city regions fund launched by the Government today. This will give nine city region mayors a share of £15.6 billion in long-term transport for city region settlements running until 2032. The benefits and opportunities will be felt in the cities and towns across these combined authorities and by those who commute to work from outside those city regions.

The previous Government said that they would do some of this but, as was always the case, they never put the money aside to pay for it. As a result of our reforms to the fiscal rules and decisions to increase investment in the 2024 autumn Budget, this Labour Government are delivering.

The funding announced today will mean that the Mayor of West Yorkshire can now fully commit to delivering the West Yorkshire mass transit system, which  will be fully integrated with cycling, walking, bus and rail, making journeys quicker, more accessible and more reliable across the region. The Mayor of the West Midlands can extend the metro from Birmingham city centre to the new sports quarter, unlocking more than £3 billion of private investment, and bringing benefits and opportunities to those living in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and all who travel there.

It will mean that the Mayor of Greater Manchester can grow and transform the Metrolink tram network, building new tram stocks in Bury, Manchester and Oldham, which will help drive up living standards for the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Frith), for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and for others in the north-west region. The Mayor of the Liverpool city region can deliver three new rapid bus routes linking up the city centre, John Lennon airport, the new Everton stadium on Bramley-Moore dock, and new homes built on the Central Docks redevelopment and Anfield.

The Mayor of the North East will now be able to extend the Tyne and Wear Metro, linking Washington with Newcastle and Sunderland, connecting those living in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) to new jobs and opportunities. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned for this project for years and years, and it is now being delivered by a Labour Government.

This investment will also mean that the Mayor of South Yorkshire can renew the existing and now publicly owned Supertram network with track replacements, overhead line maintenance, and rolling stock renewal, yielding a fleet of new vehicles by 2032, linking jobs and homes in Sheffield and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion).

We are backing the Mayor of the West of England’s plans for mass transit development across the region, with improved rail infrastructure to help unlock more services between Brabazon and Bristol city centre, meaning shorter journey times to Bristol Temple Meads across the wider area and providing greater opportunities for those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) and—declaring my own interest—in my own.

After years of the Mayor of Tees Valley trying to persuade his Conservative colleagues to fund these important projects, I am delighted to confirm today that this Labour Government are now backing the region to invest in, for example, the Middlesborough station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), unblocking local networks and increasing capacity on local lines. I pay particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members in the Teesside region who have lobbied hard to see this investment in their region—now being delivered by a Labour Government.

The Mayor of the East Midlands can now forge the Trent Arc, linking Derby and Nottingham to create tens of thousands of new jobs and homes, connecting Infinity Park investment zone and the east midlands freeport with sites including Ratcliffe-on-Soar clean energy and advanced manufacturing and east midlands intermodal park—home of Toyota in the region—along the Trent Arc corridor.

This funding is substantial, marking a 2.4 times real-terms increase in spending on city region connectivity, funding the priorities that matter to hard-working people across the country. These announcements were only made possible today because at the autumn Budget 2024 the Chancellor took the necessary action to reform the fiscal rules to improve stability after years of chaos from the Conservative party, and to unlock investment. This means the Government can now provide greater investment in Britain’s economic revival as, for the first time, the Treasury takes account of the value of financial assets and not just the costs of investment. That has enabled us to increase investment by over £113 billion more than the previous Conservative Government, while keeping debt on a sustainable path—only made possible by the credibility of our fiscal rules, which require day-to-day spending to be funded with revenue.

It is more important than ever to have a robust fiscal framework. I am pleased to note that the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed at the spring statement that the Government will meet their stability and investment rules two years ahead of schedule. In addition to her announcements today regarding transport for city region settlements, the Chancellor will set out further detail on this allocation of additional funding at next week’s spending review.

In January, the Chancellor announced a review of the Green Book, the Government guidance on appraising options for investment. Since then, we have consulted extensively with stakeholders from across the country, considering potential problems with the Green Book guidance itself and how the guidance is being applied in practice. I thank and pay tribute to many hon. Members across the House for engaging on this important issue.

We will publish the full conclusions of the review next week. It will mark a new approach to Government decision making that puts an end to siloed Whitehall thinking and takes account of the reinforcing economic effects of infrastructure, housing, skills and jobs to ensure that investment takes place in every part of the country.

These announcements reflect just a fraction of our plans to supercharge growth across the United Kingdom. We are focused on investing across all parts of the country to boost prosperity and deliver the change the British people voted for at last year’s election, and there is more to come. The spending review, which we will publish next week, will set out in further detail how an active Government will continue to deliver growth, empowering all regions and nations of the UK to reach their full potential and making working people across the country better off, no matter where they choose to live and work.

Unlike the Conservatives, who will tell us that they would have delivered on their false promises after 14 years of failing to do so, this Labour Government, in our first year in office, are delivering: a country that people will see is being set up for success that they can take part in. That is the change we promised, and that is the change this Labour Government are delivering. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I think you missed a couple of railway stations out of your statement, Minister, but not to worry. I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. \p Richard Fuller: I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement and for early sight of it. I will start with an area of agreement: it is a shared ambition to enable all parts of this country to participate in our growth and our future. Potential in the United Kingdom is everywhere, and it is right that the Government seek to unlock it with every means they have. Indeed, that was one of the guiding principles of the 2019-24 Conservative Administration’s levelling-up policy.

They always say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now, we know that this Chancellor has a reputation for copying, so I thought I would have a look at the statement made in 2023 on Network North allocations, which I am sure the Chief Secretary has seen. I thought I would compare those allocations with the Government’s announcement today. I have the Conservative announcements in one hand and the Labour announcements in the other. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shout all they want.

Here we go. In 2023, the Conservatives promised the west midlands £2.64 billion—[Interruption.] I say to Labour Members that the Chief Secretary is also only making a promise. In 2023, we promised £2.64 billion for the west midlands, and the Government have announced £2.4 billion for the west midlands today. We promised £2.1 billion for West Yorkshire; today, the Government have announced £2.1 billion. We promised £2.5 billion for Greater Manchester; they have announced £2.5 billion today. We promised £1.45 billion for South Yorkshire; they have announced £1.5 billion today. We promised £1.581 billion for Liverpool; they have announced £1.6 billion today. We promised £1.84 billion for the north-east; they have announced £1.8 billion today. We promised £0.752 billion for the west of England; they have announced £0.8 billion today. We promised £978 million for Tees Valley in 2023, and Labour has announced £1 billion today.

I know the Chief Secretary is occasionally good with numbers, but does he not agree that what he is announcing today is essentially nothing more than a rounding error on the Conservatives’ plans from 2023? The only difference between the 2023 and 2025 announcements is that we would have spelt Rotherham correctly in our announcement.

The truth is, the Chancellor will go around the country rewriting history as frequently as she writes her CV, but nobody believes in her £22 billion black hole. What people do believe is that this Chancellor is open to change. She is going to roll back the issues on the winter fuel allowance, her botched welfare reform and changes to the two-child policy. Look at those on the Treasury Bench—they have not got a spine. If Labour Back Benchers have an issue in their constituency and want to stand up for their constituents, they should make a bid to this Chief Secretary, because he will back down and give them the money. That is what we know from Labour.

We also know that in the Government’s analysis of the Green Book, they are looking to change the assessments of the cost-benefit analysis. My question to the Chief Secretary therefore is—[Interruption.] I do have a number of questions. First, will he publish the cost-benefit ratios for each of the projects he has announced today? Will he state whether they have been evaluated  on the existing Green Book rules or on new rules? Will he give an indication today of what those rules might be?

Secondly, as the Labour Government try to decide whether their commitment on defence is for 2%, 2.5%, 3% or 3.5% of GDP, with both those numbers and today’s investments stretching into the next period of government—whoever is in government—can the Chief Secretary confirm that it is this Government’s intention that the investments made today will be secure, whatever the changes made on defence expenditure?

The Chief Secretary said that he is able to make this announcement because the Government changed the rules, which has enabled £113 billion more of investment. But that is not quite right, is it? The Government can afford the additional investment only if people are prepared to fund it, and there are two sources for funding: taxpayers or the bond market. Can the Chief Secretary therefore advise whether he is going to look for additional funding from taxes or additional borrowing, if there is a shortfall?

The truth is, despite what the Back Benchers say, this Labour Treasury team are out of their depth. They are addicted to tax increases and to more borrowing. The Chief Secretary can republish as many press releases as he likes, but we know that because of their reckless mismanagement of the economy, come the autumn, this Labour Government will be back for more. \p Darren Jones: I am pleased to see the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury back in his place today; I always enjoy our exchanges. I welcome the fact that he supports our plans and sees the good value in them. I will respond to one particular question, and then answer the rest in the round: all the Green Book details will be published next week at the spending review, so we will be able to share them with him and the House at that time.

The shadow Chief Secretary said that we were imitating the Conservative party’s promise to level up the country, but I think the British people voted and gave their verdict on the Conservatives’ success in delivering that at the last election. Whereas their version of levelling up was a set of false promises, this Labour Government are delivering real change.

The shadow Chief Secretary—rightly, given his role—asked how we will fund the announcements we have made today. As I explained in my statement to the House, it is because of the Chancellor’s decisions to amend the fiscal rules and invest in Britain, instead of continuing with decline, that we have been able to do so.

The shadow Chief Secretary and the Conservative party have not said what they would do differently. They were against the change in the fiscal rules, against our increasing of taxes on the wealthiest people at the Budget and against every single measure we have taken to be able to pay for today’s announcements. Whether it is the Conservatives, Reform or any other party, they need to recognise that the Conservatives’ false promises led to their decline and their unfunded promises are disrespectful to the British people, and that this Labour Government promised change at the election and we are delivering it. These are fully funded promises, unlike  the unfunded promises of the Conservatives, which posed a risk to the economy and a risk to family finances. The sooner the Conservatives learn from their lessons, apologise to the British people, and come forward with some serious proposals, the better for the debate in this House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee. \p Meg Hillier: I warmly welcome this investment in Britain, and I hope that the Treasury will be fully evaluating the impact of this vital transport infrastructure on growth in regions, which we know has always lagged, except for in London and the south-east. Although these figures are fully funded now, with all the global shocks we are seeing, it is important that we are aware that there could be additional costs on some of the raw materials being used, and any delay obviously adds costs too. Will the Chief Secretary tell the House the Government’s plans if costs do go higher—will the figures be fully funded regardless, or will they have to go back to the drawing board if there are challenges? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee rightly alludes to the fact that the Chancellor’s speech today makes the case for this Government investing in every part of the country and ensuring that growth is felt widely. My hon. Friend asks me about the supply chain and costs for building infrastructure. The House will know that Britain has unfortunately become a country where most of our infrastructure projects go over time and over budget as a failure of poor industrial and infrastructure policy and erratic decision making over many, many years. Alongside the spending review, we will be publishing the infrastructure strategy, at a slightly later stage, and that will answer many of my hon. Friend’s questions on Government policy, recognising the problem she has raised and the solutions that will be set out to support the supply chain to be able to deliver for Britain. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: We Liberal Democrats believe that when the economy is growing, every nation, every region and every person should feel and see the benefits, so we are pleased to see investment in public transport and public infrastructure, but I must ask the Minister: where is the plan and the money for rural areas? He will remember that, at the Budget, we Liberal Democrats supported and welcomed the Government’s changes to the fiscal rules that allowed for borrowing and more productive investment, and we are delighted to see that one of the beneficiaries of today’s announcement is the Metrolink to Stockport, which is a testimony to the hard work of the Liberal Democrats, who have been campaigning on this for far longer than the mayor and the combined authority have even existed. From Shropshire to the south-west, from Cumbria to Cornwall, and from Norfolk to Newton Abbot, rural areas once again feel as if they have been forgotten. Will the Government therefore bring forward a rural growth strategy?

May I also ask the Minister about Wales? We know that HS2 and the Oxford-Cambridge line have been designated England-Wales lines, as opposed to England-only lines. Can he explain to the people of Wales why that has happened and why they are set to lose out on Barnett consequentials?

There is one big piece missing from the puzzle. Many of us rightminded people want to see investment in infrastructure, but if we want to build stuff, we need skilled people to build it. Will the Government now fix the apprenticeship levy so that it can be spent on skills and training? When will the Government produce their skills strategy? Why has Skills England been set up as an executive agency of the Department for Education rather than having employers at its heart, as was promised? And why are the Government scrapping the level 7 apprenticeship when we know that it supports social mobility, including into engineering? We welcome this investment into transport infrastructure, but that transport infrastructure will not build itself; we need the people skilled to do it. \p Darren Jones: I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats welcome today’s announcement, which is specifically about investment in city regions. The House will know that, at the 2024 autumn Budget, the Chancellor said that this Labour Government are choosing investment over decline, which is why we are increasing investment in every part of the country. Announcements outside of city regions will come next week at the spending review. To some of the hon. Lady’s broader questions on policy, I can tell her that we will debate the infrastructure strategy the week after that. She will have to bear with me, but she should know that there is good news coming, because Labour is delivering. \p Clive Betts: I very much welcome the commitment to city regions. Nationally, our city regions have underperformed on growth compared with continental cities. On South Yorkshire, I welcome the £1.5 billion to restore and renew our tram network and to improve our bus services, but I understand from the mayor that discussions are still under way about a tram-train project to link Stocksbridge in the north to Beighton and Woodhouse in my constituency in the south. That project will unlock sites for housing and employment growth. Will my right hon. Friend agree to give further consideration to discussions with the mayor to unlock that extra funding for those growth projects? \p Darren Jones: As my hon. Friend has mentioned, the Mayor of South Yorkshire has been given £1.5 billion, which is in line with our commitment to devolution and to city region mayors. It is for the mayor to decide how that money is spent. As my hon. Friend suggests, the mayor has announced that some of this money will be allocated to the tram network, but it will be for the mayor and the combined authority to decide how to use the balance of this funding for other projects in the region. As always, I am very happy to meet him and the mayor to consider what options are available. \p Martin Vickers: I recognise the importance of assisting the city regions to boost the economy, but my Brigg and Immingham constituency covers the south bank of the Humber, which is home to a cluster of energy businesses that are of particular importance to the renewables sector. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury outline what resources will be made available for that area to support improvements both in rail connections and also to the A180, which provides access to the major port of Immingham? \p Darren Jones: The Government recognise the strategic importance of the hon. Member’s region to the UK economy. This will be reflected in the industrial strategy when it is published in the coming weeks, alongside our other plans. On his specific question, announcements for funding outside of the Transport for City Regions funding will be made at the spending review next Wednesday. \p Sharon Hodgson: Twenty years ago, when first standing for election, I was told to limit my ambitions with regard to campaigning to bring the Metro to Washington, but I persisted and now, thanks to this Labour Government and the new Mayor of the North East, my ambition is going to be realised. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that that is the difference that Labour in government can make and that what we are seeing is promise made and promise delivered? \p Darren Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her decades of campaigning for that project. I also welcome her suggestion that this is a Labour Government delivering the change that they promised to the country, but may I add to that and say that it is also the difference that brilliant Labour MPs can make in their constituencies campaigning for change for their constituents? I offer many congratulations to my hon. Friend, and I hope that she will be able to cut the ribbon when the lines are up and running. \p Harriet Cross: The Minister talks about regional growth, but in north-east Scotland we see only cost and decline under this Labour Government. Let us take the oil and gas sector. Labour policies will cost almost 35,000 jobs by the end of this decade, and £150 billion in economic income by 2050. The UK-EU deal will cost fishermen in Scotland £6 billion. Two thirds of Scottish farmers will be impacted by the family farm tax, with 48% of farms halting their investments, which again hits the rural businesses that would be supplying them? Can the Minister name a single policy that this Labour Government have introduced that benefits regional growth in north-east Scotland? \p Darren Jones: I can reconfirm to the House that this Labour Government have delivered the largest real terms increase in funding for Scotland since devolution began. Furthermore, may I politely point her to the fact that the announcement today is about England, not Scotland. Further announcements on our commitment to delivering a new direction in Scotland will be coming next week in the spending review. \p Andy McDonald: I very much welcome the Labour Government’s delivery of £1 billion of investment for the Tees Valley, and particularly the £60 million for the third platform at Middlesbrough station. The money to increase the station’s capacity, which I hope will mean increasing the number of direct trains to London, will complement the recent modernisation works that have been completed, which I began campaigning on in 2018 with the then Middlesbrough Mayor, Dave Budd. There are many priorities in which this money could be invested, including the repair of the iconic Transporter bridge, taking buses back into control à la Andy Burnham, and electrification of our rail line. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury  set out the importance of combined authority mayors consulting with local authorities and local communities and making best use and best value of this award? \p Darren Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this investment in his constituency. The key difference of course being that when he started campaigning for it, we were under a Conservative Government, and now, under a Labour Government, we are delivering. On his question about working with combined authority mayors, he is right to point out that the most effective combined authority mayors in England are those who work in partnership with their local Members of Parliament to ensure that every part of their authority area is heard and involved in decision making, and I encourage the Mayor of Teesside to do just that. \p Tim Farron: People in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Durham are deeply concerned to see no mention at all in the Chancellor’s announcement of the A66 dualling project, which is vital to boosting the economy of the north and, more importantly, to saving lives. There is not a penny for the northern two thirds of the north-west of England, so will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury allay Cumbria’s fears and commit now to the A66 upgrade? \p Darren Jones: I think the hon. Member is slightly confused. The statement today is about devolved transport funding to mayors for intra-city transport. He is asking me questions on the broader spending in the Department for Transport, which will be announced in the spending review next Wednesday. \p Liam Byrne: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an announcement that will make a huge difference to delivering the industrial strategy for this country—something that the Business and Trade Committee will report on later this week. I particularly commend him for the £2.4 billion for the east Birmingham tram, which I have been campaigning on for 15 years. It is crucial for connecting the impoverished part of east Birmingham to the extraordinary new growth opportunities created by HS2. Will he just confirm today that this is only the first piece of the tram, and that, in future, we will finish the job? \p Darren Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing that investment into Birmingham. I recently visited part of that development and saw the enormous potential that will come for his constituents from connecting Birmingham city centre with the new sports quarter. I am delighted to see how much private investment that investment is unlocking for his constituency and for the city. The funding allocations have been devolved to mayors. The announcements today are the announcements that mayors wish to make on some of the early allocations of the funding, and it will be for mayors to decide how they wish to allocate the rest of their funding. I encourage my right hon. Friend to work with the Mayor of the West Midlands, and I will help in any way I can to extend that and get the full benefit for his constituents. \p Julian Lewis: I know that the Minister is drawing his parameters rather tightly today, but can he give us at least a hint of what impact the Treasury’s consideration anticipates for the defence investments in the regions resulting from the recent strategic defence review, given the closeness with which his Department was involved in the formulation of that review? \p Darren Jones: I thank the right hon. Member for his question, which recognises the significant increase in investment in defence and security that this Labour Government are making. He has asked for a hint, but the only hint I can offer is that the answer will come next Wednesday at the spending review. \p Bill Esterson: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to Steve Rotheram, the Liverpool city region’s metro mayor, and Liverpool city region MPs, who jointly asked for pretty much what he has announced for the region in today’s statement. I also congratulate him on recognising the value that transport investment has for communities and for growth. In 2027 a new fleet of electric buses will arrive in my constituency as part of the expansion into the borough of Sefton. Can he confirm that today’s announcement covers the improvement in grid connections and infrastructure for charging that will be necessary to take advantage of the very welcome transition to electric buses? \p Darren Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend and colleagues from the Liverpool city region on securing £1.6 billion of transport investment. As he will remember, he and I were on a visit together looking at some of the potential for that money to be spent not long ago, including at a roundtable with local employers and workers at the Everton stadium. It was great to be able to see out the window of the office of the Liverpool city region mayor the potential that that investment will unlock in housing, jobs and great opportunities for people in the area. My hon. Friend asks about how the rest of this money will be spent on what sounds like very sensible infrastructure upgrades. As he will know, that is a decision for the mayor of the Liverpool city region. \p Andrew Murrison: The Chief Secretary’s announcement on regional growth largely omitted the south-west region beyond Bristol. Will he therefore ensure that next Wednesday there is at least a nod to the region in which both he and I have our constituencies? Will he ensure that the signal that this Government sent to the south-west practically on day one by canning improvements to the A303 is corrected? Will he ensure that there is at least a nod to the much-needed Westbury bypass? Can we please have a little investment in the poor country cousin of the rail network in this country, which is the west of England line? \p Darren Jones: Of course, the announcement today is on funding for combined authority mayors, which is why the west of England combined authority mayor has received two-thirds of £1 billion of transport investment for areas that are part of that boundary. We are still committed to investing in each and every part of Britain, and the details of that will come out in the spending review next Wednesday. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have said to other parts of the  country that if they can get together and agree on a combined authority mayoralty, we will continue to support it in the same way that we support the existing mayors in the UK. It will be for local leaders in the region that he and I come from to decide how best to collaborate on these issues going forward. \p Jon Trickett: It is more than 30 years since I was the leader of Leeds city council and made the first proposal for a rapid transit system in that area of West Yorkshire, so I welcome today’s announcement, although it will be a couple of years before the building starts. During the 14 years of Tory Government, the average amount of money per head spent in London was three times larger than the amount of money spent per head on transport in Yorkshire. Of course we want a successful capital city, but that has left the coalfield communities that I represent in real difficulty, with low investment and low productivity. Our wages and salaries are £12,500 per head less than those received on average in the north of London. Will the Minister assure the House that we will look again at funding the regeneration of coalfield communities in the near future? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his campaigning over many years. As the Chancellor set out today in her speech on the funding for city regions, and as was set out in our review of the Green Book, we are purposefully tilting funding towards the north and the midlands after many, many years of those areas losing out, with a tendency for money to come more into London and the south-east. London and the south-east are still important, but we recognise the historical injustice in the distribution of investment across the country, whether it is low ratios in the east midlands, low funding in the south-west or decades of being overlooked in the north. That is why this announcement is really important. I reassure my hon. Friend that I understand from the mayor that work will begin on the projects announced today in 2028, with an ambition for the first services to be available from the mid-2030s. \p Tom Morrison: I welcome the news about Metrolink coming to Stockport; it is an absolute tribute to all the residents, businesses and organisations that fought tirelessly to get that result. I thank Councillor Mark Hunter, the former leader of Stockport council and the former MP for Cheadle, who made it his life’s work to get this result. The Minister will know that we expect a train station in Cheadle very soon, which will be adapted for the Metrolink. Can he confirm that when Metrolink comes to Stockport, it will come through Cheadle as well? \p Darren Jones: One of the many benefits of the funding announced today for city regions is the positive effect that it will have for communities along these transport lines and for people who travel in and out of the city regions. This may be funding for transport in particular places, but I hope that the benefit will be felt widely, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It will be for the mayor to decide the programming and delivery of those projects, but the hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for Cheadle, and I am sure that he will be able to raise it with the mayor in due course. \p Jo White: I welcome the Minister’s statement. There is a shift from focusing funding on areas where it is easy to deliver in London and the south to focusing it on the midlands and the north, where there are left-behind areas like my constituency. I very much welcome that local mayors will take that decision. Some £2 billion has been given to my mayor to invest in the east midlands, which is absolutely welcome. I also welcome the Trent Arc proposal and the freedom that the mayor has to spend money in our area, such as in Bassetlaw. I am already in discussions with her about how that money can best be spent. My ask of the Minister is that that money is used to help to deliver the STEP—spherical tokamak for energy production—programme in Bassetlaw, which will change lives, create jobs and put us on the energy-efficiency agenda that we need for the future. \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her vociferous campaigning to ensure that we deliver on our promises to invest in left-behind areas across the country after years of failed promises on levelling up from the Conservative party. It is right that we find that money and invest it in her community. One important point to make is that this is not the total amount of funding that the Government are putting into her community; this is just transport funding devolved to the mayoral combined authority. There will be further announcements in the coming weeks in relation to energy infrastructure, industrial policy, skills, housing and public services in which we will be able to show very clearly the difference that a Labour Government are making, working in partnership with brilliant Labour MPs such as my hon. Friend to deliver the change that people voted for. \p Sammy Wilson: The Minister is right in stating that modern growth relies on dynamic, interconnected regions and that stronger transport links are vital for businesses to expand their markets for goods and services. While he has announced £15.6 billion to improve transport links in other parts of the United Kingdom, his Government are spending £140 million on creating a border post in my constituency that disrupts the transport links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, costing businesses, slowing transport and dissuading some businesses from supplying to Northern Ireland. What will he do to improve the transport links between Northern Ireland and Great Britain for logistics? The current disruption is slowing growth and causing businesses to fail. \p Darren Jones: The right hon. Member raises important points that my colleagues in the Department for Transport will no doubt have heard. I am sure that he is talking to them about the delivery of that project. The Government have put record investment into Northern Ireland, and we have reset the relationship. Under the last Government there was not even any conversation about Northern Ireland, whereas now I am in frequent communication with the Northern Ireland Executive, who, might I say, of all the colleagues I have had to negotiate with for the spending review, are the toughest? This Labour Government will be delivering a good deal for Northern Ireland, as we will for every nation and region of the country. \p Anna Dixon: I really thank the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor for delivering historic investment that will make a reality of the plans of the Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, for an integrated transport network. I understand that it will be called the Weaver Network, to compete with the Bee Network on the other side of the Pennines. I have been actively campaigning for that along with other West Yorkshire MPs. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that funding is included for a new bus station in Bradford? Does he agree that the investment the Government are making in transport infrastructure in the north will improve connectivity for communities in the Shipley area and beyond, bringing social, environmental and economic benefit? \p Darren Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend on working so positively with the Mayor of West Yorkshire to secure this historic amount of investment in her community. She asked specifically if there will be new bus stations as part of the announcement. I understand from Tracy Brabin that there will be new bus stations at Bradford and Wakefield, as well as building out the West Yorkshire mass transit system. I understand from the numbers that there is still some more to spend, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be in touch with the mayor about that in due course. \p Christine Jardine: I am disappointed that there are no SNP Members in the Chamber—[Interruption.] Nobody is here from the Scottish National party. I have to take issue with the Chief Secretary, because economic growth in any part of the United Kingdom affects not just England but all of the United Kingdom. I am sure that if SNP Members were here, their constituents, like mine in Edinburgh West, would want to know what consequential implications he anticipates for Scotland. Specifically, will there be Barnett consequentials from this investment? \p Darren Jones: The hon. Member is encouraging me to get ahead of the statement and answer questions about next week’s spending review. All I can say for now is that the Labour Government are investing in every nation and region of the country. We are delivering on the promise of change in Scotland, where we know we need a new direction. She rightly alludes to the absence of SNP Members in the House—and, might I say, the absence of SNP leadership in Holyrood? At the election next year, we will have an example to show how two Labour Governments can deliver real change for people in Scotland, which will be underpinned by the significant investment we will announce next week in the spending review. \p Emma Foody: I welcome the Minister’s statement, his comments on the Green Book and, of course, the nearly £1.8 billion of investment for the north-east. We know that growth and opportunity should never be just for some areas; they need to be felt in every single part of the country. This is a clear demonstration from the Government that we understand that. Will this approach also shape future infrastructure decisions such as the road investment strategy, where projects such as the Moor Farm roundabout upgrade have the potential to unleash growth in my constituency? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for championing jobs and livelihoods in her constituency and the region, and for welcoming the historic £1.8 billion of investment announced today for transport infrastructure. As she rightly alludes to, the announcement is about transport infrastructure, but the Government are doing much more to improve lives, wages and communities in every part of the country. We will be setting out further information in the coming weeks in relation to other types of infrastructure as well as how, through the industrial strategy, we are supporting skills, jobs and training opportunities for people so they can get better jobs and better pay. I note that, of course, the transport funding announced today will serve one of the largest advanced manufacturing zones in the United Kingdom, which will be great news for her constituents and great news for the country. \p Ann Davies: Following on from High Speed 2, there is a new chapter in the great Welsh train robbery—I am sure hon. Members know where this is going. The East West Rail project between Oxford and Cambridge has been classified as an England and Wales project. I have lived in Wales all my life, and I have got to say that it is nowhere near the Welsh border. The last time I looked, neither of them were anywhere near Wales. Honestly, will the Chief Secretary explain why the Treasury has made the farcical decision again to deny Wales millions of pounds in funding, which we desperately need to transform our dilapidated, crumbling rail network? \p Darren Jones: I think that the hon. Member and I can agree on one important thing, which is the failed promises of the last Conservative Government, who made decisions that undercut investment in Wales and deprioritised Wales. She will know that we have a brilliant group of Labour MPs now representing Wales who have been making their case strongly for the Government to invest in Wales. We will be setting out further details of that investment at the spending review next week. \p Ruth Cadbury: As Chair of the Transport Committee, I hugely welcome this announcement. These rail and mass transit schemes will link communities, generate growth and cut pollution and carbon emissions. In the context of finishing the job, which was mentioned earlier, can we hope that before too long there will be a similar announcement about linking northern cities with the south-east through the currently stalled HS2 project? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent work as Chair of the Transport Committee, which has shown on a cross-party basis why the announcements we have made today are good for the economy, good for jobs and good for constituencies across the United Kingdom. She encourages me to answer questions about statements that will be made next week. All I can say at this stage, I am afraid, is that there is not long to go. \p Claire Young: The Chief Secretary says that west of England funding will increase services between Bristol city centre and Brabazon. I have been pressing Ministers to extend the funding for half-hourly trains at Yate, which is due to end next year. That is vital to provide a service to the new Charfield station, which  is due to open in 2027. Both places are, of course, in the city region. Will this funding support or even improve those services, or is this more about the city than the region? \p Darren Jones: I thank the hon. Member for, I think, welcoming the nearly £1 billion of investment in transport for the west of England, which we know is a thriving part of the country. With the right investment in affordable housing, clean, renewable transport that works on time and is affordable to use will be great for people living in her constituency and mine, and great for the country.

One point to note is that the funding announced today is capital investment, not day-to-day spending. There will be further announcements in the coming weeks from the Department for Transport about issues such as bus subsidy and rail subsidy, but we are absolutely committed to supporting funding within regional combined authorities. This is not about particular places; that is why we have given this money to mayors, who will work with Members of Parliament like me and the hon. Member to ensure that we are delivering for the west of England and for the country. \p Rachael Maskell: I note that York did not feature in the Chief Secretary’s statement. However, I recognise the outstanding connectivity in York. Today is about creating jobs, and adjacent to York station, the York Central development—the gateway of the economy of the north—will create 12,000 jobs. Will he ensure that there is proper investment in York Central to unlock those jobs and give people in my city and the region the opportunities they deserve? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the historic level of funding in transport infrastructure. As she will know, this is a devolved pot of money and regional mayors will decide how to spend it, so I cannot answer her question. I encourage her to talk to the mayor about the opportunities in her constituency. \p Mike Martin: I thank the Chief Secretary for the statement. Giving money out to mayors to fix transport—there is nothing to disagree with in that. Kent, which as he knows is the UK’s strategic corridor to Europe, recently asked for a mayor and was rebuffed. Without a mayor, when will Kent get its money? \p Darren Jones: The Government will be investing in every nation and region across the country. Further details will be published at the spending review next week. The announcements today are about particular investment in city regions with mayors, because we think that is an important driver for growth in those areas as well as for the wider regions in which they sit. I recognise the importance of the hon. Member’s region to the country, and there will be further announcements in due course. \p Dawn Butler: I welcome the Minister’s announcement. It is quite wonderful to hear MPs buzzing about the investment in their constituencies, especially after 14 years of neglect by the Tories and their short-term, insufficient funding. Will the Minister reassure the House that, when the spending review comes next week, London will be recognised for its economic empowerment of the  country and that there will be a different attitude to London spending that will help with infrastructure projects such as the docklands light railway and its Thamesmead extension? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for rightly recognising the importance to our country of its capital city, which has been at the centre of our engine of growth for many years. She also alludes to the fact that we have a brilliant Labour Mayor of London in Sadiq Khan, who strongly makes the case for investment in the capital. We will make further announcements next week that will bolster and strengthen London, and Sadiq’s leadership in London, to deliver for the whole country. \p Gideon Amos: The Chief Secretary will know that the benefits of the Cullompton and Wellington stations project would bring tens of thousands of people to the city, the metro region and the Cardiff-Bristol-Exeter corridor. Thanks to a cost-benefit ratio of almost 4:1, will he acknowledge the strength of the case for that project, as set out in the letter he received from his hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and for Exeter (Steve Race) and from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord)? \p Darren Jones: I thank the hon. Member for his campaigning and for welcoming today’s news of historic levels of investment into the west of England for transport. The best use of the money is to make sure that not only do we deliver infrastructure within our combined authorities, but that opportunities are unlocked for broader spending decisions on intercity transport, heavy rail, road investments, new house building and industrial policy spending. The review of the Green Book has been looking at this and further details will be published next week. However, I am confident that we will be able to unlock opportunities for areas outside the combined authorities, and the investment announced today makes a stronger case for doing so. \p Sarah Coombes: May I welcome this Government’s £2.5 billion investment into the west midlands? It will allow our Mayor Richard Parker to make strategic decisions such as the extension of the tram, enabling my constituents in West Brom to get to east Birmingham, which is fantastic. Does he agree that that will drive growth not just in Birmingham, but in the Black Country and the entire west midlands? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming this historic level of funding from a Labour Government to our brilliant Labour Mayor of the West Midlands. I note that not only does the investment go to particular railway tracks or bus facilities in certain places, but it creates great opportunities for people who live and work in and around the region and delivers on the mayor’s priority that everyone should benefit from the economic growth that will come as a consequence of the investment. That is the difference between a Conservative mayor previously lobbying a Conservative Government that failed to deliver and now a Labour mayor working with a Labour Government to deliver these projects. \p Lisa Smart: I warmly welcome the news that the tram is finally coming to Stockport. I have also warmly welcomed that announcement every time it has been made previously, so I am delighted that the Chief Secretary will deliver it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) rightly acknowledges the sterling campaigning that has been done by businesses, residents and elected politicians over many years. This is how we get things done in Greater Manchester: on a cross-party basis. Will the Chief Secretary assure my local authority colleagues on Stockport council that the money is ready to go? They are as keen as mustard to crack on and deliver the project so we can get on with the next phase, which is a tram-train to Marple, from which my Hazel Grove residents will really benefit. \p Darren Jones: The funding announced today is in the spending review timeframe—it will be available from 2026-27 onwards—while the money that we allocated at the Budget last year for this fiscal year will continue to be spent.

We are all exasperated by announcements being made by politicians and spades never getting into the ground. I am sure the hon. Lady is now experiencing a difference. Compared with the false promises of the Conservative party, which were made in the past and never delivered, not only have we found the money and allocated it, because of the Chancellor’s decisions, but the hon. Lady will see spades going into the ground and transport in her community being improved for real. \p Florence Eshalomi: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, making sure we see investment right across the country. Building on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) about the support for London, I am sure that the Chief Secretary will recognise that London’s transport infrastructure is vital to our young people when they start a career and to our vulnerable communities when moving around. London has three big transport infrastructure projects: the Bakerloo line extension, the DLR to Thamesmead, and the west London orbital. Backed by London boroughs, the mayor, businesses and Transport for London, those projects need additional funding. Will the Chief Secretary highlight how what he said about a regional plan will be hardwired into the spending review going forward and that that will include London? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her excellent work on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee looking at those and related issues. She is right to point to the London’s success and the potential for future success through investment in London. As the Chancellor said today, we are tilting investment to parts of the country that have missed out for many years. However, we know that by working with mayors such as Sadiq Khan in London and with private capital and other investors, we can also deliver for places as important as London, as our country’s capital city. We know that there is plenty of opportunity, and we can set out further details on that in due course. \p Siân Berry: In the city of Brighton and Hove, my constituents tell me they need more and cleaner buses, and more reliable trains and stations without barriers to people with children, older   people and disabled people. Will the Chief Secretary assure me that the wider review of Treasury rules will mean great value projects such as the ones I mention are prioritised in the south-east, and that our transport investment does not just consist of major, unnecessary road building and expanded international airports that will not help people’s daily lives? \p Darren Jones: The hon. Member makes an important point about people’s lived experience of these types of policy announcements. We are trying to make it easier for people to use affordable, reliable public transport that is better for the environment and easier for them to use to get about in their day-to-day lives. We have seen that a lot in places such as London in the past, other places around the country have looked on in envy. The announcement today will mean that that is available to many people across the country. Announcements on funding for areas that do not have combined authority mayors will also come, but that will be next week at the spending review. \p Perran Moon: Meur ras bras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thoroughly welcome the Treasury’s Green Book Review because the current funding formulae do not reflect the true cost of delivering services in remote coastal areas such as Cornwall. They do not account for the scattered nature of deprivation, the costs associated with seasonal surge in demand, the costs associated with the influx of retirees, or the higher per capita costs of transport, waste collection, coastal protection and emergency response during the holiday season. They simply do not reflect the lived experience of people in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle and across Cornwall, despite our massive economic potential. Will the Chief Secretary assure constituents in remote coastal communities such as Cornwall that there will be specific changes to reflect our specific challenges? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend and the wider group of Labour Members from Cornwall, who have campaigned vociferously on the Green Book. That may seem technical, but for the people at home it is important because it alludes to all the issues that my hon. Friend points out—not least because in the past, Government have made decisions about particular projects as opposed to particular places. That means that we cannot unlock the potential for growth and better livelihoods because of a failure of applying the Green Book and its rules.

The Chancellor announced today that the Green Book update will be published next week at the spending review. I can give my hon. Friend the guarantee that the detail of that, when it is published, will show that this Government will look much more widely at how spending across Government lifts the potential of places to deliver better jobs and better wages for people, and more secure communities. \p Caroline Voaden: The Chief Secretary rightly says that stronger transport links are crucial for creating opportunities for jobs and economic growth, and it is great to see so many happy Labour MPs in the Chamber. I heard what the Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) about being patient, but it feels like the Government, by trailing the spending review with this announcement, are prioritising spending on urban areas and in particular those with many fine Labour MPs.  Will he therefore assure me and my constituents in South Devon, that the Treasury will remember next week that the west country does not end at Bristol? Indeed, many would say it starts there. \p Darren Jones: As I have alluded to many times today, this Government are committed to investing in every region and nation of the country. Today’s announcement is about city regions and city region transport, but the spending review next week will show how this Government are delivering for people, irrespective of where they live. \p Laurence Turner: Transport in the midlands has been historically underfunded, and today’s announcement is a welcome turn of the tide. Many Birmingham City fans in my constituency will also strongly welcome the metro extension, and this feels like a good opportunity to congratulate the Blues on their record-setting, promotion-winning season. This is yet more good news. We are also campaigning for upgrades to the Cross-City line, and in particular to the Kings Norton station works, to make the most of this new investment. Will the Minister confirm that he and his Department for Transport colleagues remain open to constructive representations, so that we can finally make this important project happen? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning for his constituency and for welcoming this historic funding of £2.4 billion today for the west midlands. He asked me about future projects. The good news is that the Mayor of the West Midlands has not spent all of this money yet, so there is definitely potential for lobbying him on how he might wish to spend the rest of that money in due course, and if there is anything I can do to help, I will be glad to do so. \p Robin Swann: The statement says that stronger transport links are crucial, and the Department for Transport has already paid, through the Union connectivity fund, for a feasibility study on the reopening of the Lisburn-Antrim rail line, which would connect to Belfast International airport in my constituency. Unfortunately, they have already told me that they cannot allocate funding until the next spending review is announced, so they have beaten the Chief Secretary to that answer. Given that the £15.6 billion that has been allocated today roughly equates to £450 million as a Barnett consequential, would he agree that investment in that Lisburn-Antrim-Belfast International line would be a good investment in Northern Ireland railways? \p Darren Jones: The hon. Member rightly alludes to the fact that because the Labour Government are increasing investment here in Westminster for the whole country, the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland benefit, both through Barnett and direct spending from this Government, to make sure we are investing in every nation and region of the country. We have already seen significant amounts of funding—I think the highest level of funding since devolution began—into Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland and Wales, and further details will be published next week at the spending review. \p Catherine Atkinson: In the east midlands we have been raging for over a decade against the inequality that has left our region at the very bottom when it comes to spending on transport per person, and it has taken a Labour Government to start to put that right and begin to unlock the economic potential and raise living standards. Would my right hon. Friend agree that this represents a considerable achievement of our Mayor Claire Ward and shows that, after years in the pit stop, the regions are finally being given the green light to grow? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the £2 billion of investment announced today for the east midlands. I have been on a number of visits to her region, including with Labour’s brilliant Mayor Claire Ward, who has made a very strong case for the investment being announced today. It shows the difference a Labour mayor can make. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her colleagues from her regional group, who have campaigned as vociferously here as Claire Ward does from her mayoral office in the east midlands? \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers. Regional growth is an imperative for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I am pleased that he is expanding the horizons for areas considered for further funding. I am also pleased to announce in the Chamber today news of a previous scheme initiated by the Conservatives and delivered within the time of this Government for the Ards and North Down local council: the Queen’s Parade development. It was one of the regional schemes that were delivered, and £9.8 million was set aside by Westminster for that project. It was signed and sealed, and the project is going ahead. It is estimated that some £70 million of regeneration will come off the back of it, so whenever the Government spend money here, they can be assured that the benefits are significant. The Minister has also hinted at the possibility of other moneys coming through. What commitment can he give to ensuring that coastal communities across all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can apply to similar schemes to improve the beauty and tourist attractions of all our coastal towns and centres? \p Darren Jones: I thank the hon. Member for continuing his work campaigning for Strangford and for Northern Ireland in general. As he knows, details of funding for the Northern Ireland Executive will be announced at the spending review next week, building on the back of significant increased investment. He is right to say that investment in transport projects opens up opportunities for new housing, new jobs and new livelihoods. I recognise that the Northern Irish economy is one of the best performing parts of the United Kingdom, and we want to continue to support that in the future. \p James Frith: It was a pleasure to hear my right hon. Friend refer to Bury North in his statement, and I welcome the investment for trams and buses in Bury North; it comes hot on the heels of the announcement only this week of vital school and hospital funding. New buses and new tram stops are about connecting people and places to opportunity, and that opportunity can help rid us of poverty. Today’s  announcement is about improving journeys to work and getting on in life, but does he agree that it is only by growing the economy that we will tackle child poverty, which is now at a shameful 42% in Bury North, and improve our children’s journey through life? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning for Bury, and for welcoming the investment today. He points to two issues that are really important. First, why is this happening now? It is because of the decisions taken by a Labour Government, after the failed promises of the Conservative party. He asked about child poverty. As he knows, this Government are committed to tackling child poverty, and the child poverty taskforce will report in due course. He will also know that for families who are experiencing child poverty, the best lever to alleviate the situation is helping into work those parents who are able to and want to work. We are investing in affordable, reliable public transport, alongside childcare support at school in the early years. We are not giving people false promises, which they were given in the past; we are giving them a path to being part of the success that we are setting up the country to deliver. \p Mark Ferguson: It has been good to hear so much talk about left-behind communities today, but I have always hated that phrase, because my community was not left behind by the last Government; it was wilfully abandoned by them. The £1.8 billion for the North East combined authority region is hugely welcome. I welcome the campaigning by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for the extension of the Metro to Washington, and the world-class Angel network that will be built by Mayor Kim McGuinness, but does the Minister agree that it makes no sense to have a fantastic new train line with fantastic new trains on it if they have to run under a crumbling flyover in the middle of Gateshead, and through an interchange that requires work? Will he work with me and the Mayor of the North East to deliver these additional critical infrastructure projects for the north-east? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend is showing what brilliant Labour MPs can achieve through continuous campaigning and lobbying. He has made the case very strongly for his constituency, which of course will benefit from the record investment being announced today, but I know he wishes for more, and further details will come next week in the spending review. \p Natasha Irons: I welcome this Government’s funded commitment to making every community across this country better off after the failed promises of the previous Government. I represent an outer London constituency with the oldest trams in the country and pockets of deprivation. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give me and my constituents in Croydon East that next week’s spending review will recognise the contribution that London makes to our national economy, and will provide investment in communities like mine, which were failed by the previous Government? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for making an important case for the transport infrastructure that her constituents rely on. The case that she makes for her constituency in Greater London is very similar to those being made for other parts of the country. People need to be able to get to the opportunities that we are creating; those opportunities need to be made available to them. The Government are ensuring that by investing in every nation and region across the United Kingdom, including London. I look forward to further announcements in the spending review that will fulfil the promise of change that she and the Government made to her constituents. \p Gareth Snell: I genuinely welcome the significant investment in city regions around our country that the Chief Secretary has been able to announce. Stoke-on-Trent does not have a combined authority, and realistically will not have one for many years to come, but my constituents’ aspirations for significant growth and investment are no different from the aspirations of those in other parts of the west midlands. My constituents would like the reinstatement of the number 40 bus from Mount Pleasant to Hanley, for example, and would like lifts installed at Longton train station, to make it accessible. I have absolute faith that the Chief Secretary is aware of the nuances of the difference between mayoral and non-mayoral areas, but will he give a commitment today that when announcements are made next week in the comprehensive spending review, investment in non-mayoral areas will match investment in mayoral areas? What mechanisms will be used to deliver the money to communities? When there is a fragmented local government base, it is quite easy for this money to stick around in pots and not be spent, because people cannot agree on how to spend it. \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for making the case for his constituency. As he says, the announcements today are for areas with combined authority mayors. The Government have said that if other parts of the country can get together and agree to have a combined authority mayor, they will be able to benefit from this type of announcement in the future. As for areas that do not have a mayor, this Labour Government are as committed to the people in those communities as to those in any other community across the country. We have already significantly increased funding through the autumn Budget 2024, including for road maintenance and pot holes, for maintaining a bus fare cap, and to support the extension of bus services, which he alluded to. We will continue to support those communities, and further details will be announced next week in the spending review. \p Andy MacNae: I hugely welcome these investments, which will free up the great potential of the north, or at least a part of it. The Green Book review will of course create the conditions that allow us to release the rest of the potential in left-behind areas and small towns, including those in Rossendale and Darwen. As a colleague said, we want similar investment in non-mayoral authorities. What assurance can the Minister give the people of Lancashire that we will see similar benefits to those that city regions enjoy? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his continuous campaigning for his constituency. I think I am right in saying that every time I have seen him in the House he has mentioned the Green Book review to me. He has been one of our most forthright campaigners for ensuring that we build the rules and frameworks to deliver for every part of the country. As the Chancellor announced today, we will update the Green Book, and will publish the outcomes of the consultation next Wednesday. He will have to wait a few days for the detail, but I think he will be pleased with where we have got to. \p Joe Morris: I welcome the huge investment in the north-east under this Government. For a long time, rural Northumberland was ignored and held in contempt by the Conservatives. May I encourage the Chief Secretary to reflect on the growth opportunities in the rural north-east, to communicate them to devolved leaders, and to recognise the development and growth opportunities that rural communities offer our economy? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for the campaigning he undertakes for his constituents, and for rural communities. He touches on the important point that the funding we have made available to combined authority mayors today is not only for the combined authority, but the wider region. It is for mayors to decide how to spend the money we have given them, but we encourage them to ensure that people can benefit from the investment whether they live in a city, town or rural community. I know he will work with his mayor to ensure that. \p Chris McDonald: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening carefully to the representations of our Tees Valley Labour MPs, and for delivering fully the biggest transport settlement for our region. There is enough money here to deliver a safe crossing over the A689 in Wynyard, buses in Port Clarence, more trains in Billingham, and the restoration of our much-loved transporter bridge. Will he assure me that there will be sufficient governance to ensure that every penny is spent on the priorities of local people, and that the money will not be funnelled into the purses of property developers, which was a concern in Teesside under the previous Conservative Government? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend rightly raises the point that the best combined authority mayors are those who work with local Members of Parliament and their communities to ensure that money is spent in the best way to meet the needs of local communities. As he knows, measures are in place in Whitehall to supervise spending by combined authority mayors, and to audit where appropriate. Further measures are coming in due course. He is right to welcome this historic level of funding for his constituency and region, and we look forward to the money being spent well on his constituents’ priorities. \p James Naish: As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the east midlands, I put on the record my thanks to the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for their recent engagement on the potential of our region, which has resulted in the significant £2 billion investment announcement today. The east midlands region has been massively underfunded  and under-invested in, as the data consistently shows, so I welcome the Treasury’s commitment to changing how the Government approach and evaluate the case for investing in regions. Will there be further positive announcements for the wider east midlands region at the comprehensive spending review, and in industrial strategy announcements later this month? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his leadership of the all-party group and for, alongside his colleagues and the mayor, making such a powerful case for investment in his region. There will be further announcements at the spending review next week, and in the infrastructure strategy and the industrial strategy, which will show how this Labour Government are investing in regions like his to improve people’s life chances, irrespective of where they choose to live or work. \p Connor Naismith: I welcome the announcements today. Finally, we have a Government who are willing to match rhetoric with action when it comes to investment in the north and the midlands. The Network North so-called plan, announced under the Tories, was pitched as an attempt to compensate northern communities for the loss of High Speed 2. My constituents were somewhat surprised that there was not a single mention of Cheshire in that so-called plan. What assurance can my right hon. Friend give that towns outside mayoral areas, as well as city regions, will see the benefits of crucial infrastructure investment? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend rightly points to the frustration of his constituents with the failed promises of the previous Conservative Government. This Labour Government—working with him, the brilliant Labour MP for his constituency—are making a difference. At the Budget last year, the Chancellor changed the fiscal rules to tax the wealthiest, and we are investing money in transport across the country, which will benefit not only those in combined authorities, but those in the broader travel-to-work region. Further announcements for towns and villages will be made next week at the spending review. \p Paul Waugh: The Mellor bus factory in Rochdale was the perfect place for the Chancellor to unveil this £15 billion investment in transport infrastructure today, and also to give a first taste of the changes to the Green Book and the Treasury rules, which for too long have held back places in the north and the midlands from getting their fair share of transport money. Does the Minister agree that investment in public transport is investment in local manufacturers like Mellor? Does this not show what a difference a Labour MP working with a Labour mayor and a Labour Government can make, to deliver the change that people voted for last year? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend, who is a brilliant campaigner for his Rochdale constituency, for welcoming this historic level of funding for his community. As he says, the Chancellor made her announcement in Rochdale today, and showed that the investments are not just in track, bus stops and trains, but in jobs, livelihoods and businesses across the United Kingdom. That will help us deliver renewal for Britain. \p Jonathan Brash: After 14 years of talk about delivering for the north, it is refreshing that this Labour Government are delivering for the north. I am a passionate believer in devolution, but devolution must come with accountability. What steps can we take to ensure that the £1 billion we have just agreed for Tees Valley gets to every part of that region—and, most importantly, to Hartlepool? \p Darren Jones: My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for his constituents in Hartlepool, and I thank him for recognising the historic investment that this Labour Government are delivering, off the back of brilliant campaigning from him and other colleagues in the region. The best combined authority mayors are those who work with their Members of Parliament and the communities that they represent. I know that he will make his case to the mayor in his region. Checks and balances are in place in Government to ensure that things are done in the best way, and we will continue to work with him to ensure that this investment under a Labour Government delivers on the priorities of people in his constituency. \p Antonia Bance: For so long, Tipton, Wednesbury, Coseley, the Black Country and the whole of the west midlands have been an afterthought. Now our Mayor Richard Parker and the West Midlands combined authority will have £2.5 billion for transport, to unlock desperately needed good jobs and growth across our cities and towns. I hope that the mayor will look favourably on our need for a new roundabout at Great Bridge, to get the traffic flowing to our factories and jobs, as we seek the economic growth that we are prioritising. Does the Minister share my view that the statement starts to put right decades of under-investment in the west midlands? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming today’s historic level of funding into transport, which, as she rightly alludes to, will fix historic failures that other parties promised to fix over many years. She is also right to point to the fact that these transport investments unlock jobs and opportunities for people in the broader region, including in her area, as well as sports, leisure and creative arts opportunities. I know that she will work closely with our brilliant Labour Mayor of the West Midlands to ensure the money is spent on the people’s priorities. \p Jas Athwal: To build on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), can the Minister confirm that, alongside the investments announced today, London too will receive support to develop its infrastructure? Broadmead bridge is still closed and the Central line is creaking at the seams, and the spending review next week will enable our capital to unlock the housing it so desperately needs and allow London to remain a world-leading city. \p Darren Jones: London continues to be a crucial engine for growth for the whole country and important to us all as our capital city. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to work with our brilliant Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan to make sure that investment is tackling the problems that he has raised. \p Katrina Murray: I welcome the recognition from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that investment in public transport infrastructure and improved services opens opportunities to work. In contrast, my constituency, part of the Glasgow city region, is experiencing cuts to bus and rail services, which are proving a big barrier to people getting involved in working opportunities and social activity. Will my right hon. Friend join me in making representations to the Scottish Government to ensure that at least some of the record settlement that this Government have passed to Holyrood is spent on transport infrastructure? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for making the case for her constituency. She is right that we have a shared view that investment in public transport is important for people’s livelihoods and their enjoyment of the communities they live in. Unfortunately, the SNP Government continue to fail to deliver on their promises, whereas in England we can show the difference a Labour Government make. I hope that in the future a Labour Government in Westminster and a Labour Government in Scotland will show what a new direction can mean for people in her constituency and across Scotland. \p Sam Rushworth: As the shadow Chief Secretary was comparing the records of our Governments earlier, I was reminded of the moment when they made all these transport announcements, and it turned out that half had been delivered already and the other half were cancelled within 24 hours. They included the Leamside line in the north-east, so I am absolutely delighted for my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) that, after 20 years of campaigning, she has secured it, which is also great for growth generally in the north-east. As a champion for my community, I will keep banging the drum for the Weardale railway line and the West Auckland bypass. They will not be funded through this funding settlement, so my question is: will this be the only transport infrastructure spending this side of the next general election, or will there be future rounds that we can bid for? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning so well for his constituents and for welcoming today’s historic level of funding. He asked whether there would be other funding, outside of today’s announcement for city region mayors for infrastructure and other capital projects. The answer is yes, and the details will come in the spending review next week. \p Jonathan Davies: I hugely welcome the £2 billion investment in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire that has been announced today, because the east midlands has consistently been at the bottom of the table on funding for public transport. Yesterday, along with other Derbyshire MPs, I was pleased to welcome representatives from Arriva, Stagecoach, Trentbarton and TM Travel to Parliament. I know that Mayor Claire Ward will put the money that is coming into the region to good use with those companies. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury say how this investment will help to unlock opportunities in the region and meet our net zero ambitions? May I also encourage him not to lose sight of the benefit of midland main line electrification? I know that is not a question for today, but it is very important to people in Derbyshire. \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant lobbying on behalf of his constituents and the east midlands, and for welcoming the historic level of funding for transport announced today. He is right to point out that this is about not just transport infrastructure but the communities in which people live, livelihoods and the opportunities for them and their families. I know that he will continue to work hard with our brilliant Mayor Claire Ward in the east midlands to turn these numbers into stories that matter for people in his constituency and across the east midlands. \p Judith Cummins: I call Jayne Kirkham to ask the last question on the statement. \p Jayne Kirkham: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the transport investment, which is needed in those city regions and spreads the wealth out. Cornwall also has ambitious transport plans, but does not have a large city region for 175 miles. It is very difficult to get public transport to our airport or a direct bus to our one acute hospital. I am also campaigning for a freight rail link for Falmouth, so I am heartened to hear that there will be more transport announcements in the spending review. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that that investment will go further down into the south-west? On investment more widely, he has talked about the National Wealth Fund, which we know is dealing in early-stage project development support in areas of the country. Will he confirm that those talks will also go wider than the city regions, so that places such as Cornwall that have political and business partnerships and a strong growth plan will be considered by the National Wealth Fund? \p Darren Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for championing Cornwall and the opportunities it presents to the country. She makes a strong case, alongside her colleagues in Cornwall, for renewable energy, mining and other important parts of our industrial strategy. She knows, and makes the case frequently, that those opportunities will be made available to people only if they can afford to live in places like Cornwall and get around them. That is why this Labour Government are investing in every nation and region of the country. I know that she will be looking forward to further announcements in the spending review next week. \p Hamish Falconer: We are appalled by repeated reports of mass casualty incidents in which Palestinians have been killed when trying to access aid sites in Gaza. Desperate civilians who have endured 20 months of war should never face the risk of death or injury to simply feed themselves and their families. We call for an immediate and independent investigation into these events, and for the perpetrators to be held to account.

It is deeply disturbing that these incidents happened near the new Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution sites. They highlight the utterly desperate need to get aid in. The Israeli Government say they have opened up aid access with their new system, but the warnings raised by the UK, the United Nations, aid partners and the international community about these operations have materialised, and the results are agonising.

Israel’s newly introduced measures for aid delivery are inhumane, foster desperation and endanger civilians. Israel’s unjustified block on aid into Gaza needs to end. It is inhumane. Israel must immediately allow the UN and aid partners to safely deliver all types of aid at scale, to save lives, reduce suffering and maintain dignity. It must ensure that food and other critical supplies can reach people safely, where they are, across all the Gaza strip. Civilians and medical and humanitarian workers and facilities must be protected.

We will continue to be steadfast in our support for the UN and other trusted international 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. Just two weeks ago, the Minister for Development, my noble Friend Baroness Chapman, announced £4 million of additional funding to support the British Red Cross and enable the delivery of humanitarian relief in Gaza through its partner the Palestine Red Crescent Society. That was part of our wider £101 million of support this financial year. Aid must be allowed in so that support can continue.

Today, the UN Security Council is expected to consider a resolution for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and the lifting of all Israeli restrictions on humanitarian aid, supporting delivery by the United Nations. We will once again use our vote in support of those goals.

Following our leadership in co-ordinating dozens of countries to address the humanitarian situation and the joint statement by the UK, France and Canada, as well as the actions announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 20 May, we will continue to convene international partners to increase the pressure and take further steps to address the catastrophic situation on the ground.

We will continue to strongly support the efforts led by the United States, Qatar and Egypt to secure an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. As the Prime Minister has said, a ceasefire is the best way to secure the release of all  remaining hostages and achieve a long-term political solution. The Israeli Government’s decision to expand their military operations in Gaza and severely restrict aid undermines all of those goals.

We repeat our utter condemnation of Hamas and our demand that they release all hostages immediately and unconditionally. Hamas can have no role in the future governance of Gaza. A two-state solution is the only way to bring the long-lasting peace, stability and security that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve. We welcome France and Saudi Arabia’s leadership in chairing an international conference later this month. I commend this statement to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

The scenes emanating from Gaza are harrowing and the suffering is intolerable. The current situation that we are all witnessing simply cannot continue. The level of humanitarian suffering and desperation continues to be unacceptable, as children, women and their families continue to suffer while desperately trying to secure food and humanitarian aid. The deaths and casualties near aid distribution centres should never have happened. Will the Minister inform the House what discussions have taken place with Israel about those appalling events, the status of any investigations and what action will follow?

Britain must use its influences at every level and bring all allies together. We want peace and stability in the region, including in neighbouring countries, as the current conflict is hurting civilians and a sustainable end to the conflict appears to have moved even further away. Are we working with our Abraham accords partners and regional allies who also want peace, such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Britain must leverage its considerable influence in the region to help stop the endless suffering that we are seeing, to get more aid in, to see the hostages released and to end the terminal situation with Hamas to achieve a proper, sustainable end to the conflict and, importantly, work towards a better future for the Palestinian and Israeli people. To that end, will the Minister explain how the Government plan to use the upcoming summit in New York to further those ends?

On humanitarian aid, the Government say that they continue to call for broader aid access. Of course, we support that, but are there practical and specific proposals for the opening of individual crossings and entry points? Have those been presented directly to the Government of Israel? The Minister will know that my noble friend Lord Cameron, working with our allies, previously secured commitments from the Government of Israel to open up the Erez crossing and the port of Ashdod to get aid into Gaza. He will also know that at that time Israel agreed to extend the opening hours of the Kerem Shalom crossing point, and we were able to achieve commitments to increase the number of trucks entering Gaza, which naturally led to an increase in vital aid supplies, including food and medical aid, for innocent Palestinians.

On British aid sitting in the region, the Minister has said in a written answer to me on Monday:

“Quantifying how much is awaiting entry into Gaza is difficult, due to the complex operating environment and limited real-time data.”

We appreciate that, but what more can he do to secure practical information about where UK aid is located, who we can work with to move aid to key locations and what more Britain can do to ensure that UK aid gets to those who are desperately in need of our support?

We know that multilateral institutions, including the World Bank and others, are working on serious plans to deal with immediate, as well as long-term, issues to support the recovery and reconstruction of the economy in Gaza and the west bank. What are the Government doing to support that work and what engagement has the Minister had with those organisations?

Some 58 remaining hostages have now been in cruel captivity for 607 days at the hands of Hamas. They must be released. We are aware of initiatives put forward by the United States and that the latest proposals have been rejected by Hamas. What pressure are the Government exerting on Hamas to get them to reverse their opposition to those plans?

On the west bank, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority on 28 April, which we debated in the House. Will the Minister update the House on the PA’s progress since that signing on reform and governance, because credible governance is required for long-term stability?

On settlements, the Conservative position is as it was in government and is well understood. Settlements are not helpful for achieving long-term peace and we urge Israel for its part not to take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult, and to use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence. We support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and Palestinian people.

Finally, we all want to lift people’s lives to a better future, for the Israeli and Palestinian people. To do so, Britain must actively bring our long-standing perspective and influence to bear in the region, with all our allies. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her important questions. I confirm that we are working closely with our allies, both in the region and beyond, on this devastating situation. I saw colleagues from Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar at the Madrid conference 10 days ago, and I will be continuing my consultations with them over the coming days, as will the Foreign Secretary.

The right hon. Lady rightly asks about the status of the ceasefire negotiations. I am sure that she is aware that on Sunday I called for Hamas to return to those negotiations. There have been some promising indications that they are doing so, but it remains a very delicate situation and I will update the House with more solid information when I am in a position to do so. We of course want those ceasefire talks to proceed with speed, we want a full release of all hostages and a permanent ceasefire, and we do not want Hamas in control in Gaza. That is the objective of this Government.

The shadow Foreign Secretary also asked an important question about where UK aid is and how much has gone in, and I am grateful for her understanding on  those points. I fear much of that aid remains in many of the humanitarian distribution centres outside Gaza—blocked, as it was when I saw it with my own eyes in Egypt. \p Paula Barker: I thank the Minister for his statement, but we have been here countless times before. Last week, Israel approved 22 further settlements in the west bank. Israeli Defence Minister Katz claimed it was

“a strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state”.

What more evidence do we need to call this exactly what it is: a deliberate policy of annexation and genocide? Will the Government now take the long overdue steps that we have all been calling for for years—namely, the recognition of Palestine, sanctions on extremist Israeli Government Ministers, suspension of all arms sales and suspension of all trade? If we want to see a Palestinian state, we must do something now to prevent its erasure. The history books will not be kind to this Government unless we use every form of leverage at our disposal, and our grandchildren will ask why we effectively stood by while a people were eradicated by bombs, bullets, starvation and, no doubt, the further ethnic cleansing that is still to come. This should shame us all. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for her question; of course, it was her request for an urgent question this morning that led to this statement. I do not agree with the whole premise of her question, but I assure her that we will continue to convene international partners, to increase pressure and to take further steps, as long as this catastrophic situation remains. We have taken steps since we were first elected; we announced further steps on 20 May, when the Foreign Secretary was at the Dispatch Box; and we will take further steps, which we were clear about in the joint statement between the UK, France and Canada, until the situation improves. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I spoke yesterday with a British surgeon who has regularly visited Gaza to deliver emergency medical aid. He first reported cases of malnutrition 18 months ago and is deeply anxious about what he will find when he arrives at Nasser hospital in southern Gaza later this month.

People in Gaza are on the brink of starvation. Others are dying daily from gunshot wounds inflicted as they queue for food. The situation is intolerable, and it is deliberate. The policies of Netanyahu’s Government amount to an indiscriminate assault on the Palestinian people. We must get the aid in, we must get the hostages out and we must stop the violent forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and in the west bank. That is the only path back to a ceasefire.

The time for timidity is over. Liberal Democrats have consistently called for the Government to take firmer action, and they must do so today. We called for the sanctioning of the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich 18 months ago. Will the Minister finally commit to implementing those sanctions, showing that we will no longer tolerate calls for Palestinian dispossession?  Will the Government make it clear that unless the Israeli Government change course, the UK will expand sanctions to those Ministers and Members of the Knesset who support a continuation of the blockade and the current military action? Will the Government finally ban the export of all UK arms to Israel?

In his response earlier, the Prime Minister said that the Government were working with allies to get aid into Gaza. Can the Minister expand on what options are under consideration and when they could be implemented? Last week’s announcement of 22 new settlements in the west bank—the largest expansion in years—is intolerable. The UK should have no part in this, so will Ministers introduce legislation now to ban all UK trade with the illegal settlements? Will the Government use the conference later this month, together with allies such as France, finally to recognise the state of Palestine, showing beyond doubt the UK’s commitment to Palestinians’ right to self-determination and a two-state solution? \p Hamish Falconer: The Liberal Democrat spokesperson alludes to some of the commentary of some Israeli Government Ministers. I want to be clear that the UK Government’s issue is with Netanyahu’s Government—it is with the statements and actions of many of those Ministers. As Members will know, I will not discuss from this Dispatch Box sanctions that we might take, but what I will say is that we watch very closely the statements that have come out. We have condemned them repeatedly, and they have not stopped; they have continued. We keep this under very close review. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the International Development Committee. \p Sarah Champion: The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is no such thing; it is a group of trigger-happy private security employees. Under international law, Israel, as the occupier, has a duty to the people in Gaza. The International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on 19 July 2024 stating that Israel’s

“policies and practices are contrary to the prohibition of forcible transfer of the protected population”

under article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention. The Government have still not given their response to this, and if I were to be very uncharitable—and, hopefully, very wrong—I would say that this has created a limbo whereby the Government are not using their full toolbox of sanctions, prohibitions and legal accountability to hold Israel and indeed Hamas to account. When will the Government act and acknowledge that they have duties under this advisory opinion? \p Hamish Falconer: We continue to consider the ICJ’s advisory opinion with the seriousness that it deserves. I want to reassure the House that the powers of the Foreign Office are not set by our views on an advisory opinion, which is just that: advisory. We abide by international law in all that we do and our options are not constrained by the fact that we have not yet pronounced a view on the advisory opinion. \p Kit Malthouse: As the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) indicated, we are all frankly getting a bit fed up with the theatrics in this Chamber, and if I am honest with the Minister, it feels like the whole House is being played.  He shows up and mouths the words, full of condemnation and saying he is appalled, and very occasionally the Government leak out just enough sanctions in order, frankly—I am afraid to say this, colleagues—to keep the Labour Benches from open revolt.

And yet, since the Minister last appeared here, as others have mentioned, 22 new settlements have been announced, and the Israeli Government have replaced the United Nations Relief and Works Agency distribution system with a shooting gallery—an abattoir, where starving people are lured out through combat zones to be shot at. If the situation were reversed, we would now, quite rightly, be mobilising the British armed forces as part of an international protection force, so here is my question: what is the difference? \p Hamish Falconer: I hope the right hon. Member will forgive me; he talks of theatrics, whereby I come to the House and provide an update and he delivers a speech saying that we should do more. I remind him and the House that the Labour Government have a profoundly different position towards these issues than the Conservative Government before us. We have taken a series of steps, most recently on 20 May— \p Kit Malthouse: Not a single thing has changed—nothing! They are ignoring you now. I am sorry, but they are killing dozens every day— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I call the Minister. \p Hamish Falconer: We have taken steps, and we will continue to take steps. We have led the international community in the most recent of those steps. I am, and we are, under no illusion about the severity of the situation that we face. \p Rachel Hopkins: I welcome the Minister’s comments that Israel’s newly introduced measures for aid delivery are inhumane, foster desperation and endanger civilians. Indeed, in just eight days, 102 Palestinians seeking food have been killed, and 490 have been injured. What discussions is the Minister having with his Israeli counterpart about ensuring the protection of innocent civilians who are accessing lifesaving aid? \p Hamish Falconer: I regret to inform the House that there is a fundamental disagreement between the British and Israeli Governments about the nature of aid that needs to get into Gaza. We have spoken to them, and we have been clear that the United Nations is ready with a system that works and that is able to deliver aid at the scale required to try to address some of the horrific desperation that we see. The Israeli Government are clearly committed to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, with all of the problems that we have seen over the last three days. \p Jeremy Wright: The policy of successive UK Governments has been that the United Kingdom will recognise the state of Palestine when it is conducive to the peace process and the ultimate realisation of the two-state solution. Up to this point, I have accepted the argument that the Minister  and his predecessors have made that that moment has not yet come. But has not the balance shifted decisively with a succession of moves to greater territorial change in the west bank by increased settlement activity and by increasingly blunt and frequent statements from members of the Israeli Government that they are going to restrict Palestinians to a sub-set of Gaza or restrict them from Gaza all together? That is what has changed my mind such that I now believe that it is necessary for the UK, hopefully in conjunction with others, to recognise the state of Palestine urgently. Why has it not yet changed the Government’s mind? \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. and learned Member makes a very powerful point. One reason that the traditional positions of UK Government and many other Governments across the world has been that the recognition of a Palestinian state should come at the end or during a two-state solution process was the hope that we would move towards a two-state solution. Many minds have been changed, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s, because of the rhetoric of the Israeli Government—the clear statements by so many that they are no longer committed to a two-state solution. We see in the press many representatives of the Israeli Government criticising others for considering their position in relation to a Palestinian state. Exactly as the right hon. and learned Member says, it is the action of this Israeli Government that has made so many, including ourselves, review their position on these matters. \p Clive Efford: The time has come for us to stop arming Israel in any way whatsoever. This collaborative pool of items that are gathered under the auspices of NATO seems to be a route by which Israel can be supplied. Is it not possible for us to withdraw the right for anything we supply to that collaborative pool to be passed on to Israel, or even to influence our partners in that pool to stop providing any form of weaponry to Israel via that route? \p Hamish Falconer: Let me first address my hon. Friend’s question about arms more broadly, and then turn to the F-35s. We have taken steps to ensure that weapons directly for use in Gaza have been suspended. As my hon. Friend has outlined, there is a provision in the F-35 programme for a global spares pool, the operation of which we do not control. I understand the argument sometimes made in this House that in fact we could control the final destination of those parts, but that is a point that we refute—it is being debated in the courts, and a judgment is forthcoming on the question of whether or not the final destination of F-35 parts could indeed be determined. I am afraid that I have nothing further to add on that point.

However, I want to be clear to the House—as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security was on Monday evening—that the arms suspensions that we have introduced are far-reaching. Some reports have suggested that we have not taken far-reaching action, and that significant arms are still reaching the Israel Defence Forces, but that is simply factually not true. The sale of items that are controlled by the arms licensing criteria continues, as we still judge that many military-grade items—for example, body armour for non-governmental organisations—are appropriate to be traded with Israel, because they will go to NGOs that are going in.

It is also true that we are trading components that will end up in use outside of Israel, in the arsenal of NATO allies. For example, of the £127.5 million of export licences that have been approved subsequent to our decision, £120 million of them were for components for a NATO ally, not for Israel. There is considerable confusion about that point, so I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify it. \p Tim Farron: Securing a ceasefire is vital, securing the release of the remaining hostages is vital, and getting aid through to the suffering people of Gaza is an absolute moral imperative. The Israeli Government need to ensure the safe delivery of that aid, and if they do not, the members of that Government should suffer immediate and severe consequences—no more prevarication. Will the Minister also make an assessment of what the impact of cuts to the United Kingdom’s aid budget has been on the ability to deliver aid in Gaza and elsewhere, and will he work with his UN colleagues to ensure that all the resources that this Government could possibly provide to the United Nations get through, so that aid gets through and stops the dying and the suffering? \p Hamish Falconer: To be clear, the issue with aid getting into Gaza is not the availability of aid. The cuts we have announced have had no bearing on whether or not aid can get into Gaza—I know that because I have seen our aid with my very own eyes in warehouses in al-Arish. We must remain focused on the central issue, which is neither the availability of aid nor the availability of partners, such as the United Nations, that are prepared to go in and deliver it; it is that the Israeli Government have effectively put in place a blockade. That is the central issue that must be addressed. \p Rosena Allin-Khan: Almost eight months ago, the UN commission of inquiry found that Israel has implemented a concerted effort to dismantle the healthcare system in Gaza, and that the killing and disappearance of healthcare workers amounts to the crime of extermination. UK doctors in Gaza describe it as a “slaughterhouse”. With the growing mountain of evidence detailing war crimes taking place, and our diplomatic efforts being totally ignored by the Israeli Government, it is time to sanction Benjamin Netanyahu and the other murderous figures who are responsible. Words are not enough, so today—here, now, in this Chamber—I would like the Minister to give us a concrete date for when we can expect this Government to impose sanctions. \p Hamish Falconer: I hear the frustration of the House. I am sure that other Members will also raise the deeply distressing reports that there have been in recent days, and indeed going even further back, in both the west bank and in Gaza. Let me be clear, as the Prime Minister was clear with France and Canada: if Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions in this place. [Hon. Members: “When?”] I will not say from the Dispatch Box today when that might be. \p Roger Gale: I concur entirely with the views expressed by the two Privy Counsellors on the Conservative Back Benches  who have already spoken, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). For weeks we have been listening to fine words from Government Front Benchers, and we have seen a lot of handwringing and a vast amount of inactivity. The question that everybody in this Chamber is asking of the Minister is “When?” Yesterday, as he knows, four of us tried to deliver a letter to Downing Street calling for the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. We were not even allowed to deliver that letter. The time has come to act now. There is a route from Larnaca in Cyprus straight into Gaza—use it! Let us save these children. \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the force of his remarks. I hear so many colleagues say that they are fed up with my words, which is gentle, but on 20 May we announced concrete actions. I am telling the House this afternoon that further actions will come if there are not changes. [Hon. Members: “When?”] I will return to the House when I am in a position to do so. I hear everybody’s frustration, but let us not pretend that the UK’s position has not changed—that it has not continued to change. It will continue to change while the situation remains as it is. \p Tan Dhesi: A genocide case against Israel is before the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against Prime Minister Netanyahu and others. In its 2007 judgment, the ICJ made it clear that a nation’s duty to prevent genocide begins when it becomes aware that there is a serious risk. On Monday, in response to my written question, the Minister confirmed that almost all of Gaza

“faces a critical risk of famine”,

with half a million innocent people facing starvation. We know that is caused by Israel’s months-long blockade of aid, so has the Minister been satisfactorily notified that there is a serious risk of genocide occurring in Palestine, and will he ensure that the Government take all steps to meet our obligations to prevent genocide? \p Hamish Falconer: We abide by all of our international legal obligations and keep these matters under rapid review. My hon. Friend rightly highlights the risks of malnutrition and famine in Gaza, as identified by the integrated food security phase classification. We take very serious note of all of these reports as they come out. \p Stephen Flynn: I cannot help but feel that the Minister is treating Members with a significant level of contempt by telling us that something will happen, but not telling us what that will be or when it will happen. On a more acute point, can he perhaps clarify for the House why he believes it is consistent for his Government to condemn the Israeli Government for starving a civilian population while at the same time providing them with the component parts to bomb a civilian population? \p Hamish Falconer: I am surprised that the right hon. Member thinks that there is any question as to why Foreign Office Ministers might need to leave some degree of ambiguity about when they take actions, including all the ones that have been discussed this  afternoon, such as sanctions. These principles of why we might want to do things without pre-notifying the House of each and every step are relatively well-established, I think, but I am happy to discuss in further detail why we do that. On the point about F-35 components, where we know that they are going to Israel, we are suspending that. It is only because we are not able to control the onward transmission of the global spares pool that this at least theoretical risk exists. \p Jonathan Pearce: I thank the Minister for all the work he is doing and the endless number of statements he has had to make on these horrific issues. I absolutely agree with him and support him in calling for both Israel and Hamas to make sure that all humanitarian aid is available and gets to innocent Palestinians, who desperately need it. The best way that we can solve this problem is through a ceasefire. Will he join me in expressing regret that after Israel accepted the Witkoff framework proposals for a ceasefire, Hamas decided to turn them down? We must put as much pressure as possible on Hamas to move forward with the ceasefire as soon as possible. \p Hamish Falconer: On Sunday I was clear that Hamas should engage in ceasefire talks, should return to the table and should release all hostages. A ceasefire is desperately needed and is the only route forward. \p Desmond Swayne: Studied ambiguity of what and when has had no impact on Israeli policy. We want to know, and Israel needs to know, precisely what the Government mean by “further steps”. \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. Member will appreciate that in our private discussions with Israel we have been clear about the depth of feeling across the whole country, and indeed in this House, and we have been clear about the nature of further steps coming. \p Debbie Abrahams: I am sure the Minister can sense the frustration across the House and from all parties. I support their frustration. We were at a meeting yesterday with the former UN secretary-general for human rights, Andrew Gilmour. He said that the lack of action that the international community is taking now on this issue reminded him of the lack of action during the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s. That is a lesson we all should closely heed. I will not ask the Minister everything that everybody else has asked about sanctions and recognition—he knows where I stand on that. I will ask him about the coalition of the willing for Palestine, as we have a coalition of the willing for Ukraine. How are we building up our international allies to ensure that recognition and everything else that needs to happen has an international consensus? Again, we are looking at days, not weeks and months. \p Hamish Falconer: I just want to acknowledge for my hon. Friend that we recognise that this conflict is being measured in hours and days, not weeks and months, and it is on those timelines that we seek to take action. On the question of a coalition of the willing, we are working with our allies, as I am sure she is aware. We  convened the statement of 26 on humanitarian action and the leaders’ statement of three, to which I referred earlier in my statement. We will continue to work broadly. I can confirm that even today I have been working on those questions. \p Ellie Chowns: The UK Government have an obligation under international law to do everything possible to prevent genocide, yet we see genocide occurring in Gaza. The Minister assured the House a month ago that he was conducting a risk assessment on genocide in Gaza. Will he give me a clear, unambiguous, straight answer today? Will he publish his most recent genocide risk assessment without delay? \p Hamish Falconer: As this House has heard from me before, the question that we assessed in relation to international humanitarian law was whether there a real risk of a breach of IHL. That was the assessment we made when we first entered government. That is a considerably lower bar than the questions to which the hon. Member refers. We continue to make those assessments, which cover the entirety of international humanitarian law. We have updated the House on that initial assessment, which is at a rather lower bar than she is suggesting, and the assessment broadly remains in place. We will not provide further updates, but if the position changes, I will be sure to return to the House. \p Florence Eshalomi: I appreciate the Minister coming back to the Chamber, but as he can see from the strength of numbers here, this is an issue that will not go away.

The Minister just outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, that we are measuring this in hours and days, not weeks and months. There is only one kidney dialysis unit left in Gaza, and the World Health Organisation reports that the number of machines has decreased, with just 27 left in northern Gaza. My late mum had renal failure. She was on dialysis three times a week. It is not hours and days; it is minutes, Minister. People are literally surviving or dying within minutes.

Many people—women and children—are still buried under rubble. A number of us have spoken about the lack of aid going in, and the fact that aid is being used as a weapon of punishment. What more do we need to say for us to see concrete and more visible action from this Government? We are getting emails from our constituents. We need to see an end to some of the weapons going through, a process which the UK is still supporting. We need clearer guidance on sanctions, because Israel is not listening to us. \p Hamish Falconer: I recognise that when we talk in this Chamber about aid restrictions, it can seem like an abstract concept. My hon. Friend is right about what that looks like, person to person. There are terrible shortages of all kinds of desperately needed items that preserve life and dignity, and nothing about the last few days indicates that the new aid measures are doing anywhere near enough to try to avert that tragedy. We not only make our own assessments, but pay careful heed to the assessments of others. I was a diplomat before. The International Committee of the Red Cross  is a sober organisation that is not prone to strong statements, and the statement that it has made in recent days about the conditions in Gaza is sobering reading. We are under no illusions about the urgency and the gravity of the situation. I was pleased to be with the Foreign Secretary on 20 May when he announced further measures. We have been clear that further measures will come. We are trying, as the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has asked us, to persuade the Israelis to change course. If they do not, we will return to this House. \p Greg Smith: I listened carefully to the answer that the Minister gave to the right and proper question from the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) just now. Will the Minister not accept that simply calling for Hamas to go back to the negotiating table is nowhere near strong enough? For there to be accuracy in this debate, it must be publicly and clearly acknowledged that the only blocker to a ceasefire deal that will get the hostages out, and the bodies returned of those hostages who have died, is Hamas. \p Hamish Falconer: We have condemned Hamas. I have condemned Hamas repeatedly, and we will continue to do so. A ceasefire clearly requires two parties. We welcomed Israel’s return to the ceasefire negotiations. We called on Hamas to do the same. We are glad to hear that there seems to have been some progress. We will continue to press all sides on this point until we have a ceasefire. \p Ian Byrne: Yesterday, the United Nations human rights chief, Volker Türk—this must have broken everyone’s heart in this place—said:

“Palestinians have been presented the grimmest of choices: die from starvation or risk being killed while trying to access the meagre food that is being made available through Israel’s militarised humanitarian assistance mechanism.”

I feel like a broken record. What concrete actions will we take in this place, so that the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and does something to change Israel’s psyche so that it listens to the world? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks me to change the Government of Israel’s psyche. We have been clear with the Israeli Government about the extent of our disagreement. Anyone who has closely followed the communications between me and my Israeli counterparts will see that there is a profound disagreement in approach. We do everything we can to try to persuade our long-standing ally why the steps that it is taking are such grave mistakes—not just for the region and for the Palestinians, but ultimately for the Israelis themselves. Our disagreement is with the Government, not the Israeli themselves. It will be with regret if I return shortly to this House to announce further steps, but I will do so, given the strength of our feeling on these matters. \p Monica Harding: As the Minister has acknowledged, Israel’s alternative aid scheme is dangerous, unworkable and profoundly insufficient. There is aid waiting on the border—UK aid that my constituents have paid for. You know the Palestinian people’s desperation. You have heard the desperation— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Lady said “you” twice. \p Monica Harding: The Minister has heard the Palestinian people’s desperation. He has heard the desperation in this Chamber. What new pressure will he bring to bear on Israel to open the aid routes? What is the alternative plan? The Minister has asked for an independent inquiry into what went on in Rafah. Will he insist that the Israeli Government let the BBC and independent journalists into Gaza so that we know what is going on? \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Lady makes an important point about the lack of international media in Gaza and the hotly contested nature of events there. It is not just me who has called for an independent investigation; the UN Secretary-General has as well. That reflects the degree of concern within the United Nations system about enabling the media to their job. \p Dawn Butler: Minister, if we do not recognise Palestine, it will cease to exist, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). Israel has approved another 22 settlement sites in the occupied west bank—the biggest expansion in decades. It violates international law. Minister, Louis Theroux’s incredible documentary “The Settlers”, which I will be showing today—he is in Parliament today—highlights the grim reality of the settlers’ mindset. Minister, you must agree that it is time that we have a strong debate. You cannot persuade— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Lady is better than that. \p Dawn Butler: The passion is overtaking me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Minister, do you not agree that we need—[Interruption.] \p Caroline Nokes: Order. People keep addressing the Minister as “Minister”. They should be asking their questions through the Chair. The hon. Lady should say, “Does he agree?” \p Dawn Butler: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does the Minister agree that it has gone far enough, and that we must have this debate and say we will apply sanctions to Israel? No more arms should go to Israel. We must see the Palestinians as people and help them to survive. \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful to my hon. Friends, who are just trying to make me, as a new Member of the House, feel that everybody makes mistakes. I am also grateful for that important question. As my hon. Friend knows, we have taken action against the settlers in the documentary and others. I recognise that the situation in Gaza and the west bank remains awful. We have condemned the 22 settlements that were announced over the recess. We have been clear that further steps will be taken, and I will be happy to return to the House when I am in a position to do so. \p Mark Pritchard: The Minister says he hears the frustration of the House, but do the Government hear the cries of Gaza’s orphaned children  and the cries of the children who have had their loved ones literally blown to bits in front of them, who will be maimed for life? I have been at many of these statements before. I am grateful for what the Minister said, and I also put on the record that I am grateful for what the shadow Foreign Secretary said, but the reality is that aid is not getting through. There were 400 UN stations before, but there are now only a handful. They are in combat zones, and people are unable to access the aid. Every single day, men, women and children are being impacted through a lack of food, access to aid, access to medical supplies, and access to fuel so that they can actually cook some of the food—some very practical issues. I do not support the new way of delivering aid—it should be done by the UN—but if that is going to be the case, what more can the Minister do with the Americans to ensure that there are more aid stations in more places so that more people can access aid, in order to save lives? \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s words. There are clearly profound issues with the new aid distribution mechanism. That is not just the view of the British Government; it is clearly the view of the GHF itself, given that it has suspended operations after three very bloody days. Exactly as the right hon. Gentleman says, there are insufficient aid distribution centres and very dangerous crowds, and we have seen terrible violence associated with the distributions. I would be very happy if there was a mechanism in place at this moment that could provide aid properly, but waiting on the outskirts of Gaza—in al-Arish and elsewhere—is a United Nations operation with more than 18 months’ experience of doing that and making sure that everybody gets the aid they need. We must not delay. We have both the aid and the delivery partners—we should let them in. \p Liam Byrne: The barbarism of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Government against the Palestinian people is beyond belief. We should not be negotiating trade deals with the Israeli Government, we should not have trade envoys on the ground, and we should not delay recognition of the state of Palestine. The Business and Trade Committee, backed by my hon. Friend the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), is determined to get to the bottom of UK arms exports. I am grateful to the Business Minister for confirming last night that he will appear before the Committee before the summer recess. Can the Minister confirm tonight that a Foreign Office Minister will be alongside him? \p Hamish Falconer: I make it a habit not to confirm the schedules of my ministerial colleagues. Of course, it is the Minister for Europe—who has responsibility for the overall licensing regime—who has appeared before my right hon. Friend’s Committee. Let me be clear to the House: there is no effort to conceal our position on arms licences. We have set it out to this House on a number of occasions. The Minister for Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), set out some of the numbers on Monday. We have taken exceptional measures to try to show more transparency than is usual about the arms licensing regime. We are having that discussion not just in this place, but in the  courts. There is no effort on the part of this Government to be anything other than transparent—not only with this House, but with the Israeli Government themselves—about the nature of our decisions. \p Llinos Medi: We can all see that a genocide is happening in Gaza, and it is about time that this Government called it out for what it is. We are witnessing the systematic dismantling of Gaza’s healthcare system, and the Red Cross has described the situation as “hell on Earth”. What are this Government doing to prevent Gaza’s healthcare system from being decimated further, and to re-establish hospitals and lifesaving medical services? \p Hamish Falconer: The truth is that while the aid blockade remains in place, there is very little that any outside partner can do to ensure proper health services in Gaza—I will not mislead the House by suggesting that there is. The aid that has come in from the GHF is far too little and far too geographically concentrated to be able to provide the kind of provision to which Gazans are entitled and that they should have, and it is a clear necessity under international humanitarian law. \p Tahir Ali: On 20 May, the Foreign Secretary informed this House that a free trade agreement with Israel was being suspended. Less than a week after that announcement, the UK’s trade envoy to Israel was in Israel. The Minister, in his opening statement, said:

“We call for an immediate and independent investigation into these events, and for the perpetrators to be held to account.”

We know who the perpetrators are. What evidence does he need from an independent inquiry? Why does he not take action by suspending the UK’s trade envoy to prevent him from going to Israel? Why does he not back the 800 lawyers, retired senior judges and academics who wrote to the Prime Minister earlier this week to ask for article 6 of the United Nations charter to be invoked, and for Israel to be expelled as a member state of the United Nations? \p Hamish Falconer: The call for an independent investigation began with the UN Secretary-General, given, as I said earlier, his concerns about aid provision. The UK supports the vital humanitarian role of the UN, and that is why we have echoed his calls.

On the question of the trade envoy’s visit, let me be clear that we suspended negotiations on a future free trade agreement with Israel, but we did not suspend all trade with Israel, as I think the House knows. The trade envoy had no scheduled meetings with Israeli officials, but made his visit as part of his regular duties, because trade continues between Israel and the UK. I am not sure it is entirely fair to link the visit of a trade envoy with the horrific events at aid distribution centres in recent days. \p Bob Blackman: The Minister will be well aware that Hamas have threatened to execute any Palestinian who dares to take aid from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. He will also probably be aware that there are strong reports that desperate Palestinians are breaking into Hamas-controlled warehouses that are stocked to the eaves with the aid we have provided. We all want to see the aid provided to the Palestinian people, so what plan does he have to convince  the Israeli Government that if aid is flooded into Gaza, it will actually reach the people who need it, rather than be taken away and stockpiled by Hamas? \p Hamish Falconer: We are clear that, in our view, the United Nations and its partners have a clear mechanism to ensure that humanitarian need is met, and to prevent diversion to Hamas. We obviously condemn any credible reports of Hamas diverting aid, but those reports should not be a reason why aid is not provided to the Palestinian people. There are tried, trusted and credible mechanisms for distributing the aid that is waiting to get in, as it should. \p Nesil Caliskan: The International Red Cross chief has said that Gaza is

“worse than hell on earth”.

Is it any wonder that he did, when those children who have escaped bombs face death from starvation? The United Nations has said that one in five people in Gaza faces starvation because of the blockade. Does the Minister agree with me that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is clearly incapable of addressing the starvation in Gaza—that is now very clear—and that Israel should immediately hand over any aid operation to the United Nations? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I think I have been clear on that point, but yes, the United Nations should deliver the aid, in the principled way that it has previously. \p Shockat Adam: Ward Jalal is a six-year-old Palestinian girl who, last week, crawled out of a burning school, leaving behind her mother and two siblings, who burned to death. I mention Ward because she is Palestinian. Last month, there was Al-Haq’s case against the Government. By September 2024, 40,000 innocent Palestinian men, women and children, like Ward and her family, were killed. The Government reviewed 413 cases and found one possible breach of international law, which was the killing of volunteers at the World Central Kitchen. Do the Government have any regard for children like Ward and the Palestinian people? \p Hamish Falconer: Of course we have regard to and concerns for Palestinian people. The questions at issue in the assessment of risk are complicated legal ones. They are complicated because the corpus of international humanitarian law ends up relying a great deal on what is in the mind of a commander when they make a decision. International humanitarian law is tightly constrained, and it is difficult to make conclusions about what is in the mind of a commander who will not share their thoughts with us. That is why, when we make determinations, we consider other limbs of international humanitarian law. We are not saying that in all the cases, the action was proportional and necessary to meet the military objectives, but where we cannot determine that, we can look to other limbs. Those limbs include the obligations on an occupying power relating to the provision of aid and the treatment of detainees. Those are easier tests to meet, because they do not require knowing what is the mind of a commander. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I am planning to run this statement for a further 30 minutes, but Members should think carefully about how many of their colleagues they wish to help to get in, and ask short questions—and short responses, please. \p Stella Creasy: Let us be short and frank, then. For many of us in this House, this is no longer complicated. Time has run out for claiming ambiguity of action. Since 20 May, we have seen 22 more settlements. It is deliberately made dangerous for people to access aid, and the Israel Defence Forces have declared the roads to the aid distribution centres “combat zones”. The Minister says that the Government have raised concerns and have called for immediate independent investigations, but those have not happened—not just in this incident, but repeatedly. He will not tell us what he will do. This is on the consciences of us all, so we have to ask him to be clearer. Will he tell us what is not on the table? Will he rule out things? He has told us that he is talking about the future, but will he rule out immediate recognition of Palestine, which many of us have been calling for, the sanctions that many of us have been calling for, and a final resolution of the F-35 farce? If he does, at least we will get sense of where this is going. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. During statements, we need briefer questions. \p Hamish Falconer: I will return to this House when I have further announcements. \p Steffan Aquarone: Parishioners in the Matlaske benefice have raised over £3,000 to support the people of Gaza. They were visited last year by a priest from Bethlehem, who shared how this conflict is impacting people there. They hope for the return of the hostages, and for peace for the Palestinian people. I will not ask the Minister to repeat his answer to the question, “when?”, but will he confirm to them that the tools that he is considering using as a next step include sanctions against extremist Government Ministers, and formal recognition of a Palestinian state? \p Hamish Falconer: I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member’s constituents. So many of our constituents, including mine in Lincoln, are doing so much to keep these issues in people’s minds, and to raise funds. I will not be drawn on what further steps may be taken. We were clear in the leaders’ statement that they could include targeted sanctions, so he can assure his constituents that that remains under review. \p Mark Ferguson: Members have tried to reach for the right words to describe what the Palestinians are facing. It is incredibly difficult to convey that within the constraints of parliamentary and diplomatic language. I will not go over any of the ground that colleagues have covered, but does the Minister agree that it is completely unacceptable on every level to pair aid with military objectives? Will he assure the House that when we as a Government consider where next we go on Israel, the unacceptability of those tactics will be taken on board? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend, who has raised these issues with me many times and is very focused on them. I completely agree with what he says. Aid must be  delivered in a principled way. That is vital not just in the middle east, but across the entire world. We take these issues very seriously, and we raise them with force with the Israeli Government. \p Kirsty Blackman: In 10, 20 or 50 years, none of us wants to look back and say that we could have done more. As of December, there were 191 licences for the export of military equipment to Israel. Fewer than half of them were for the IDF and the Israeli Government. What comfort does the Minister have that the military equipment going to Israel is not being used to expand settlements on the west bank, is not being used by the civilian staff working at aid centres, and is not being used to worsen the situation for the Palestinian people? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank the hon. Member for that important question. We take these issues very seriously. Our arms export licensing criteria and systems are among the toughest in the world, and we work very carefully to ensure that the words that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and I say at this Dispatch Box are followed all the way through, in every decision that we make. In some cases, it is absolutely obvious from the licence that the exports could not be used in the way that the hon. Member describes—for example, components for submarines cannot be used in Gaza—but we do take enormous care over these questions. \p Bell Ribeiro-Addy: A noble Friend from the other place reminded me of a conversation that she overheard me having with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) in October 2023. Israel had begun bombing the civilian population in the Gaza strip, and my hon. Friend asked, “When will they say something?” As I often do, I said the first thing that came to my mind: “When they level it to the ground.” I have to ask the Minister if that is the change that we are waiting for, because I have asked what our red lines are, and it seems that we have none. History will not look kindly on those who perpetuate genocide, or those who assist it, whether through the sale of arms or through sheer inaction. Does the Minister accept that this is now us? The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) pointed to actions that we might take; I have to ask: why are these actions not good enough for the people of Palestine? How many more people will have to die before we do something? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks me if I accept that this is us; I do not accept that this is us. We are in a very serious disagreement with the Israeli Government about the conduct of the conflict. That disagreement is ongoing, and is strongly felt. Their policy on Gaza and the west bank is not the British Government’s policy. Not only have I condemned it, but the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have done so repeatedly. I hear the frustration of the House about further measures, but let us accept that the British and Israeli Governments disagree profoundly on this question, that the disagreement between us is deeply felt, and that British policy is as it is, and is not what the Netanyahu Government are doing. \p Caroline Voaden: Hundreds of my constituents have written to me expressing their desperation and horror at the hellish scenes coming out of Gaza, so I speak here on their behalf. It is clear that the Israeli Government aspire to wipe Palestine off the map, as they expand their settlement ambitions with impunity. They do not care that Ministers in Whitehall are watching their statements. Until Palestine is recognised as a state, the dispossession of land and homes by Israel will continue. Why will the Government not stand up now and, alongside our allies Spain, Norway and Ireland, recognise Palestine as a state? \p Hamish Falconer: I recognise the concern of many constituents across the country, including in the hon. Lady’s constituency. We are obviously in close touch with our counterparts. I was talking to my Spanish counterpart on Sunday, and at the Madrid conference I was with my Irish counterparts, and those from the other nations the hon. Lady mentions—and from a whole set of states—that have recognised a Palestinian state. I recognise the desire right across this House, I think, for further steps in that area. Whatever we do, I am sure that this House will press me on the continued horrors in Gaza. In everything we do, we are focused on trying to make an impact on the scenes that our constituents are seeing. We are considering these matters, but we are focused on trying to reduce the suffering in Gaza today. \p Andrew Pakes: I welcome the Minister’s update to the House, but he will know that we see not only the horror and inhumane violence of the Israeli Government in Gaza, but aggression on the west bank. I welcome the Government’s condemnation of the 22 new settlements, and look forward to hearing words about the forced transfer from Palestinian villages that we are seeing this week. The Minister recognises the anger and frustration in this House; what more would he need to see happen before we took further action on sanctions against extremist Ministers, and took action to recognise Palestine at the UN conference in coming weeks? \p Hamish Falconer: The 22 settlements are not only appalling but illegal. We put in place sanctions against individuals and organisations on 20 May. Clearly, that has not deterred Minister Smotrich and others from continuing to try to expand settlements on the west bank. The viability of a two-state solution, and of the two states living side by side, is being undermined, and we will continue to take action to avert that. \p Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister rightly called for an independent inquiry into Israel’s behaviour in denying food, medicine and vital aid to the people of Gaza. In the same spirit, would he welcome an independent inquiry into the British Government’s policies in relation to F-35 jet parts, for example, because this seems to be becoming ever more mysterious? Apparently they are sold into the global supply chain, but we have no control over what happens to them; they might end up in the hands of Israel, or they might not. Is he seriously expecting the House to believe that the manufacturers of these components do not trace them, do not track them, do not label them, do not identify them? I think the Government know exactly where those parts are going and exactly that they are enabling those F-35 jets to bomb Gaza and take part in acts of genocide. Does this not deserve an independent inquiry? \p Hamish Falconer: We have talked about these issues many times. They are in the high courts being discussed in a judicial review at the moment. I do not see that this could be any further scrutinised and litigated or what an independent inquiry on the position of the F-35 parts would achieve. \p Kim Johnson: I was very proud to join thousands of protesters surrounding Parliament today, demanding to know what this Government’s red line is. Can the Minister tell this House what his red line is, and when he will stop arming Israel and stop F-35 bombers dropping bombs on schools and killing innocent children? \p Hamish Falconer: I think I have addressed most of those substantive points already. We are clear in our position: we have set it out repeatedly, privately and publicly, and no doubt I will be back in the House shortly. \p Vikki Slade: Under the UK strategic export licence criteria, licences are prohibited when there is a clear risk that items would undermine peace and security or, under criteria 7, where the controlled items might be diverted for such uses. Can the Minister confirm that the export of all items, both those with licences and those that sit outside the rules or that have authorised exemptions, is being reviewed so that, for instance, drones for decoys and surveillance used against civilians and aid convoys will fall under the restrictions and not go under the radar? \p Hamish Falconer: I hesitate in my answer because there are quite a few clauses in the question and I do not want to get it wrong. The effect of what I have said in Parliament binds all our export licences. There is not an asterisk or footnote that allows some way around; this is a full-reaching approach that has been set out repeatedly in Parliament and has been scrutinised by the Business and Trade Committee and the courts. There is no attempt to fudge the position; it is as I have set out. \p Louise Haigh: I recognise the Minister’s personal dedication to this issue and his efforts in achieving a ceasefire, but it is impossible to conclude that this is anything less than a genocide. On that basis, will he reflect the will of this House to the Foreign Secretary and the Cabinet that sanctions be imposed immediately on Netanyahu and his genocidal regime? \p Hamish Falconer: I know my right hon. Friend is committed to these issues. Determinations of genocide are for a competent court. I can confirm, as I did to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), that we are considering further targeted sanctions in line with the three leaders’ statement of recent weeks. \p Ayoub Khan: Dr al-Najjar along with nine of his 10 children were murdered when an Israeli bomb hit their home. All this happened while his wife, another doctor, served at Nasser hospital. We all know, and we have all seen, the many thousands of men, women and children lined up in a cage for food shot as if it was some sort of hunting game. We know also that former President Biden’s spokesman, Mr Miller, said to Sky during an interview that he had no doubt there were war crimes but that he did not say so, even though he was aware of it, when Biden was in power.  Does the Minister fear that he finds himself in the same position, and if he does not, why does he not do what the thousands encircling this Parliament have asked to be done and stop the arms to Israel? \p Hamish Falconer: With respect, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to these issues, it was not the badge or the protest that stopped the arms to Gaza. It was the Labour Government. That was the effect of voting for a Labour Government and having a Labour Government. [Interruption.] I hear the frustration of the House. I have set out what we have done so far. I have been clear that we will go further. The badge is nice, but action is what matters and that is what the Labour Government have done. \p Helen Hayes: The president of the International Committee of the Red Cross has described the situation in Gaza today as worse than hell on earth, but the Minister has come to the House today with a message that is exactly the same as it was two weeks ago. He condemns the settlements, but settlement goods are still being sold in our shops. He supports a two-state solution, but he has not recognised a Palestinian state. He disagrees with the Israeli Government, but he will not sanction their extremist Ministers. It is clear that the Government of Benjamin Netanyahu are not listening to the Minister’s words. In the context of the slaughter and starvation we are seeing in Gaza, the Government’s position is, frankly, not good enough. When will there be further action? \p Hamish Falconer: I would not want the House to have the impression that Foreign Office Ministers and the whole of the Government were not focused on these issues during the recess. We made statements on Sunday. We are working closely with our partners. We made a clear statement—on 19 May, I think—to the Israeli Government that there would be further consequences should the situation not improve, and I will return to this House when I am in a position to make further announcements. \p Manuela Perteghella: Can the Minister tell me how many more children must die before the Government finally ban the sales and export of all UK arms, including component parts, to the murderous Netanyahu Government? \p Hamish Falconer: I have seen children in Gaza. My Department was able to get two of them out of Gaza last week. [Interruption.] I understand the frustration of the House, but do not give the impression that what this Government are doing is not deeply focused on the fate of children in Gaza. I hear those on the Opposition Benches laughing; of course getting two children out of Gaza is not enough. We hear the reports across the House, but we are doing everything we can and we will continue to do so. \p Jacob Collier: The Minister referred to the joint statement with France and Canada on 20 May. Things have got worse since that point. Food distribution has been blocked entirely, hunger is being used as a weapon and innocent Palestinians are paying the price. If that statement is to hold up, will the Minister say what action he will be taking with France and Canada? \p Hamish Falconer: I cannot bind the French and Canadian Governments from the Dispatch Box, but we were clear that targeted sanctions would follow, among other actions, if there was not an improvement. I can commit to the House that that remains under review and I will return to this place to provide a further announcement. \p Adnan Hussain: The Prime Minister failed today to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara). Do the Government believe Israel is committing a genocide—yes or no? \p Hamish Falconer: It is a long-standing position that that is for a competent court to determine. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: The approach of the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation flies in the face of every established principle of humane and effective aid delivery, as has become quickly apparent. The head of the organisation has resigned and at least 42 Palestinians have been killed—killed—for simply trying to feed their starving families. That is an affront to all of us and to the basic principles of human dignity and respect. Does the Minister agree that there has to be full accountability for these atrocities? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend was an aid worker and she understands better than most the vital importance of those principles, not just in the middle east but right across the world. I join her and the Secretary-General in their calls. \p Nadia Whittome: Men, women and children in Gaza do not care that our Government have a profound disagreement with the Israeli Government. The Israeli Government do not care either, because they are continuing to act with impunity. It is quite simple: there is a genocide in Gaza being committed by the Israeli Government. We are complicit in that genocide. We have the power to act and we are not acting. What are we waiting for? Why have we not sanctioned Israel for its war crimes? Why have we not implemented a full arms embargo, including on F-35 fighter jet parts? Why have we not recognised the state of Palestine? We can do it, because rightly we did it for Ukraine. Why are we not treating Palestinian lives as equal? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for the question. She mentions Ukraine. Our actions have consequences. I understand that the House may disagree about the position the Government have set out about the global spares pool, but it is the strongly held view of this Government, including the Ministry of Defence, that we cannot stop sales to the global spares pool without harming the defence of NATO allies. At a moment of critical vulnerability for European security, the Government have to act responsibly across all their interests. Where F-35 parts are going directly to Israel they are suspended, but we want the F-35 programme to continue not only for reasons of our own national security, but that of our allies, including Ukraine. \p Paul Waugh: The horrific historic tragedy of the Palestinian people, and particularly the people of Gaza, is that they are at the mercy of two sets of extremists: the extremists of Hamas, but also the extremists of this Israeli Government. National Security Minister Ben-Gvir said giving aid to Gaza is

“a…mistake…delaying our victory.”

Finance Minister Smotrich said, “we are liberating Gaza” and “settling” it. The Minister talks about further steps. Surely, now is the time for us to sanction those individuals in the Israeli Government to prove that we do not endorse such extremism? \p Hamish Falconer: Let me be clear from this Dispatch Box: we do not endorse such extremism. I will not speculate about sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but it is clear that should the situation not improve, targeted sanctions will be considered. \p Clive Betts: I appreciate that, as Minister of State, my hon. Friend is limited in what he can say from the Dispatch Box, but will he convey back to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister the extreme disquiet and unease across the House, particularly on the Labour Benches, about the position the Government are adopting? Will he ask the Prime Minister to come back next week to update the Government’s position, tell us that more sanctions will be considered and that the recognition of the Palestinian state is also now on the agenda and will be forwarded? \p Hamish Falconer: The whole Government, from the Prime Minister down, know the extent of concern. I am not sure that they necessarily watch all these appearances, but do not be under any illusion: the whole Government understand the strength of feeling about these issues in this House, in our constituencies and across the country. \p Naushabah Khan: As if this situation could not get any worse, we now have damning reports that Israeli fire is killing Palestinians trying to access aid at militarised distribution centres that are not sanctioned by the UN. It shows complete disregard for human life. Does the Minister agree that enough is enough, and that now is the time to take immediate, stronger, further action against the Israeli Government? \p Hamish Falconer: I share my hon. Friend’s concern over events at the Rafah crossing and beyond. The scenes from Gaza are intolerable. I will return to this House when I am in a position to do so. \p Rachael Maskell: It is clear that this House has no confidence in the Government’s handling of the F-35 programme. I ask the Minister the following question: what is to stop the Government withdrawing from the programme and then bilaterally selling the parts to countries excluding Israel? This would ensure that we are compliant with international humanitarian law, and that no component manufactured in the UK is used to bomb innocent civilians in Gaza. \p Hamish Falconer: A unilateral withdrawal from the F-35 programme would have the effect of fully suspending the programme at a time it is required for global peace and security. \p Zarah Sultana: It is a disgrace that the Foreign Secretary is not here, but it is unsurprising. The majority of the British public support a full arms embargo on Israel, yet this Labour Government have  continued to supply arms exports, including components for lethal F-35 fighter jets, thereby enabling genocide. Those jets are not used in Ukraine, so Ministers need to stop saying that at the Dispatch Box. The Government have also defended this indefensible policy in court, claiming they have seen “no evidence” of genocide. The evidence is overwhelming—we know it, the Minister knows it and the Government know it. Does the Minister understand that through the decisions he makes every single day, he is personally complicit in genocide? \p Hamish Falconer: I would like to address the point about F-35s not being used in Ukraine. The importance of the F-35 programme to Ukraine is that the deployment of F-35s allows a redeployment of F-15s, which are used in the defence of Ukraine. Convenient though it would be to the House, it is not possible to divide up defence and national security in that way. I am confident in what I say from the Dispatch Box: the F-35 programme helps to protect Ukraine. \p Calvin Bailey: I welcome the Minister’s statement and his efforts, but he must sense our frustration at the inability to arrest the situation we are seeing in Gaza and the occupied territories. In the past few days, we have seen 58 people killed and many more injured in and around the GHF aid distribution sites. Those of us who have participated in UN operations in the past know that this should have been foreseen—it confirms all our fears about what happens when humanitarian principles are disregarded. Let us be clear: Israel is continually and deliberately undermining the institutions of international law, and we need to respond more strongly. Israel is not listening. When will the Government announce sanctions on Israel’s extremist Government? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend, who served for a long time in the RAF, as well as in the United Nations. These issues are desperate. As he knows, we have taken actions against Israeli settlers and extremists, and we have been clear that if the Israeli Government do not change course, there will be further measures, including targeted sanctions. \p Lizzi Collinge: It is clear to all that the actions of the Israeli Government are morally abhorrent. I welcome the further sanctions announced by the Secretary of State two weeks ago, but I plead with the Minister now: we must go further on sanctions and consider trade measures. Like the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), I now believe it is time to recognise the Palestinian state. I was willing to accept the Government’s position on it, but I cannot any longer. I beg the Minister: come back to this House extremely soon—tomorrow, or next week—with further concrete measures. \p Hamish Falconer: I have heard the force of my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I recognise the feeling right across the House on the need to see the situation in Gaza change. It is an urgency that is felt by Government. \p Andy McDonald: It is increasingly accepted that Israel’s military operation in Gaza, having forcibly displaced and starved millions of Palestinians and killed tens of thousands,  amounts to a genocide. The latest feature of that is its aid distribution process, which today does not deliver aid; instead, it is a dehumanising death trap that sees a child receiving treatment in a tent being shot in the head through the side of the tent. For the UK to end its complicity, it must pull all the levers to stop Israel’s military action immediately. There needs to be a shift away from condemnation and demands for Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law to a clear, unequivocal commitment that if Israel does not comply, it will be forced to comply by whatever means. Will the Minister make that commitment? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has a long commitment to these issues, and we were discussing them through the recess. Clearly, the situation in relation to aid in Gaza remains absolutely desperate. We condemn those scenes—we did so on Sunday. We have been clear in our views about the new aid mechanism, but let us not escape from the fundamental position of the British Government, which is that we oppose this operation in Gaza. We are calling on all those involved to return to a ceasefire. That is what we are working towards. \p Olivia Blake: Colleagues from right across the House have expressed their frustration with the contradictory things that the Minister has said in response to our questions. We have heard that there will be a change when there is a change, and that there will be new steps when new steps are available, yet in the same statement he has outlined how Israel’s newly introduced measures for aid delivery are inhumane, foster desperation and endanger civilians. Surely, this week has shown that there has been yet another change, and that now is the time for action and for changing our response. \p Hamish Falconer: I do not think that what I have said has been incoherent. On 19 May, we announced leader-level statements, setting out our position. On 20 May, the Foreign Secretary came to the Dispatch Box to announce concrete new measures. I hear that Members would have liked me to come to the House this afternoon to announce further measures. We have been clear—at the level of Prime Minister, alongside our allies, as one of three with France and Canada and with 26 partners—about the need for change. I hear that the House would have liked further measures announced this afternoon. I have committed to return when I am in a position to do so. \p Richard Burgon: I must take issue with the Minister, when he said that the people outside this place wearing badges and marching are not making a difference. All that members of the public can do is wear badges and march, whereas Ministers in a Government can bring sanctions, end arms sales and hold the war criminal Netanyahu to account. Quite rightly, this Government have labelled Russia’s actions in Ukraine as war crimes, and accordingly they brought in significant widespread sanctions. When will they do the same in relation to Israel? Otherwise, this reeks of double standards, and Netanyahu will see the Minister and this Government as a weak, weak, weak pushover and a joke. \p Hamish Falconer: Let me be clear: I was not seeking to disparage the efforts of activists or protesters. My hon. Friend asks when we will suspend arms to Gaza. We  have suspended arms to Gaza. I hear the frustration of the House, but the Labour Government took steps, and I am proud of the steps that we have taken. I hear the frustration—that Members want us to go further—but let us not pretend that this Government have done nothing. The scenes in Gaza are deeply distressing. The Government have been clear, as I have been clear this afternoon, that we will take further steps if things do not change, but we have taken measures and we will continue to do so. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: That is the end of the statement, which has been going on for about 90 minutes. \p Kirsty Blackman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had an hour and a half of questions. It is very unusual for almost every Member in this House to be speaking with one voice. I wonder whether she could give me some guidance. When something is the preserve of the Executive, meaning that it is only the Government who can take action—for example, on international sanctions, on arms sales and on many of the points we have been discussing today in relation to Netanyahu or other Ministers in the Israeli Government—how can Members in this House, who have spoken with one voice today, ensure that actual change is made? In this case, it is the responsibility not of this House but of the Government, and they do not seem to be listening at the moment. \p Nusrat Ghani: The hon. Member has most definitely put her point on the record and those on the Treasury Bench will have been listening. It is not a matter for the Chair, but there are many opportunities that she can take up to put pressure on the Government; the Table Office can advise on that. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for establishing an independent public inquiry into UK involvement in Israeli military operations in Gaza; to require the inquiry to consider any UK military, economic or political cooperation with Israel since October 2023, including the sale, supply or use of weapons, surveillance aircraft and Royal Air Force bases; to provide the inquiry with the power to question Ministers and officials about decisions taken in relation to UK involvement; and for connected purposes.

In the aftermath of the Iraq war, several attempts were made to establish an inquiry surrounding the conduct of British military operations. The Government of the day spent many years resisting those attempts and demands for an inquiry. However, they could not prevent the inevitable, and in 2016 we had the publication of the Chilcot inquiry, which Sir John Chilcot had undertaken over several years. The report found serious failings within the British Government, who ignored the warnings of millions of ordinary people who had been protesting on the streets against the invasion. I was the leader of the Labour party when the report came out, and I apologised on behalf of the Labour party for the catastrophic decision to go to war in Iraq.

History is now repeating itself. Over the past 18 months, human beings have endured a level of horror and inhumanity that should haunt us all forever: entire families wiped out; limbs strewn across the street; mothers screaming for their children buried under the rubble; human beings torn to pieces; doctors performing amputations without anaesthetic; and children picking grass and dirt from the ground, thinking that they might find something edible. The survivors will face lifelong mental health consequences that will go on for generations. Home by home, hospital by hospital and generation by generation, we are not just witnessing a war; we are witnessing a genocide—this time being livestreamed all over the world. Today, the death toll in Gaza exceeds 61,000, and at least 110,000 people—one in 20 of the entire population—have been severely injured. Two Israeli officials are now wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

Britain has played a highly influential role in Israel’s military operations. First, Britain has been supplying weapons to Israel that are being used to bomb the people of Palestine. This, of course, started with the previous Conservative Government, but it has continued with the current Labour Government. In fact, between October and December 2024 alone, more arms export licences were granted than were approved by the previous Government for the whole of 2020 and 2023.

In September ’23, the Government suspended some licences but continued to allow the supply of F-35 components to the global pool. The Foreign Secretary has accepted the fact that F-35 jets are being used in violation of international humanitarian law, yet at the same time he admits that those parts go into the global supply chain and could therefore go to Israel. The Government know full well the implications. By justifying the continued licensing of those parts, our Government  are admitting their complicity in what are, quite clearly, war crimes. I find it truly astounding that they are telling us loud and clear that their participation in this programme is more important than upholding international law and the convention on genocide. It is very simple: until this Government end the sale of weapons to Israel, they will remain complicit in the mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza at the present time.

Secondly, many of us have repeatedly asked for the truth regarding the role of British military bases in Cyprus. Since October 2023, military cargo has been airlifted from RAF Akrotiri to Israel. That cargo has often travelled to Cyprus from US military bases in other parts of Europe. Meanwhile, RAF Shadow aircraft have been conducting nightly surveillance flights over Gaza. When the Prime Minister visited RAF Akrotiri last December, he told troops:

“The whole world and everyone back at home is relying on you… Quite a bit of what goes on here can’t necessarily be talked about all of the time. We can’t necessarily tell the world what you’re doing.”

A recent report by the British Palestinian Committee said that the UK Government are “engaged in military actions without being subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and that these actions implicate its institutions and officials in the gravest breaches of international law.”

Over the past 18 months, our questions have been met with evasion, obstruction and silence, leaving the public in the dark over the way in which the responsibilities of government have been discharged. Transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of democracy. The public deserve to know the scale of UK complicity in these atrocities. Any meaningful inquiry would require the co-operation of both Governments—Conservative and Labour—involved in decision making processes since October 2023.

The inquiry needs to ask the following questions. What arms have been supplied to Israel? Which of those weapons have been used in Gaza and the west bank? Is the Government’s position that they cannot or will not bring the F-35 programme into line with the UK’s legal obligations? What is RAF Akrotiri being used for? Is it being used as a route for weapons that are being deployed in Gaza? How many US air force flights have flown from RAF Akrotiri to Israel since October 2023? Have Israel’s F-35 jets been stored and repaired at RAF bases, whether Akrotiri or anywhere else? What video footage do the Government have of the war zone from RAF flights? Will they release that footage? What intelligence has been passed on to Israel? What legal advice have the Government received over an assessment of genocide? When will they publish that advice?

I finish by reminding the House that in October 2023 many of us called for an immediate ceasefire, for the bombing to stop and for the release of all hostages. We  condemned those attacks but expressed alarm over the wholly disproportionate nature of the response. We warned that we were witnessing the beginning of the total annihilation of Gaza and we pleaded with political leaders on both sides to call for peace. Today, some politicians have finally begun to backtrack a bit—perhaps they are frightened of the consequences and of their own inhumanity. If there was any integrity in this, all those who support the operation of the military there would weep for the 61,000 Palestinian lives lost, buried under the rubble, and the moral cowardice of politicians in this country and others who have allowed it to go on.

Today, we teach children about history’s worst war crimes against humanity. They are asked to reflect about how those crimes ever came about. Our future history books will report with shame those who had the opportunity to stop the carnage but failed to act to achieve it.

We will continue our campaigns in the House and outside because we are appalled at what is happening. Our demonstrations and the huge demonstrations in this country and all around the world are made up of people of all ages and all faiths, and actually quite a wide range of political opinion. They are united with the simple human request that we stop the bombing and save lives, and we will do that by no longer supplying weapons. We will continue to campaign for truth, for accountability and, most importantly, for peace and justice for the Palestinian people, who have been denied all that for far too long. If the Bill is agreed to—I hope that it will be—this will be a step forward in opening up the murky history of what has gone on, with murky arms sales and complicity in appalling acts of genocide. \p Nusrat Ghani: The Question is, That the right hon. Member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. [Hon. Members: “Aye!”] And of the contrary, No. \p Several hon. Members: No! \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I remind Members that vote must follow voice. A Member who opposes a motion by shouting “No” may not then vote in favour of it if there is a Division. I will give it one more go.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Jeremy Corbyn, Ayoub Khan, Mr Adnan Hussain, Shockat Adam, Zarah Sultana, Apsana Begum, Brian Leishman, Richard Burgon, Kim Johnson, Ellie Chowns, Ann Davies and Brendan O’Hara present the Bill.

Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 254). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of introducing a country of origin marking for ceramic products sold in the United Kingdom.

(2) A report setting out the outcome of the assessment must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.

(3) In this section—

‘ceramic product’ means a product—

(a) shaped from clay and hardened by high temperature;

(b) intended for use as tableware, kitchenware, or ornamentation;

(c) intended for sale; and

(d) made after this section comes into force;

‘country of origin’ means the country (including any constituent country of the United Kingdom) where the majority of the clay that comprises the product was first hardened by high temperature;

‘country of origin marking’ means a marking on the product stating the country in which the product was made.”—(Gareth Snell.)

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Gareth Snell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Nusrat Ghani: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Requirement to inform customers about changes to prepackaged products—

“(1) A supermarket must inform customers if—

(a) there has been an increase in price per unit of measurement in any prepackaged product sold by the supermarket; and

(b) this increase has resulted from a decrease in the quantity of the goods included within the package.

(2) The requirement to inform customers must include a statement attached to the product, or placed alongside the product.

(3) The statement must—

(a) include the amount the quantity has decreased by and the amount the price per unit of measure has increased by;

(b) be the same font size as the unit price of the product and must be visible and legible; and

(c) be in place from the date of the change in unit quantity and remain in place for the following 60 days.

(4) In this section—

‘prepackaged product’ is a product that has been wrapped or placed in a container before being made available for retail;

‘quantity of goods’ includes, but is not limited to—

(a) weight of goods;

(b) volume of goods;

(c) number of units;

‘supermarket’ is a store with a sales area greater than 400m² of which 50% or more of the products sold are food products.”

This new clause would place a requirement on supermarkets to inform customers when the quantity of goods within the product had decreased resulting in a price increase per unit of measurement.

New clause 3—Reviews of potential country of origin labelling for meat products—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin of beef products sourced from the United States on menus.

(2) The review must consider—

(a) the potential public health, environmental, and animal welfare concerns related to beef production standards in the United States compared to those in the United Kingdom;

(b) the practicality of creating regulations for the labelling of beef for food service businesses equivalent to the Beef and Veal Labelling (England) Regulations 2010;

(c) consumer demand for country of origin information in relation to beef products; and

(d) the practicality and cost implications for the hospitality sector.

(3) The Secretary of State must, in undertaking the review, consult with representatives of the food and hospitality sectors, the National Farmers Union, food safety bodies, animal welfare groups, and any other stakeholders deemed relevant.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before Parliament within 6 months of the passing of this Act.

(5) Within 6 months of laying the report under subsection (5) the Government must undertake a further review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin labelling for any meat product from any country with reference to the outcomes of the report under subsection (5).

(6) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review under subsection (6) before Parliament within 6 months of the launch of that review.”

This new clause requires the Government to undertake reviews into the feasibility of requiring food businesses to disclose the country of origin of meat products on menus.

New clause 4—Labelling for UK-produced or manufactured products—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a voluntary labelling system to indicate when a product has been produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom.

(2) The label must be—

(a) displayed clearly on the front-facing packaging of applicable goods;

(b) standardised in appearance, including a nationally recognised symbol or wording indicating UK origin; and

(c) legible, visible and no smaller in font size than the unit price display or equivalent information on the product.

(3) A product qualifies for the label if—

(a) it is wholly or substantially produced, manufactured, grown or reared in the United Kingdom; and

(b) it meets any additional criteria as set out by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must consult food producers, retailers, consumer groups and relevant trade associations before setting the criteria for qualifying products and the design of the label.

(5) The Secretary of State must undertake a promotional campaign to ensure consumers are aware of the new labelling system.

(6) Regulations under this section must be made within 2 months of the passing of this Act.

(7) In this section—

‘product’ includes food, drink and manufactured goods available for retail sale;

‘produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom’ includes goods where the final significant production process occurred in the UK.”

This new clause would require the Government to introduce a voluntary labelling system, clearly marking goods produced or manufactured in the UK, helping consumers make informed choices and supporting domestic producers.

New clause 5—Support and Guidance for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises—

“(1) The Secretary of State must produce and maintain guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to comply with any provisions made by regulations under this Act.

(2) The guidance must include—

(a) a summary of the key provisions of the Act relevant to SMEs;

(b) practical advice on compliance requirements;

(c) information on any available financial, technical, or advisory support; and

(d) contact details for further enquiries or assistance.

(3) The first version of the guidance must be published on the day this Act is passed.

(4) Each time regulations are made under this Act, a revised version of the guidance must be published on the day the regulations are made.”

This new clause would ensure that guidance and support for SMEs on the impact of the Bill should be available 60 days before implementation.

New clause 6—Review of access to testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)—

(1) The relevant Minister must undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act.

(2) The review must include consideration of—

(a) the typical costs incurred by SMEs in meeting relevant testing and certification requirements;

(b) the availability and capacity of accredited testing providers serving SMEs;

(c) any barriers to market access arising from testing and certification obligations; and

(d) potential non-financial measures to support SMEs in meeting compliance requirements.

(3) The Minister must publish a report on the findings of the review, including any recommendations, within 12 months of the commencement of this section.”

This new clause would require the Government to undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act.

New clause 7—Liability and redress for unsafe or defective products—

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for—

(a) the extension of liability for unsafe or defective products to online marketplaces and any other persons within the scope of section 2(3);

(b) the disclosure of evidence in relation to claims for compensation or other rights of action in law for harm caused by unsafe or defective products and presumptions of liability that may arise accordingly;

(c) proceedings, including collective proceedings, to ensure redress for consumers or other individuals suffering harm as a result of unsafe or defective products made available in breach of requirements imposed under powers given by this Act.”

This new clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for liability of online marketplaces for defective and unsafe products, and to ensure that those suffering harm from unsafe or defective products can obtain redress.

New clause 8—Alignment with EU law—

“(1) Where equivalent or similar EU law exists in relation to relevant product regulations, the Secretary of State must, when making provision under section 1, update Parliament on whether the Government proposes to vary the regulations from alignment with EU law.

(2) If the Secretary of State believes divergence from relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this divergence, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.

(3) If the Secretary of State believes alignment with the relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this alignment, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.

(4) The statement under subsection (2) or (3) must include the date by which any such regulations will be reviewed, which can be no later than 36 months after implementation.”

This new clause provides greater regulatory certainty for UK businesses by requiring scrutiny of all decisions to diverge or align with EU regulations and a process for Parliamentary scrutiny and review, whether Ministers determine that divergence or alignment from such regulations would be in the best interests of the UK.

New clause 9—Inclusion of lithium-ion batteries as a priority product category—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make regulations under this Act to include lithium-ion batteries as a specified product category subject to relevant safety, performance, labelling, environmental, and end-of-life requirements.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must include—

(a) provisions for minimum safety and performance standards for lithium-ion batteries placed on the UK market;

(b) requirements for clear labelling, including information on capacity, cycle life, and safe handling;

(c) obligations for manufacturers and importers relating to fire safety, product recalls, and end-of-life disposal or recycling;

(d) powers for market surveillance authorities to take enforcement action in relation to non-compliant lithium-ion batteries.

(3) In this section, a ‘lithium-ion battery’ means any rechargeable battery containing lithium compounds as a primary component of the electrochemical cell.[KM1]

(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the following stakeholders—

(a) representatives of the battery industry,

(b) environmental groups,

(c) consumer safety organisations,

(d) fire services, and

(e) any other person whom the Secretary of State considers to be relevant.”

This new clause would ensure that Lithium-ion batteries are included in the Bill.

New clause 10—Duties of online marketplaces—

“(1) Without prejudice to the generality of any other powers or duties conferred by this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about requirements that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e), including regarding duties—

(a) to operate an online marketplace using effective systems and processes designed to monitor for, and identify, products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals and prevent such products being made available on or through the online marketplace;

(b) to cooperate with relevant authorities, with other persons mentioned in subsection 2(3) or any other relevant persons, to facilitate any action taken to eliminate or, if that is not possible, to mitigate the risks presented by a product that is or was made available on or through their online marketplace;

(c) to ensure that information regarding the identity and activities of persons marketing products on or through online marketplaces to consumers or other individuals is obtained and verified;

(d) to remove products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals from availability on or through an online marketplace as quickly as possible if alerted to their presence or becomes aware of it in any other way.

(2) Within 3 months from the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a statement that sets out how the Secretary of State is exercising, or expects to exercise, the powers under subsection (1) regarding the proposed duties that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e).”

This new clause provides a list of duties that must be imposed upon online marketplaces by regulations, and for a statement by the Secretary of State to be made to Parliament within 3 months of Royal Assent regarding the exercise of the duties conferred by this section.

New clause 11—Product recall—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make regulations on product recall processes.

(2) The regulations must include provision to ensure—

(a) the creation and maintenance of a publicly accessible, government-hosted online database of all active product recalls affecting the UK market;

(b) clear obligations on manufacturers, importers, and distributors to notify the appropriate enforcement authority and upload recall notices to the database promptly upon identification of a safety risk;

(c) that recall notices include details of the affected product, risks identified, corrective action to be taken, and information on how consumers can claim a refund, replacement, or repair; and

(d) minimum standards for direct communication to affected consumers, including by email, SMS, or postal notice where reasonably practicable.

(3) The regulations must establish consumer rights entitling individuals to—

(a) a full refund, suitable replacement, or repair of a recalled product within a reasonable timeframe;

(b) access to support and guidance through the recall process, including where a product is no longer in production.

(4) The Secretary of State must consult with consumer protection organisations, trading standards bodies, manufacturers, and other relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section.”

This new clause would ensure that a centralised Product Recall Mechanism is established to protect consumers.

New clause 12—Local weights and measures authorities: review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the funding and capabilities of local weights and measures authorities to carry out in an effective way their enforcement responsibilities under the regulatory framework provided by this Act and other trading standards and consumer protection laws.

(2) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult regulators and other persons likely to be affected by the review, including such representatives of consumer and business organisations as they consider appropriate.”

This new clause provides for the Secretary of State to carry out a review of how the funding and capabilities of Trading Standards authorities affects their enforcement activities, to consult appropriate bodies and stakeholders and to lay the review before Parliament.

New clause 13—International agreements—

“(1) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section (1)(2) or section (2)(7) that will disadvantage the United Kingdom or its trade under—

(a) the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership,

(b) the Japan Economic Comprehensive Partnership Agreement,

(c) the UK-Canada Continuity Trade Agreement,

(d) The UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement,

(e) the UK-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, or

(f) any other trade treaties to which the United Kingdom is, or becomes, a signatory, including any free trade agreement with the United States of America and India.”

This new clause would prevent the Secretary of State making regulations to align with EU standards which would damage the UK’s current or future trade agreements.

New clause 14—Review Panel—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review panel (“the Panel”) no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act comes into force.

(2) The Panel must—

(a) carry out a review of all regulations under this Act corresponding to, similar to, or making references to, the requirements of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), with a view to establishing—

(i) their effect on economic growth;

(ii) their effect on trade in the product concerned on a global basis;

(iii) their effect on the relevant industry or industries within the United Kingdom;

(b) prepare a report of the review, and

(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, no later than 12 months from the date of the Panel’s creation.

(3) The Panel must consist of—

(a) at least one person with expertise in economics;

(b) at least one person with expertise in trade policy;

(c) at least one person with expertise in domestic regulation of business.”

This new clause would ensure a review and report to Parliament of any regulations aligning UK regulations with those of other countries or territories.

New clause 15—Consultation on committee to examine changes to product regulations—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission a consultation on the creation of a committee on changes to product regulations.

(2) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider the suitability of current scrutiny mechanisms for assessing regulations created through the powers created or amended by the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025.

(3) A consultation under subsection (1) must consult—

(a) the Chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee,

(b) the Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee,

(c) the Chair of the House of Commons Liaison Committee,

(d) the Chair of the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and

(e) the House of Commons Commission.

(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after receiving a report of a consultation under subsection (1), lay before both Houses of Parliament—

(a) a copy of the report of the consultation, and

(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to that consultation.”

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on the establishment of a House of Commons committee that would examine all changes to product regulations which are made by the powers granted by this legislation.

New clause 16—Regulations: requirement for certification—

“When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must certify that their effect is not to undermine the resolve of our constitutional arrangements to honour the choice of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by means of subjecting the United Kingdom to the same law as the European Union so it could subsequently be argued that the United Kingdom should rejoin so it has a voice in making the legislation rather than adopting legislation that has already been made by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers.”

New clause 17—Brexit good faith statement—

“When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must provide a statement (a “Brexit good faith statement”) setting out how in the development of the regulations it has sought to honour the decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by developing, through the regulations, a legislative framework that intentionally seeks to exploit the opportunities afforded by Brexit to develop competitive and other advantages for the United Kingdom compared with the European Union in the global marketplace.”

Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1).

This amendment seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under product regulations, when defining and regulating risks and determining what constitutes efficient or effective product operation.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations about the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom which corresponds, or is similar to, a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 9, leave out “also”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.

Amendment 32, page 1, line 10, leave out “the United Kingdom” and insert “Great Britain”.

Amendment 25, page 1, line 11, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.

Amendment 12, page 1, line 13, leave out “(1) or”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.

Amendment 7, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(3A) Further, the Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsections (1) or (2) if satisfied that making the regulations will not result in reducing the necessary levels of consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products, with reference where applicable to equivalent product regulations or standards in force at the time.”

This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from making regulations unless satisfied that the regulations will not reduce consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 21, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must also by regulations make provision aimed at promoting investment, fostering innovation, and encouraging economic growth in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom.

(4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) must support—

(a) the creation of economic incentives for businesses that contribute to economic growth, and

(b) the alignment of product regulations with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation.”

This amendment ensures that the regulations in the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.

Amendment 26, page 2, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert—

“‘relevant foreign law’ means law of one or more of the United States of America, Canada, Japan, the European Union, Switzerland, Australia, or New Zealand relating to standards, the marketing, or use of products in those markets, which are in force on a specific date and only that date, as specified in regulations;”

Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert—

“(2A) Product regulations must include requirements in relation to an environmental impact assessment, and provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy.”

This amendment guarantees that future regulations under the Act will include provisions which relate to the circular economy and granting consumers the right to repair products.

Amendment 3, page 3, line 21, at end insert—

“(fa) a person involved on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f), in product marketing or the use of products, including storage, transportation, packaging, labelling or disposal;”.

This amendment closes a potential loophole in the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that, whatever their legal status or location, all relevant organisations in the supply chain, including fulfilment houses, can be held accountable by regulations to protect consumers from non-compliant goods.

Amendment 16, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).

This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met.

Amendment 27, page 3, line 41, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.

Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

“(7A) Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.”

This amendment prevents the Bill enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and only enables alignment with laws as they stand on a particular defined date.

Amendment 15, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

“(7A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.”

Amendment 28, page 4, line 5, at end insert—

“(8A) Before making provision described in subsection (7), the Secretary of State must make a statement in Parliament if the provision relates to relevant foreign law of only one of the markets listed in the definition of ‘relevant foreign law’ in section 1(7).”

This amendment, and Amendments 25, 26 and 27, open up the possibility of defining product regulations by relation to the laws of countries other than the European Union, and require the justification of decisions to limit any such reference to the laws of one territory only.

Amendment 29, page 4, line 5, at end insert—

“(8B) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act shall be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.

(8C) The enforcement of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”

This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to foreign law, notably that of the EU, from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or the CJEU).

Amendment 13, page 4, line 6, at end insert—

“(10) The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if—

(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and

(b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when aligning with EU law, and for Parliament to approve that provision before aligning with EU law.

Amendment 17, page 4, line 6, at end insert—

“(10) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.

(11) The enforcement of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”

This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to EU law from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or CJEU).

Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out subsections (1) and (2).

Amendment 22, page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 23, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 24, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11).

Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 11, line 37, at end insert—

“‘circular economy’ means that products are manufactured to minimise waste and maximise the use, reuse, and recyclability of products;”.

This amendment clarifies the meaning of “circular economy” and is consequential on Amendment 5.

Amendment 4, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

“(e) provision described in section [Product recall].”

Amendment 1, in clause 13, page 13, line 4, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 5.

This amendment would make all regulations under this act subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment 2, page 13, line 8, leave out subsections (4) and (5)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 30, page 13, line 8, at end insert—

“(za) provision described in section 2(7);”

This amendment would ensure that the affirmative parliamentary procedure will apply to regulations under Clause 2(7), that is, any regulations which include referenced to relevant foreign law.

Amendment 31, page 13, line 19, at end insert—

“(4A) Any regulations made under section 1(1) or (2) which correspond to, are similar to, or make a reference to the requirement of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), expire at the end of four years from the date on which they come into force.”

Amendment 18, page 13, line 24, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

(6B) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—

(a) conduct a consultation for a period of no less than six weeks;

(b) publish a statement outlining the purpose and necessity of the proposed regulations, the expected impact on businesses, consumers, and enforcement bodies, and the outcome of the consultation.

(6C) Within six months of any regulations made under this section which amend or repeal primary legislation, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of that regulation and lay it before Parliament.”

This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Amendment 33, page 13, line 24, at end insert—

“(6A) Where the regulations are for the purpose of applying to Great Britain regulations already applied to Northern Ireland by the European Union, Northern Ireland must also be involved in the said consultation on an equal basis with the rest of the United Kingdom.” \p Gareth Snell: I wish to speak briefly to new clause 1, which is a probing amendment that seeks to establish a couple of facts. I will start, however, by thanking the Minister for his time yesterday and for engaging with me on the matter. I know that he takes the matter of how we protect ceramics in the UK, and indeed how we can enhance that protection, as seriously as I do.

New clause 1 is a short amendment that simply asks the Government to explore and consider how we can better protect ceramics from counterfeit production, ensuring that when we buy something that purports to  have been made in the UK, that is in fact the case. Most ceramics have something called a backstamp. If we turn over any piece of tableware or giftware in the UK, we normally see a stamp showing the company that made it and the country of origin. Most notably, for most pieces it states either “Made in England” or, even better, “Made in Stoke-on-Trent”. \p Adam Jogee: In Staffordshire. \p Gareth Snell: Yes, that is in Staffordshire, as my hon. Friend says. There are factories in Newcastle-under-Lyme as well.

We are, however, seeing a proliferation of companies that seek to pass off material not made in the UK. Its firing will have taken place overseas and it will then be imported into the UK, with the decorating and final glost firing or hand-decorating stage happening in the UK, and with simply the word “England” put on to it. That way, the consumer thinks that the thing they are buying is a UK-made product, when in fact it is not.

There are many great companies in Stoke-on-Trent, which I know hon. Friends will reference in their speeches. I will speak briefly of Duchess, Churchill, Steelite, Emma Bridgewater and the companies that proudly put “Made in England” on the back of their products, because everything they do is made in England. The clay is first moulded, first fired, glazed, decorated, second fired and sold in the UK. It is a genuinely British product, and there is value in that product. We know from the export markets to South Korea and America, in particular, that those customers want to buy products that are made in the UK.

There are some companies that quite honestly import from overseas and they are very clear about that. Plates made by some companies in my constituency, such as Portmeirion, quite clearly state that they have been made in China, but they sit alongside products made in the UK. The company is very up front about that; it does not seem to hide it or to try to confuse the consumer. It is clear about the fact that it imports some of its ware from overseas.

Some companies, however, simply seek to put the word “England” on the back of their products. That will be because the company is probably English registered, or it is one of the UK’s historical brands that have a long affinity with Stoke-on-Trent, even if the manufacturing processes no longer takes place there. A consumer will turn that product over and see the name of one of our historical companies and a date, normally from the 1700s or 1800s, and they will see the word “England” underneath it. It is completely and utterly understandable for them to look at that and think, “This is a product made in England”, but often it is not.

New clause 1 asks the Government to come forward with an investigation to consider whether there is merit in protecting things that are made in the UK by having that country of origin stamp, specifically for ceramics. I know that the Liberal Democrats have tabled a similar amendment today that would do this for a whole host of products. I am glad that we are using similar language on this, because whether it is food or any other products unrelated to ceramics, if they have been made in the UK they should clearly say so. My new clause specifically  looks at ceramics, and I will not deviate into the speech that I am sure will come from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Another aspect that the Minister graciously made time to discuss yesterday is the companies, particularly Chinese companies, that now seek to copy the backstamp. We have some great examples from a company called Dunoon in Staffordshire that makes excellent ware. If a consumer buys an item from the company’s shops, it will have “Made in the UK” written on the bottom, and little stickers on it that say “Made in the UK”. I have in my office some Chinese copies that have copied the “Made in the UK” sticker and the “Made in the UK” backstamp. These are sold through drop-shipping companies online, so tracing where they actually come from is very difficult.

Any consumer who collects that sort of material would be forgiven for thinking that they were buying something online that had been made in the UK. It will have a “Made in the UK” backstamp and sticker, and all the design elements match almost perfectly the ones that are made in the UK, but the consumer will have no idea where it was made. They will also have no idea whether there are elements of mercury and cadmium in the glaze that has been used, whether the pigments used to decorate it meet the standards we have in the UK, or whether it meets the food contact regulations that are required in the UK for items used for drinking or eating off. The consumer will have no idea about the quality of the clay, or what has been added to the clay before firing. Sometimes, in products that are imported into the UK from less good manufacturers, the clay will have been mixed with material that can have a harmful effect on the consumer.

New clause 1 simply asks the Government to consider the merits of a country of origin marking scheme for ceramics. It does not commit the Government to bringing forward such a scheme. I have a ten-minute rule Bill, which is currently waiting for a free Friday, when it can get an airing and we can discuss that in more detail. This is about trying to establish the principle that there are things that are made in the UK that we value, and that if we know they have value because they are made in the UK, we should do all we can to try and protect that. \p Adam Jogee: I am pleased to have put my name to the new clause tabled by my neighbour in Stoke-on-Trent Central. Does he agree, notwithstanding his comments, that much of this is also about pride? It is about pride in our people, pride in the skill of our people and pride in the vital ceramics industry, not just in Stoke-on-Trent Central and Newcastle-under-Lyme but in many other parts of Staffordshire, as he has noted. \p Gareth Snell: As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We in Stoke-on-Trent can talk at length about that pride, but I will not do so today, I promise, although we can talk about our pride that is associated with our industrial heritage.

Rob Flello, who once served in this place and is now the chief executive of Ceramics UK, told me when I first met him that in Stoke-on-Trent people think we have slip in our veins—slip being the wet clay used for mould casting. That is because the ceramics industry in the city is intrinsic to who we are. It is an incredibly  important part of our heritage, but it is also a really important part of our future. We can make industrial ceramics, including those strategic ceramics that go into nuclear submarines and into joints for hips and elbows, as well as some of the technical ceramics that are needed in steel and glass making in the UK. Steel and glass cannot be made in the UK without ceramics; a refractory-grade ceramic is needed, because it can withstand heat that would ordinarily melt glass or metal. I know the Minister is well versed on this, because I have bent his ear on the subject on more occasions that he may have cared for.

The ceramics sector is having a tough time, but there is hope on the horizon; I am sure that the industrial strategy will give some relief on energy costs. We are keen to encourage people to buy British-manufactured goods with pride, in order to support jobs in the localities where the industry is dominant. New clause 1 simply asks the Government to consider the merits of country of origin marking.

In my constituency, there is pride in every piece made. In fact, in some factories, people who make and decorate a piece put their initials on the bottom along with the company stamp. Quite often, they can identify their own work in shops because their way of painting and applying transfers is unique to them; it becomes a fingerprint. New clause 1 encourages people to buy British, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) have been doing—[Interruption.]—and the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), of course. When people go out and buy that piece of tableware or giftware, and are trying to do their bit to support our industry, if they turn it over and see “Made in England” or “Made in Stoke-on-Trent”, they should have absolutely confidence that what they are buying is made in those places.

New clause 1 is purely for probing purposes. It was tabled to get the Minister’s attention, and his time yesterday allowed me to do that. I know it will not go much further than this, but I am grateful to the Government for their discussions with me. I know the Minister has great consideration for the importance of place in the industrial strategy, and I know from our conversations that he understands why we are pushing the ceramics line hard in Stoke-on-Trent. All I will say is that as future Bills progress, we will aim to bring is provisions back in other formats and ways, because while this Bill may not be the most appropriate place for it, there will be other opportunities for it. I hope that when that time comes, the Government may feel able to support us. \p Jim Allister: I agree and endorse what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said. He makes logical and coherent points, and the Bill could be used as a vehicle for his suggestion. I therefore support his new clause 1 and new clause 4, which is of a similar ilk.

However, aspects of the Bill are democratically dangerous, because it gifts to Government unbridled capacity to make regulations, with virtually no oversight from this  elected House, on matters which touch on not just the sanctity of our product production, but the sovereignty of this nation. This Bill, with little attempt at subtlety, enables a Government, if so minded—this one, I fear, might be—to sabotage Brexit in many ways. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think a single member of this Government voted for Brexit, which was the settled and declared will of the people greatest number of people who ever participated in a democratic vote in this nation. Yet in the Bill, we have the capacity, particularly through clause 2(7), to dynamically align all our regulations with those of the EU, without having recourse to this House, at the whim of the Executive. Whatever the subject matter, that surely is a most unhealthy situation. \p Richard Holden: The hon. and learned Member is making an important point, which is why I will support the Opposition amendments in this vein today. Does he agree that the reports from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords are important in bringing to light just how skeletal the Bill is, and is that not a reason why we should pay attention? We should not always leave it to the House of Lords to do our work for us. We should have those debates about the future on the Floor of this House, rather than having things done by ministerial diktat. \p Jim Allister: I agree, absolutely. The House of Lords has done some very informative and useful work on the Bill. I only hope that it is not wasted on this Government, but that is my fear. \p Andrew Murrison: Has the hon. and learned Member had time to look at amendment 13, under which, if there was any backsliding by the Government, the matter would be brought back to this House for determination? I suspect that he, like me, would not accuse Ministers of being capable of abusing Henry VIII powers at the moment, but those in some future Government might. That is why we need amendment 13, particularly to ensure that retained EU legislation, a third of which the previous Government binned, canned, and got rid of, does not start creeping back over months and years, taking us back to where we began prior to 2016, and effectively taking the public for fools. \p Jim Allister: I agree, absolutely. No Member of this House should glibly pass over clause 2(7), because it expressly and emphatically sets out that regulations, which can be made without recourse to this House, can provide that

“a product requirement is to be treated as met”

if it meets the relevant EU regulation. That is indisputably a bold platform for dynamically realigning this United Kingdom, in all its regulations, with the EU, so that we become rule takers. That is what I fundamentally object to in the Bill.

This House’s lack of scrutiny powers on these matters is made worse by the fact that we no longer have the European Scrutiny Committee. If we had that Committee, we would at least have that opportunity for scrutiny. That is why I welcome new clause 15, which would require the authorities of this House to explore and hopefully ultimately establish a Committee to scrutinise  the regulations being made. Surely the minimum expectation of anyone democratically elected to this House is that we should have the capacity for oversight, challenge and scrutiny of laws being made in the name of those we represent, although made exclusively by the Executive, without the consent or processes of this House. That seems so fundamental to me that it would be a very sad commentary indeed on the intent behind the Bill if new clause 15 was not acceptable to the Government. If it is not, they are saying that they want unbridled, unchallenged, unchallengeable power to make whatever regulations they like, despite and in the face of this House. \p Richard Holden: The Government have said throughout the passage of this legislation that it is not about the European Union, yet as the hon. and learned Member makes clear, it is only the European Union that we can align with through regulations made under it. Does that not fundamentally undermine the Government’s entire argument, and show why these amendments are so vital to protect this House? \p Jim Allister: Absolutely. The Government tell us, “When we make trade deals, we may be able to ensure the requisite alignment,” but this Bill provides for alignment only with the EU, which rather lets the cat out of the bag. The Bill is not about facilitating international trade, so that we could, in the relevant circumstances, align with the United States, Japan or whoever we are making deals with, because it is exclusively and singularly focused on alignment with the EU. I suspect that is because the purpose of the Bill is to advance, at the speed of the Government’s choosing, and without the restraint of this House, down the road of dynamic alignment. To me, new clause 15 is very important.

Amendment 16 is key, because it will pull the teeth of clause 2(7) and protect us from the intended course of action. I strongly support amendment 16, because it would rein in powers that need to be reined in, and would remove the threat—indeed, the allegation—that the Bill is about realignment with the EU. A couple of weeks ago, we had the so-called reset with the EU, but the reset is as nothing compared with this Bill. This Bill is the legislative vehicle whereby Brexit can be sabotaged. That is why it is important to address the core issue in clause 2(7).

If the Bill were not about securing dynamic alignment with the EU, there would be Government support for amendment 25, which would make a reference to “foreign” law and not “EU” law. That amendment would put to bed the concerns of those of us who believe that the Bill is a subterfuge to secure realignment with the EU. However, I fear that the Government will not support that amendment.

The legislation is a Trojan Bill. It has a very clear direction of travel, which is to be secured by ignoring the question of what powers of scrutiny this House should have, and by affording to the Executive alone the right to realign dynamically with the EU at a pace and time, and on the content, that they alone approve of. The Bill needs these radical amendments, including the surgery that amendment 16 would do. At the very least, it requires the semblance of oversight that new clause 15 would provide. \p Nusrat Ghani: It gives me huge pleasure to call our resident metrology expert, Adam Thompson. \p Adam Thompson: Once again, it is a great honour to speak about the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. Today, we are focused on the amendments proposed following the Public Bill Committee, on which, in common with the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), I was honoured to serve; I was the resident metrologist.

In Committee, we heard extensively from Members of the Opposition. They described in great depth their concerns about the Bill’s implications for international alignment of regulations; we have just heard some of those concerns from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Today, those concerns have once again been presented to the House through various amendments to the Bill. I will explain, with reference to state-of-the-art metrology, why those issues should not be a significant cause for concern for right hon. and hon. Members. \p Richard Holden: The hon. Member and I served on the Bill Committee together. I think he misses a slightly important point that this is not about international alignment, as is put forward in the amendments tabled by the Opposition, but alignment with the EU, and that is why there is such concern from the Opposition parties. \p Adam Thompson: I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. As I discussed extensively during the Bill Committee, there is a misunderstanding here of exactly what the Bill is doing, so I fundamentally disagree with the point he makes, but I will go into more detail on it in my speech.

One of the first things one learns about as a budding metrologist is the concept of perfection. In his book “Exactly”, Simon Winchester writes of what he refers to as “the perfectionists”, detailing the evolution of the science of metrology through time and how precision engineering has been used to create the modern world that we inhabit. It is a great read, covering the history of my science in the popular mindset. However, I do not necessarily agree with Winchester in his core thesis; he talks about metrology as the science of perfection, whereas it is more accurate to think of it as the science of the good enough. I will elaborate on that shortly.

In the early days of a metrologist’s training, we learn that with more money and more time, a precision engineer can almost always achieve a more precise and accurate result, whether a straighter line, a smoother surface or a better piece of legislation, but that striving for true perfection—the absence of any fault—is always folly. Our resources are never infinite, and in the real world it is always more appropriate to strive for the good enough as opposed to the perfect. Good enough is the core of modern engineering and the fulcrum on which our world balances.

I am, as many colleagues will know, by trade a metrologist, but within the broader field, I am a surface metrologist. Surface metrology revolves around the measurement and characterisation of surfaces—surface texture and surface topography. I am the one who decides whether the leather steering wheel feels right. I am the one who ensures that car engines distribute and hold oil in all the right places to keep them running smoothly. I am the one who ensures that tyres keep us firmly planted on the road as we round corners.

Becoming a surface metrologist involves gaining an intimate acquaintance with the very concept of perfection. Always in engineering I hear people asking for a product to be made perfectly—for the angle of the corner of the table to be exactly 90° or for the surface of the microscope to be infinitely smooth. Let me put it on record that there is no such thing as perfection in reality. \p Christopher Vince: Despite what everyone was thinking, I am not going to suggest that I am perfection, but as a mathematician, may I ask my hon. Friend to accept that the reason perfection is not achievable in that instance is to do with the infinite—the infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 1.1, for instance, or the infinite amount of numbers between 1.1 and 1.11? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I accept that we have some experts in the Chamber, but I remind Members that speeches and interventions must relate to the business at hand and the amendments. \p Adam Thompson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—it was perfect. He is absolutely right, and I will leave the perfection to the mathematicians. To illustrate my point, I hear people in engineering asking for products to be made perfectly—for the angle of the corner of the table to be exactly 90° or the surface of the microscope to be infinitely smooth. To study metrology is to understand the concepts of imperfection and uncertainty and apply those to everything. If one zooms in close enough, the angle is never exactly right, and the surface is never perfectly smooth.

On Second Reading, I made reference to the optical mirrors used in the James Webb space telescope. They are incredibly smooth, yes, but to examine them at the atomic scale, one would find deviations from the nominal plane that mirror those in the Grand Canyon. Being an engineer involves accepting these deviations within the context of the work we undertake towards our goal of constant improvement—be that in the creation of, say, aerospace engines or, indeed, national legislation.

My expertise within surface metrology was in the development of X-ray computed tomography for measuring surfaces. Alongside my good friend Dr Andy Townsend at the University of Huddersfield, who made similar discoveries at the same point in history—a phenomenon that is common across science—I was among the first to be able to use X-rays to measure the interior surface of parts that were otherwise hidden to both the eye and the machine. X-ray computed tomography had never previously been good enough to measure surfaces, with the imaging resolutions achievable lagging significantly behind those required to separate measurements from noise. Previously, such measurements were not really needed, as to manufacture a surface, one generally had to access that surface with a machine tool, so one could similarly access it with a measurement tool.

However, with the birth of industrial additive manufacturing—often called 3D printing—we could suddenly make things with hidden internal geometries that did not need tool access and could not be measured. Without measurement, though, we cannot verify that the parts we make will function as we require them to.  As such, new technology was required to allow us to create additively manufactured parts, be they novel, much lighter aeroplane parts or new joint replacements finely customised to suit the individual. Alongside our colleagues, Andy and I solved this problem by demonstrating that X-ray computed tomography had become good enough to measure those surfaces.

This Bill mirrors that “good enough” paradigm. Current legislation places us at risk of falling out of alignment with the rest of the world, which in turn risks our ability as the British to maintain our position at the forefront of international science. In its current, unamended form, the Bill grants the Secretary of State the necessary authority to keep pace with the guidance of relevant experts. The amendments proposed by the Opposition would only hinder our ability to stay aligned with the continuous advancement of progress. \p Jim Allister: In lauding the Henry VIII powers in this Bill, as an elected Member of this House, is the hon. Gentleman at ease with the fact that the Bill could see criminal offences created without any scrutiny or input from this House? Is he at ease with the fact that the liberty of our constituents—which I think we would be interested in protecting—could be jeopardised by criminal offences created by the Executive alone? \p Adam Thompson: I thank the hon. and learned Member for his intervention, but I disagree with his assessment. This Bill is about providing the Secretary of State with the powers necessary to ensure that we remain at the forefront of science. Opposition Members have incorrectly claimed that the Bill hands over authority to foreign powers, or overly centralises it in the hands of the Secretary of State. This is not a matter of ceding control to external entities; rather, it is about maintaining the United Kingdom’s position at the forefront of scientific and regulatory innovation. It is about ensuring that the British scientists who follow in the footsteps of Newton, Franklin and Hawking can continue to lead the world in their fields.

These Opposition amendments appear to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding—or perhaps a complete lack of understanding—of what metrology and standards frameworks entail and why they are vital. I urge all Members to vote against them and support this Bill through its Third Reading. \p Nusrat Ghani: I remind Members that they are speaking to the amendments. There are 33 to choose from, so please keep your contributions appropriate. \p Allison Gardner: I rise today in support of new clause 1, which deals with a country of origin marking for ceramic products and which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) so eloquently introduced. My constituency is home to “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, based in the wonderful Gladstone Pottery Museum in Longton, and I am so proud to have many great pottery firms in my constituency. Those include Wedgwood, which is famed for its iconic blue jasperware, and Duchess China, which has factories in Longton and Newstead that I was honoured to visit recently. There, I met Jason Simms, who is a 100-mph visionary for the future of ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent and the world. It was a really interesting visit.

Duchess, founded in 1888, produces the tableware used in the House of Commons. It is proud of the fact that its products are made in the UK, from clay to table. People buying products produced by Duchess, for example, will see that they say on the bottom, “Fine bone china made in Staffordshire”. The phrasing is deliberate; it clearly informs the purchaser not only of the product’s country of origin, but the precise part of the country that it comes from. Most of our ceramic products contain these backstamps to mark authenticity, and many include a reference to Stoke and Staffordshire. As I have before, I invite all colleagues to join the “turnover club” and check the backstamp on the chinaware here. They will probably find it was made in Stoke. \p Gareth Snell: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Just for the record, some of the tableware in the Members’ Dining Room is in fact German. I hope everyone will get behind a campaign to replace it. \p Allison Gardner: I thank my hon. Friend for that timely and right intervention. I join him in his campaign.

We do not always have the level of detail needed in this country, and we need to address that nuance so that consumers know exactly what they are buying. That is important, because the pottery industry is at great risk from cheap imports, which are undermining our British-made products and creating unfair competition for our better-quality products made in our own country. This china-dumping of products often falsely pretending to be made by our Staffordshire firms—Dunoon being one example—must be stopped. We must back our British industry and our British workers and do what we can to resist such unfair competition. \p Joshua Reynolds: Having Stoke tableware in my home, I completely understand the argument that the hon. Member is making, so will she join me in the Lobby in voting for new clause 4, to support UK labelling for manufactured products? That is for not just Stoke tableware, but further afield, too. \p Allison Gardner: The hon. Member is right to point out that Stoke and Staffordshire are not the only places that produce wonderful ceramic and other products. I understand that new clause 4 is broad in scope. I am speaking today to new clause 1, which relates to ceramics. I hope he will indulge me.

A few months ago, I was proud to meet GMB representatives for the British pottery industries here in Parliament, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). That included the formidable Sharon Yates, who is one of my constituents. They have real pride, real passion and real skill in what they do. \p David Williams: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. She is eloquently outlining the real skills and talents of our people who make world-class ceramics. I echo her support for new clause 1, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Recently I met the GMB union and workers who had sadly been made redundant at the iconic Moorcroft pottery in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove. Collectively, the 30 people in that room had more than 800 years of honing skills and expertise.  Does my hon. Friend agree that we must do all we can to protect our pots, including backstamping our ceramic products, as outlined in new clause 1? \p Allison Gardner: I commend my hon. Friend for his outstanding advocacy, in particular for the workers of Moorcroft. I know how hard he has been working for them, and I agree that they are a testament to the great skilled craftsmen and women in British manufacturing.

Stoke-on-Trent, the Potteries and Staffordshire are globally renowned for our chinaware and tableware. We stand tall among the likes of Limoges in France and Delft in the Netherlands, and we must ensure that we protect that status. We are celebrating Stoke-on-Trent’s 100th anniversary this year and working towards UNESCO creative city status. I hence urge Ministers and the Government to demonstrate their pride and support for this globally renowned industry by supporting new clause 1. \p Stella Creasy: It is a pleasure to follow my colleagues from Stoke, who have so powerfully advocated for their local communities. It is also an absolute pleasure to be part of a debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who I genuinely believe should be knighted for his services to explaining what metrology is to all of us. At the very least, he should have some kind of BBC Four series, possibly with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) as his sidekick.

I am here because I have tabled new clause 15, which has cross-party support. It is designed to be a probing amendment—I hope the Minister is reassured about that—because these are important parliamentary matters. I agree with Opposition Members that this Bill is an important piece of legislation, although I come at it from a different perspective, because I see it as being at the sharp end of Brexit.

To me, Brexit is paperwork, because there are multiple regulatory regimes. Our constituents, and particularly small businesses, must deal with the reams and reams of paperwork that have come from leaving the European Union in the way we did, and we know that has had an impact on them. We know that over 16,000 small businesses have given up exporting to the European Union because of all the extra paperwork, that one in eight small exporters had temporarily or permanently stopped selling to the EU, and that another 10% were considering doing so, because it had become more complicated.

This piece of legislation will affect over 300,000 businesses in our constituencies, because it will hopefully help to start dealing with the paperwork mountain that is the product of Brexit. It makes no sense at all to ask people to follow two sets of rules when one of those sets is perfectly functional. Opposition Members should be honest and admit that, because their own attempts to run two separate regulatory regimes fell so flat. We saw that with the UK conformity assessment, which the previous Government originally tried to introduce in December 2021; because it was such a disaster and was creating so much extra cost and paperwork for small businesses, it kept getting delayed until May 2024, when the then Government finally admitted defeat and claimed that any business in the UK that had met the European  charter mark had also met the UK charter mark. They did that because it would have cost businesses up to £1.6 billion over the next decade to try to run two separate lots of conformity assessments for the very product regulations whose operation we are talking about today.

This Bill matters very much for our constituents, for small businesses and for the jobs that it creates, but getting this right also matters to the Government, because businesses need certainty and stability in their regulatory regimes and the Government need to be functional in their review of them. \p Richard Holden: As the hon. Lady appreciates, we come at this Bill from different angles. We have tabled some amendments, including amendment 13, which would require the Secretary of State to come to this House and make a statement. As the hon. Lady says, small businesses are seeing regulatory change happen so swiftly that they cannot keep up. One issue with the Bill is the fact that it will be possible for regulations to be changed even more quickly, at the stroke of a Minister’s pen. That could lead to small and medium-sized enterprises being disadvantaged compared with very large businesses, which can align much more quickly. \p Stella Creasy: The right hon. Member had the luxury and benefit of being on the Public Bill Committee. I did not have the ability to ask the questions that he is asking, but I look at the evidence under the previous Administration. When there was the ability to diverge, what actually happened? The reality is that very little divergence happened, because it is not in our national interest. We can, and do, fight many things in this place —indeed, in British politics—but geography really is not one of the things that it is worth our time arguing about.

Given that we do five times more trade with our European Union neighbours than with America, China and India put together, it obviously makes sense to have a regulatory regime that makes that trade as friction-free as possible, which is where this piece of legislation comes in. Indeed, under the previous Government, there were only five cases of active divergence—the sort of changes that the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is worried about—that might affect small businesses. That is with good reason, because if we have a sensible regulatory regime, it makes sense to be aligned. The Prime Minister has talked about that, and it is also what businesses want. The Engineering and Machinery Alliance, which represents over 1,600 firms from 11 different trade associations, puts it very simply. It says that our businesses

“are trading in European markets and are part of European value chains. They have European customers and suppliers. For companies operating in highly specialised, high value markets, the UK is unlikely to provide the mass needed to develop and successfully market their products. They need to be international and that means working to international standards—the EU’s being, almost always, the most appropriate.” \p Mike Martin: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Tory/Reform Brexit has been a complete disaster for our economy? \p Stella Creasy: I cannot even look you in the eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know I should not be tempted into quite that level of analysis. Very practically, we are  trying to deal with the fallout of Brexit. The hon. Member will have heard me say that we need a salvage operation, because of the consequences seen and the damage done as a result of the way that our leaving the European Union was conducted. I see this Bill as part of that salvage operation. We used to be part of writing such regulations with our colleagues in Europe, which we do not do any more, but we need a process to maintain them because of the reality of the supply chains, of how we do business and of where divergence has hit small businesses—and it is small businesses, in every single constituency, that have paid the price for this version of Brexit. \p Mike Martin: I’ll take that as a yes. \p Stella Creasy: The hon. Member can take it as yes, but he will know that I am sticking very closely to the amendments, because I want to come on to how we make such decisions.

First, though, we need to be clear that this legislation will affect the lives of our constituents. Let me give one example. I am a child of the 1980s; I remember the Glo Worm. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for looking surprised—I hope it is a look of surprise, but perhaps you are remembering the Glo Worm yourself. The point is that the Glo Worm turned out to be quite a dangerous toy because of the chemicals it contained. Regulations help to keep us safe, so when we are talking about sharing regulatory regimes and being able to promote markets, there is a good reason why we are seeking high standards. I hope that everyone will hold the Glo Worm as an example—it has now been reissued without those chemicals in it, thank goodness, so that children of the 2020s can enjoy those squidgy toys.

What matters is how we make decisions about such regulations, and the debate on this Bill heralds a bigger conversation that we need to have in Parliament about how we can be involved in those decisions now that we are not part of the European Union. Obviously, agrifood and sanitary and phytosanitary goods are not included in the Bill, but the Government have now committed to dynamic alignment with EU rules for a very common-sense reason. As the Prime Minister has said,

“we are currently aligned in our standards, but we do not get the benefit of that. We want to continue to have high standards; that is what the British public want”.—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 894.]

I hope that is the ethos we take in how we use the powers in this Bill. It is certainly what businesses would like us to do. \p Richard Holden: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Stella Creasy: I will happily give way, although I promised Madam Deputy Speaker that I was about to turn to new clause 15. \p Richard Holden: The hon. Lady makes an important point, but on the broader issue of dynamic alignment, are there not some issues—for example, animal welfare, which is not covered by the Bill—on which, if we want to maintain higher standards, we will want to go further than our EU allies, not dynamically align with them? \p Stella Creasy: The right hon. Member seems to believe the regulatory regimes we had were a ceiling rather than a floor. There was nothing to prevent us from having  higher standards; they were about maintaining standards. He and I are on different sides of the debate about nutrient neutrality, but the concern was about the high standard when it came to protecting our rivers and seas from algae that was at risk under the previous Government.

The right hon. Member is right, though, to raise the question of how we maintain standards, which is where new clause 15 comes in. It is about the concept of how we take back control—which, frankly, was at the heart of all the Brexit debates. I am sure the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) is surprised that I have become the stopped clock for him: this is one point in his political career that I may be right.

There is a challenge here that we need to address, and those of us who came to the Brexit debate from different directions can all agree that it is good and healthy to have such a discussion. I also want to say, as a parliamentarian, that the Government should be directed to do something that has consequences for Parliament as well. That is where new clause 15 is coming from. It is a probing amendment to raise a more general concern about how we make good legislation.

At the beginning of this Parliament, the Government decided not to re-establish the European Scrutiny Committee, which had existed since 1973, to scrutinise European documents that affected UK policy or law. In the debate, the Leader of the House said that

“the principal job of the Committee—to examine the documents produced by the EU institutions that the Government would automatically take on board—is no longer required.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1272.]

The challenge for many of us is that this Bill, and indeed the deal we now have with the European Union, means that that test is being set again. There is now a need for some form of dedicated scrutiny mechanism, with specialist expert staff to consider relevant EU laws and rules. That is not confined to the issues arising from this Bill; it is a broader point about what is happening now.

The ESC worked primarily by examining proposals from the European Commission and giving an opinion on their implications and when they would affect

“matters of principle, policy or law in the UK”.

I recognise that since that Committee was abolished, some work on these issues has been done by other Committees, and that is welcome. However, with this Bill and the reset deal, we are moving to a volume of European law and regulation with such technical complexity that we in this place would be best served by having that specialist expertise. Let’s be honest: many of these things are beyond our individual pay grades and we will want some expert assistance.

Put simply, if PRaM is passed in its current form, where the Government choose to recognise EU product regulations there will again be documents produced by EU institutions that the Government would automatically take on board. The Government’s dashboard of assimilated EU law shows that there are 155 items in the area of product safety and standards that derive from European law and could, under PRaM, be influenced by proposals of the European Commission to update EU law. Clearly, 155 documents alone would likely mean we exceed the ability of any one individual departmental Select Committee to devote sufficient time to the required level of scrutiny given their other priorities.

Many of us had run-ins with the previous Member for Stone. For some reason he never quite welcomed my interest in his work, but my interest and concern in scrutiny in this place is genuine and heartfelt, because I do think that at our best we can help Ministers, although I know that some on the Front Bench—maybe on both sides of the Chamber—will be raising an eyebrow at that suggestion. Aside from the democratic merits of parliamentary scrutiny in its own right and the cry to take back control, there are a number of benefits to the Government of ensuring that regulations derived from EU laws are scrutinised closely, not least because if those regulations deriving from EU law were later the subject of judicial review, the quality of parliamentary scrutiny of the relevant secondary legislation would be factored into a court’s thinking on the adequacy of the Government’s decision making. We might also pick up things in the process that have been missed.

It is indeed the question of perfection, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) said, to argue that any Government or any individual scrutiny process through a statutory instrument could ever be perfect. I do not believe we should set that standard. As a psychologist, I believe in competing opinions and views; there is always merit in having a second pair of eyes. That is what this process is getting at—that is how we get closer to perfection, if I have understood my lessons in metrology correctly.

The point also fits within the broader debate about how, as we reset our relationship with Europe, we make sure that we show the British public our homework. That is ultimately what good scrutiny does: it defeats the naysayers who claim that there is a backroom fix; it allows the disinfectant of sunlight to be poured on every single document to its dullest degree.

As the Prime Minister told the House in presenting the European deal, we will be taking co-operation with Europe “further, step by step”, and alignment will be an important part of that. I welcome that because it is in the interests of the British public. We are already committed to dynamic alignment on the SPS deal, to free us from those dire border checks and all the extra paperwork that means that there are trucks stuck at Sevington, food inflation has increased and our constituents have paid the price.

We are also looking at dynamic alignment on emissions trading to allow us to remove energy tariffs in key industries including steel. That means that when those deals are completed, there will be much larger volumes of EU rules that directly affect UK law and policy. That will probably be a good thing but it is right for this place to be able to debate, discuss and scrutinise how that works.

I hope the Minister will recognise that every single political party in this House has supported new clause 15 because they want not to batter the Government but to engage with the Government on these issues, and that he will talk about how we can see the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny in this piece of legislation. I recognise that not many pieces of legislation will be affected by the PRaM proposals directly, but there is that broader point about how we take back control—how we have that conversation about the way in which we, at our best, can assist the Government to get the best out  of regulations so that our businesses can keep trading, our consumers can keep buying and our Glo Worms can keep glowing. \p Adam Jogee: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate; I was not sure that I would, depending on timings of the business of the House. I had the pleasure today of welcoming Doreen and Eric Moyse to Parliament. This year they both celebrate their 90th birthdays and I am sure colleagues will join me in sending our best wishes to them.

There are five MPs from north Staffordshire and we are all here, proud members of the Turnover Club and champions of our ceramics industry. We have all contributed to the debate both through making speeches and in interventions, and I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance on the 33 amendments and for reminding us to speak to them. \p Karen Bradley: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I just want to make sure that all five Members from north Staffordshire make their voice known on the record. I support him wholeheartedly in his speech. \p Adam Jogee: That is my kind of friend. I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention, which speaks to the cross-party support for our ceramics industry. I grateful to her for placing that on the record.

There are two Adams in the parliamentary Labour party: my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) and me—he is older than me—but there is only one metrologist, so although I enjoyed his speech, I will not attempt to repeat it. But I did enjoy him sharing his experience of testing leather standards, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] I will leave that there.

I will speak briefly in support of new clause 1, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and in the names of our hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). We heard a very good speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. I am grateful to him for taking my intervention in which I focused on pride. That is what I will talk about very briefly now.

The home of the ceramic industry in Staffordshire is something that local people in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the county are very proud of: men and women who have shown their skill, prowess, knowledge and talents since the 17th century. On occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, we hear the odd speech in this Chamber that reminds us of the 17th century. Recently, I was very lucky to have the opportunity to visit Silverdale Bathrooms, which specialises in the highest quality handmade ceramics and is based in my constituency. The skill to produce the work has been passed down through many generations. The quality of British ceramics is the best in the world and we should not be afraid to claim it, show it off and celebrate it all year round. That is why new clause 1 is so  important, notwithstanding my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central confirming that it was more of a probing amendment, intended to get some time with the Minister. That is excellent advice for a new Back Bencher like me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall leave the Chamber to start drafting some of my own probing amendments to the various Bills before Parliament.

New clause 1 is an amendment that I hope few colleagues will disagree with. I proudly wear the flag of our United Kingdom on my lapel. From what I have gathered, I think I was made in the United Kingdom—that detailed conversation has obviously never taken place—and I want the same for the ceramics industry: designed, produced and rooted in Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire. [Interruption.] Too right, I stopped right there. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North for the work he has done to support the workers at Moorcroft.

New clause 1 speaks to our ceramics industry. We need this Labour Government to step up and deliver real support for our ceramics industry. From crippling energy and gas costs to ensuring the ceramics industry is at the heart of our approach to trade, we have much to do. Stepping up with actions not words will be good for the jobs and livelihoods of the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the county of Staffordshire, good for UK plc and good for our ceramics industry. New clause 1 is a step in the right direction and it has my support. \p Christopher Vince: It is an honour to speak in this debate on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, and in particular the amendments tabled by the Public Bill Committee. I was not on the Committee—some might say I did not measure up. [Interruption.] My parliamentary assistant has asked me to point out that I wrote that joke, not her.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson). Following his contribution on Second Reading, I did take away his slides on metrology and found them particularly interesting. As a former maths teacher, I am sure he will recognise that without maths there would be no metrology.

I wish to speak to a number of amendments, as is our role in this House. I will briefly touch on new clause 1, because I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell)—every time the ceramics industry is mentioned by anyone in the House, I know there is an intervention coming. In all sincerity, his passion in standing up for the ceramics industry in Stoke should be respected by Members across the House. Businesses claiming that they make their products in England or in Stoke when they do not are not only dishonest; they also damage the industries that do make their products there.

We all want to support our local industry wherever possible. Sadly, I do not go around buying a lot of fibre optic cables—although if I did, I would do so proudly, as the fibre optic cable was invented by George Hockham and Charles Kao in my constituency of Harlow.

The Bill is an important piece of legislation that will update the UK’s product safety regulation and metrology framework. Some were sceptical on Second Reading, but clause 5(5) points out that it will not stop me having  a pint—or, for my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), xx-xxxx-xxxx cubic decimetres of beer—at The Willow, The White Admiral, or any of the other moth-related pubs in Harlow.

Regulation is only effective with enforcement, so I welcome the inclusion of the clause on enforcement. I would also welcome a little more detail from the Minister in his summing up, if possible, on the regulation and how we will ensure it is effective. I would also be grateful if the Minister could touch on cost recovery, which is obviously important for the relevant authorities to impose these regulations.

I will briefly touch on new clause 15, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) advocated so well. She was correct to say that stability is hugely important for UK businesses, and she was also right to say that we do five times as much trade with the EU as with any of our other trading partners. As I said in a recent Opposition day debate, businesses in Harlow would absolutely welcome a breaking down of those barriers to trade with the EU. I also welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on the importance of scrutiny by this House. I joked with Mr Speaker yesterday that I do come to this Chamber quite often to talk about things in my constituency—believe it or not—but one of the most important roles of elected officials, whether on the Government or Opposition Benches, is scrutiny. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) knows how much I scrutinise legislation. \p Neil Hudson: I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. What we have in common is that he will stand up for his businesses in Harlow, and I will try to stand up for my businesses in Epping Forest. Much of the debate today and some of the amendments touch on scrutiny; the hon. Gentleman is moving on to the power of this House to scrutinise regulation. Small and medium-sized businesses in our country are facing huge pressures, and not just with regulation but with the economic climate set by this Labour Government through the jobs tax. Measures such as new clause 13 are seeking to rein in some of the powers that the Executive are trying to take on board, which will enable them to change regulations on a whim and then create more uncertainty for businesses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these sensible amendments would enable more scrutiny from this House and actually make the climate better for the businesses that we really want to champion? \p Christopher Vince: I thank my neighbour for his intervention. We both recognise the importance of championing businesses in our constituencies, although I am sure he would recognise that businesses in Harlow are better than those in Epping Forest. That was a joke—apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Neil Hudson: Would the hon. Gentleman just correct the record on that? \p Christopher Vince: I will pre-empt the point of order: businesses in Epping Forest and in Harlow are equally very good and very successful. I will now move on.

I disagree slightly with the hon. Gentleman on the reasons for the economic challenges. When I have spoken to businesses in Harlow, it is clear that we need to break  down the barriers to trade with the EU that have been created. However, as I also said in a recent debate, I do not intend to rehash the same old arguments we have had over Brexit. It is about how we work with where we are at the moment, and I think the trade deal that the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have secured on that is really positive. This is part of that alignment, and I think it is very positive.

Just to finish, I will welcome the response from the Minister on some of the points that have been raised today. I have absolute confidence in the Secretary of State to ensure that he gets the best for British businesses—businesses in Epping Forest and in Harlow. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Olney: It is a real pleasure to take part in this debate on product regulation and metrology, not least because it gives me the opportunity to highlight the work done by my former colleagues at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, which is the UK’s home of metrology. I would like to set the mind of the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) at rest. He is still, as far as I know, the only metrologist with whom I have worked in a finance department, but, nevertheless, as a non-scientist, it gave me a real admiration for the work of scientists in this particular area. In Teddington they are setting the standards. They are developing and maintaining the primary measurement standards for the UK and across the world.

What I would like to say to the Chamber this afternoon and to my constituents in the neighbouring constituency of Richmond Park is that if they have been inspired by the hon. Member for Erewash and have had a fire ignited in them for the science of metrology, the National Physical Laboratory is having its open day this Friday, 6 June, and everyone should go along. \p Adam Thompson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. It is lovely to hear of her experiences. I was aware that she was previously at the National Physical Laboratory. Indeed, I recall how excited my field was when she was first elected. I would just like to place strongly on the record how much I agree with her colleagues’ excellent contributions to science. \p Sarah Olney: Following that hymn of praise to metrology, I will now turn to the amendments.

The Liberal Democrats welcome many of the measures proposed in the Bill. The legislation seeks to balance consumer safety, economic growth, and regulatory flexibility, ensuring that UK laws can keep pace with technological advancements. We support enhanced consumer protection for those products that pose a safety risk to consumers, as well as the importance of corporate responsibility for businesses operating in online marketplaces.

The Liberal Democrats support the need to update the regulatory framework and we are glad that the Bill takes steps to address this. However, steps must be taken to level the playing field between online and high street businesses, and to protect consumers. As such we have tabled new clauses 7, 10 and 11 and amendment 3, which work toward that aim.

Equally, the Liberal Democrats remain concerned by the Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation and the overuse  of Henry VIII powers, giving Ministers excessive discretion to repeal or amend primary legislation through regulations. All product and metrology regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure and we seek to ensure that the Bill is ambitious in providing proper parliamentary scrutiny. There should also be greater engagement and consultation requirements, meaning that key stakeholders may not be adequately considered in regulatory changes. This lack of consultation feeds more broadly into our apprehensions about the burdens that some measures will place on small businesses, and as such we have tabled new clauses 5 and 6, which acknowledge this and would provide support to small and local businesses.

I wish to speak in favour of new clause 2, which would place a requirement on large supermarkets to inform customers when the quantity of goods within the product have decreased, resulting in a price increase per unit of measurement. Research by Compare the Market found that products such as digestive biscuits have become 28% smaller, yet the price has risen by 65% compared with a decade ago. \p Adam Jogee: Outrageous. \p Sarah Olney: It is outrageous, yes.

Similar situations have been seen with popular household items such as Coco Pops, butter and crisps. We were glad to see that, while the Bill was in the other Chamber, the Government accepted a Liberal Democrat amendment, preventing changes to the pint as a recognised measurement for beer, cider and milk through regulations under the Bill. However, I hope the Government will go further and expand this safeguard to protect consumers by accepting this amendment.

I also wish to speak in favour of new clause 3, which would require the Government to undertake reviews into the feasibility of asking large hospitality businesses to disclose the country of origin of meat products on menus. The farming industry has been pushing for clearer labelling of the origins of food for some time. Previous research by the National Farmers Union has shown that 65% of consumers are more likely to visit a venue that claims that its ingredients are sourced from British farmers, and almost 70% of consumers agreed it was important that the sourcing of food in venues is transparent. Farmers across the country are grappling with the punitive family farm tax introduced by this Government, and continue to cope with the challenges imposed by trade deals under the last Conservative Government. Better labelling of British produce on the menus of larger restaurants would give crucial support to farmers and their businesses, and I hope that the Government will support this new clause as a step towards achieving that.

More broadly, I urge the Government to support new clause 4, which I intend to push to a vote. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and his neighbouring Staffordshire MPs. I really enjoyed listening to him speak about the manufacture of ceramics; he spoke eloquently about the importance of UK manufacturing and, most importantly, the sense of place that it evokes, and the pride that local people can feel in  products produced in their town, city, region or neighbourhood. So many consumers want labelling of UK products, because they know that would be a quality mark, and as the hon. Gentleman said, it would allow the expression of pride in their towns and cities.

If the Government accepted our new clause 4, it would require them to establish a voluntary labelling scheme, under which goods were clearly marked as being produced or manufactured in the UK. That would help the consumer to make an informed choice and make it easier for the Government to support domestic producers. The new clause would also set up a promotional campaign to ensure that consumers were aware of the scheme.

Having spent the last five years grappling with the bureaucracy of Brexit, increased trading costs and the ongoing cost of living crisis, business owners will be deeply concerned by the additional challenges coming from Washington. We need to bring the country together and collectively show that we will not take Trump’s tariffs lying down, but will rally behind our businesses at home, and work with our Commonwealth and European allies abroad.

As specified in new clause 4, in setting up the campaign, we urge the Government to consult with British businesses and trade groups, such as industry leader Made in Britain, which recently said that it had seen a surge in membership following the introduction of tariffs, as

“more businesses are focused on British manufacturing representation and promotion.”

Countless people across the UK wish to buy British, champion our local businesses and support our high streets, and this new clause would be a key step in supporting them to do so. I would very much welcome all Staffordshire MPs joining us in the voting Lobby this afternoon. \p Gareth Snell: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about the amendment and the work that my colleagues are doing. My only point is that the final paragraph under subsection (7) of new clause 4 would allow such labelling

“where the final significant production process occurred in the UK”,

but that is one of the things that we are trying to clamp down on. In ceramic production, products that are bisque fired outside the UK then brought into the UK for gloss firing are passed off as being made in the UK. We argue that this should not be the case; the full process, from clay to table, should take place in the UK. While I have absolute sympathy with her on her new clause, that subsection unfortunately would not address the issue—in fact, it could do further damage to our industry. If she is happy to, we could discuss that outside this place. I am sure that there are areas of commonality, on which we could work together. \p Sarah Olney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further information about the ceramics industry, which I now feel so much better informed about. He makes a valuable point. When we talk about things being “made in the UK”, what exactly does that mean? How can we use that valuable designation to best support our domestic industries? I thank him for that further clarification.

Liberal Democrats support the need to update the regulatory framework for the UK marketplace to reduce trade friction and give businesses and consumers confidence  in their products. We are glad that many of the measures in the Bill will have that effect, but we remain concerned about the excessive ministerial discretion in this legislation, and the reliance on secondary legislation. We will continue to push the Government to strengthen scrutiny mechanisms, and for fairer regulation for online marketplaces. Crucially, I hope the Government will take this opportunity to support British businesses by supporting new clause 4, giving consumers greater transparency and British businesses the boost that they need. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Harriett Baldwin: May I say what an interesting debate this has been? I have a huge amount of sympathy for the case that has been put for new clause 1, which was made in a very coherent way. I also have great sympathy for the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and her proposed new clause 15. I will explain how our amendments would address some of the issues she has spoken about. The Liberal Democrat amendments, and new clause 4 in particular, make a great deal of sense. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled a range of amendments that cover points made in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s amendments, which I will come to.

We should ask ourselves why this relatively small and technical Bill has attracted nearly 50 amendments on Report. It is because, as was said, it is a Trojan horse Bill. We tabled our amendments because the Bill does a lot more behind the scenes than appears on the surface. When, in 2016, the voters of Britain—on an 80% turnout—voted to leave the European Union, it created an opportunity for the country to tailor our regulatory regime to best fit British industry, and to set a global standard, so that it is easier to do business. The UK’s product regulation and metrology, as we heard from our resident metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), once set the standard for the world, and indeed has the chance to do so again. When in government, the Conservatives started the work of capitalising on that opportunity. We see the Bill as a terrible step back and a Trojan horse, because it will tie us to EU red tape on which we have no say.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke about his hopes for businesses in Harlow. Through this Trojan horse Bill, Labour will restrict Britain’s innovators with over-burdensome regulations, meaning that British industry will fall behind international competitors. As we heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), say when speaking to her amendments, it is a prime example of a skeleton Bill. There are two major areas of concern for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition: the use of sweeping Henry VIII powers; and the ability to dynamically align by the back door with the European Union. I will speak to the amendments we have tabled to address those concerns.

When the Bill started its passage, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place found that the powers in the Bill, particularly in clause 1, were excessive, and it recommended that they be removed. Many of our amendments address those elements of clause 1. In the other place, the Government watered  down the Bill following those criticisms, but afterwards the Bill was still described as a skeleton Bill that shifted powers “to an unacceptable extent”. As recently as 21 February, the Committee in the other place said that the amendments made in the other place were

“limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this Bill…The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill. It remains the case that the Bill provides for almost all of the substance of the regulatory regimes for product safety and metrology to be provided for by Ministers in regulations.”

While we acknowledge that the current Secretary of State may act responsibly, we do not want to put things on the statute book that future Ministers might treat differently.

We all agree that strong, consistent product safety rules are needed, and we acknowledge the risks from online marketplaces and unsafe imports, but we do not think that the Bill is the right way to deal with that. We also think that Parliament must retain proper oversight, so amendments 9, 11 and 12 seek to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State in clause 1.

Clause 3 is of equal concern, because it grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to create new criminal offences, creating new complexities in our criminal justice system. It also allow Ministers to create civil sanctions for non-compliance with product and metrology regulations through secondary legislation, reducing parliamentary scrutiny of an issue that is incredibly important for our constituents’ freedoms. The clause also allows the Government to introduce new penalties, and even prison sentences; new powers of entry; and new fines on businesses, which will drive up the cost of doing business. Our amendments seek to change those elements. We believe that such serious offences should be subject to considerably more parliamentary scrutiny. That is why amendment 24 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences that could have consequences for the Ministry of Justice and the criminal justice system are not created through new product regulations under the Bill. \p Jim Allister: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is quite astounding that among the criminal offences that are anticipated being made by the Minister without parliamentary scrutiny are indictable offences, which could result in people losing their liberty for whatever period is specified in the offence? Is that not a retrograde departure from the standards of oversight that any citizen would expect Members elected to this House to exercise? \p Harriett Baldwin: I agree. We all know the types of people being let of prison by this Government. It is a total scandal that suddenly a person can be imprisoned for perhaps inadvertently having products in stock that have not followed a dynamic alignment process that has not been very visible to Parliament. That is why I hope that the whole House will support amendment 24 in the Lobby.

Amendments 21, 22 and 23 seek clarification of the functions that may be conferred on a relevant authority, and the powers that may be granted to inspectors. The phrase “relevant authority” is used throughout the Bill, and it is not entirely clear what all such authorities might be.

In clause 13, we once again see Henry VIII powers being used, despite the concerns raised in the other place. Amendment 18 would therefore add to clause 13(6), and require that any regulations made under the legislation that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure all parliamentarians will want to support that amendment. \p Robin Swann: I am sure the Minister will come back on that point and say, “You can trust us, and you can trust this Government.” Does the shadow Minister agree, however, that this Government may not always be in power, and that the powers they are creating for themselves may be handed down to someone less responsible in future? \p Harriett Baldwin: I wholeheartedly endorse that. It is the principle; we do not know what Executive we will hand this power to in future. The current Executive is asking for the power, but we are a democracy, and the Executive can change at every single election. It would be wrong for Parliament to give away its powers in the way that is proposed in this legislation. That is why I hope that everyone will support our amendments. \p Neil Hudson: I remember sitting through many debates on Bills in the last Parliament, in which Members of the Labour party, then in opposition, talked about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition are all about improving and bolstering parliamentary scrutiny, and that Government Members have nothing to fear by giving more powers to this House? \p Harriett Baldwin: My hon. Friend is so wise and so insightful. In fact, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade himself said in opposition,

“We must bear in mind that the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support. Rather, it is our duty at this stage to check the powers of the Executive and ensure that we are not giving them carte blanche to change the balance of power permanently in their favour.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]

That is exactly what they are asking for in this Bill, and why we urge Members to support our amendment.

It is not just the Secretary of State who says this. Let us listen to what our friend the Attorney General of this great United Kingdom, Lord Hermer, another member of His Majesty’s Government, has said on Henry VIII clauses, skeleton legislation and delegated powers. He says that they strike not only at the rule of law

“but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”

And yet we are being asked this evening to allow criminal sanctions and the possibility of imprisonment to go through using those powers.

Amendment 16 would remove the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met. We believe that the UK, as an independent nation, should set its own product regulations to foster innovation and  support domestic industry, and not automatically align with EU rules, over which we no longer have any influence and do not help to shape.

The second area in which we have tabled further amendments is that of dynamic alignment. We have heard the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) admit that that is the very purpose of this Bill. We believe that dynamic alignment with EU regulation should be a decision for the House to make, and that interpretation must only be undertaken by UK courts, not by international courts such as the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the European Union. We took back those very powers, but in this Bill the Secretary of State is taking the power to give them away.

Our amendment 10 would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations about the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom which corresponds, or is similar to, a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products. Our amendments 13 to 15 would specifically require parliamentary approval for aligning product regulations with EU law. Our amendment 17 states that interpretation and enforcement of any regulations must only be undertaken by UK courts.

We, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, also want to ensure that regulations under this Bill do not damage any other international agreements that the Government may wish to strike, so our new clause 13 on international agreements would ensure that any regulations made under the Bill’s powers do not undermine the UK’s existing or future trade deals, including with key partners such as the US, India, Japan, Australia and Canada. That is a pragmatic and necessary step towards maintaining the strength of the UK’s trade relationships and protecting the long-term prosperity of our businesses. The Government have talked many times about growth being their top priority, so this new clause would ensure that regulations made under the Bill prioritised economic growth. Amendment 8 would require the Secretary of State to actively promote investment, innovation and economic growth through product regulation. It embeds a forward-looking vision, positioning the UK as a global leader in innovation and ensuring that our regulatory framework supports prosperity and not just compliance.

When this Bill left the other place, the lead Minister in the other place, Lord Leong, said:

“We have taken the Bill from its early state to where it is today, and obviously it will now go to the other place. I am sure that the noble Lord is right: there will be further deliberation on the Bill, and hopefully we will get it to a better place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 714.]

And yet there have not been significant changes in Committee. I therefore recommend that the House supports our amendments in the Lobby this evening. \p Justin Madders: I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate—my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Harlow (Chris Vince), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and  the shadow Minister the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). I will address many of the points they raised during the debate.

I welcome the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to her new role. I do not know whether it is a promotion or demotion, but I welcome her all the same. As always, it was a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash and his great technical insight. Indeed, we have our own Professor Yaffle in his House—those of a certain age will know who I am referring to. His expertise was greatly appreciated in Bill Committee and again today.

Amendments 9, 11 and 12 would remove clause 1(1) from the Bill. Of course, that is the central power to keep consumers safe and our product regulations updated. As I said in Committee, our product regulation framework is extensive. We have hundreds of often technical regulations. Removing clause 1(1) would freeze our regulations in time. We would be unable to respond to new risks, products or business models. I cannot accept an amendment that would stop us from protecting consumers and businesses from product-related harm. \p Joshua Reynolds: The Minister talks about protecting consumers. That is exactly what new clause 2 would do by making them aware when a product gets smaller but the price remains the same—shrinkflation—so will he work with us and get that clause into law? \p Justin Madders: I will address new clause 2 in due course. That is a more a consumer-related issue than a product safety one, but I understand the intent behind it.

We have heard a lot of concerns—many of them misplaced—about the breadth of powers contained within the Bill. In the other place, we did increase the measures that will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We removed several Henry VIII clauses and added a statutory consultation requirement. We also published a code of conduct, available in the Library of the House, which sets out exactly how the powers under the Bill will be used. I now believe the Bill strikes the right balance of appropriate parliamentary scrutiny without clogging up parliamentary time with highly technical product regulations. Gutting the Bill by removing the central power would leave consumers unprotected.

Amendments 10, 14 to 17, 25 to 29 and 32 all relate to EU law. I want to be absolutely clear yet again that the powers in the Bill give the UK the flexibility to manage its own product regulatory framework. Part of that is, of course, ensuring that the UK can respond to relevant developments in EU law. It does not mean that the UK is beholden to EU changes, and all regulations will be subject to Parliament’s oversight. I also wish to reassure the House that the Government remain committed to our obligations under the Windsor framework. The reason the Bill explicitly references the EU rather than other jurisdictions is that most of our product regulation is, of course, inherited from EU law. The UK continues to recognise certain EU product requirements—a policy that was, of course, enacted under the previous Government only 12 months ago.

The Bill’s powers allow us to continue or end such recognition based on the UK’s interests on a case-by-case basis. Decisions on whether to diverge or align will be made as they come along and will only be implemented by laying a statutory instrument in Parliament. Recognition  of EU product requirements would be stated in UK law and could only be enforced by UK authorities. The Bill does not grant jurisdiction to foreign courts. I find amendment 15, which would prevent CE recognition, an odd amendment to be pushed by the Conservatives given that they introduced regulations only a year ago that did the absolute opposite.

New clauses 8, 14, 16 and 17 and amendments 13, 31 and 33 deal with themes of EU law, parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. These amendments duplicate the robust safeguards already in the Bill and the statutory and non-statutory controls that we have published in our code of conduct. Those include the statutory requirement for consultation and assessments under the better regulation framework. The Government value Parliament’s role in scrutinising legislation, so we will continue to consult all the devolved Governments as appropriate to ensure that regulations work for the whole of the UK.

Let me turn to amendments 1, 12, 18 and 30, on parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill as introduced already applied the affirmative procedure in key areas, including the creation of criminal offences—contrary to what has been said this afternoon—and amending primary legislation. However, in response to matters raised by the DPRRC, we have added additional areas, which are set out in clause 13(4). For the avoidance of doubt, I can confirm that the affirmative procedure applies to the following: the creation of criminal offences; the first use of regulations covering online marketplaces; the first time duties are imposed on a new supply chain actor; regulations conferring powers of entry, search or inspection; regulations to disapply requirements in response to an emergency; regulations covering the sharing of information between persons; regulations on cost recovery; regulations amending or repealing the Gun Barrel Proof Acts; consequential amendments to primary legislation; and regulations amending the definition of online marketplaces. \p Allison Gardner: Does the Minister agree that online marketplaces should have a greater responsibility to ensure the safety and authenticity of the products they sell, just like a retailer on our high streets? \p Justin Madders: I absolutely agree, and that is one reason why the Bill has been introduced. We absolutely need to keep up to date with developments in the online marketplace world, which is why we have introduced this legislation. It is not, as has been suggested, an unbridled use of powers; it sets out a clear set of principles and provides for the use of the affirmative procedure in most cases. There are already a number of regulations that will be transposed as they stand—there are about 2,500 pages of product regulations, including to do with noise levels emitted from certain types of machinery and the ergonomic design of personal protective equipment. Increasing the list of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure to cover such matters risks miring Parliament in a level of technicality that I think only my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash could follow. I do not think that is a good use of parliamentary time, and I believe the Opposition used to think that too, which is why the powers in the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which is similar to what we are dealing with today, remained in place under successive Governments.

I will deal now with new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. She raised some important points, and I thank her for setting out the rationale behind her new clause so clearly. First, I reassure the House that we are not looking at the same level of regulatory change that was necessitated when we left the EU. We anticipate no more than half a dozen uses of the powers a year. That is because the fundamentals of the regulatory framework are already in UK law—thousands of pages, as I have referred to, and many of those provisions have been through previous scrutiny processes. The majority of future changes using the power in the Bill will be smaller and technical.

I recognise the concerns raised, though. When we were a member of the EU, directives enacting major regulatory changes were regularly transposed into UK law using the negative procedure. Our Bill contains many more safeguards than were in place before, meaning that the affirmative procedure will be used far more often, as I have set out. Careful consideration was given in the development of the powers to ensure that we struck the right balance between good use of parliamentary time and the processing of highly technical changes. We listened to the concerns raised by members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and went further, broadening the areas requiring scrutiny, as I have set out.

As Lord Pannick said, the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation. If we used primary legislation every time we wanted to do something on product safety, we would have little time for anything else. However, to provide maximum transparency in this space, we also published a code of conduct setting out the statutory and non-statutory guardrails in place before regulations can be made. That included a statement on how we will engage and consult with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that their views are considered. We will continue to review and update the code of conduct, and of course we will be happy to take suggestions on how we can be clearer about Parliament’s role in the scrutiny of regulations.

Given those assurances, I believe we have struck the right balance between scrutiny, the appropriate use of parliamentary time and the flexibility needed to keep our product and metrology regulations up to date. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow some reassurances. \p Stella Creasy: I thank the Minister for setting that out. It is incredibly helpful and reassuring to many of us to hear that in this instance just a handful of regulations would be affected. I hope that Business Ministers have heard the wider call for us to look at the issue across the piece; in fact, I am sure that the Minister will want to feed that in. What he said is very welcome and I am sure that all hon. Members who supported my new clause will be reassured accordingly. \p Justin Madders: I am sure that Ministers across Government will have heard the important points that my hon. Friend has made today.

Amendment 7 on consumer protection could have unintended consequences as product safety is not one-dimensional; it requires consideration of multiple risks and consumer and business needs. For example, we are undertaking a significant programme of work considering furniture safety and the balance between fire risks and the possible effects of exposure to chemical flame retardants. Were the amendment adopted, we would be open to challenge by any interest groups unhappy with how regulations balance those factors. Indeed, when I gave that example in Committee, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), said that it was a compelling reason for not accepting the amendment, so I hope the hon. Member for Richmond Park will not move that amendment.

Amendments 5 and 6 on the circular economy are unnecessary, as the Environment Act 2021 already requires the Government to consider the environmental impact of any new policies, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 includes provisions on right to repair.

On new clause 19, the Government are committed to meeting our obligations on the UK’s trade agreements and nothing in the Bill will contradict that.

New clauses 5 and 6 relate to small and medium-sized businesses. The purpose of new clause 5 is already met through existing practice, and that of new clause 6 is also met, as all regulations will be assessed in line with the better regulation framework principles. Similarly, amendment 8 on economic growth is unnecessary. All regulations will be subject to a statutory consultation and require an impact assessment as per the better regulation framework, ensuring that business needs are fully considered. The Bill will allow greater simplification and clarity on product requirements, which should ease burdens on industry.

Let me turn to amendment 3 and new clause 10 on online marketplaces and supply chains. I agree that all relevant actors must be captured by our regulatory framework. That is why we have explicitly recognised and defined online marketplaces in the Bill, as well as including clause 2(3)(i) to ensure that “any other person” engaged in activities relating to a product can be brought within scope, including those working in fulfilment houses. At the earliest opportunity, we intend to consult on requirements applying to online marketplaces that protect consumers and are proportionate to the range of marketplace business models. The Bill gives us the opportunity to develop appropriate requirements, following consultation. That is better than requiring the introduction of specific obligations, irrespective of the outcome of consultation and consideration of proportionality.

New clause 7 relates to online marketplaces being held liable for products purchased via their platforms. We agree that there is scope for improvements to be made in this area, which is why I have asked the Law Commission to conduct a full and comprehensive review of product liability legislation and make suggestions for reform. Following its report, which we anticipate will be released next year, we will legislate, if necessary, to ensure that our product liability laws are up to date and fit for the future.

Turning briefly to new clause 9, the Bill’s powers cover various product categories, including lithium-ion batteries. Although concerns about battery safety are  valid, the Bill must remain broad to address evolving products effectively. To improve lithium-ion battery safety, we have published research from the Warwick Manufacturing Group that highlights risks such as compatibility and design issues. Those findings will guide interventions, including regulatory standards and improved guidance. We are committed to collaborating with stakeholders to determine what actions should be taken forward.

Amendments 21 to 24 would render unenforceable many requirements introduced in regulations under the Bill. Removing powers to create enforcement functions would make requirements introduced in new regulations ineffective, particularly for new supply chain actors. Without powers to effectively enforce new requirements, good businesses will be undermined by those who ignore their duties and responsibilities. I assure the House that the use of those powers already has precedent in comparable matters. The Building Safety Act 2022 is a recent example of primary legislation that created similar powers.

New clause 11 and amendment 4 relate to product recall procedures. Supply chain actors are already under duties to report incidents to enforcement authorities, and the public can already access an online database of recalls: the product safety alerts, reports and recalls database. Furthermore, there are legislative routes for consumers to pursue their rights, including rights to repair, replace or refund, through various legislation, such as the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The Government are reviewing product recalls as well as the full range of existing enforcement powers for product safety and metrology so that the powers can be targeted and effective. The consultation following Royal Assent will seek views on the structure of such powers.

I turn to new clause 12. Local authorities do vital work across several areas of consumer protection. This Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for a broader review of enforcement capability for consumer protection legislation, as it is limited to product and metrology regulation. However, it will help local authorities by simplifying product safety legislation and allowing the Government to consolidate enforcement powers. It will also provide for cost recovery powers to be obtained by local authorities—something raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow.

New clauses 1 to 4 relate to product labelling. We will not be accepting them, but I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for tabling new clause 1 and for shining a light, as he always does, on an important UK sector that is very important to his part of the world. Manufacturers can already indicate the country of origin on the labelling of their goods, as long as the information is accurate. Falsely claiming that products are made in the UK is an offence under existing UK consumer law, which prohibits traders from misleading consumers. I understand that my hon. Friend has a private Member’s Bill on the country of origin for ceramics, which was introduced on 2 April and is listed for Second Reading next week. I will be interested to hear that debate, and I am always willing to engage with him on this important issue for his constituents.

New clauses 2 to 4 relate to matters where separate legislation already applies. New clause 2 on the prices of goods falls under the Price Marking Order 2004, which includes requirements for unit pricing to be clearly labelled.  There are developments in this area. The Competition and Markets Authority published a report in July 2023 on the use of unit pricing in store and online in the groceries sector. Following this, it made recommendations to reform unit pricing legislation and proposed reforms to the Price Marking Order 2004.

Amendments to the 2004 Order will come into force next April and will introduce additional requirements for retailers, such as consistency in unit pricing. That means that all unit prices for products sold by weight or volume must in future be displayed in either kilograms or litres. There will be stricter criteria on pricing legibility, and the changes will also provide clarity on how items in multibuy or loyalty card offers should be displayed. We believe that these changes will allow retailers to provide the information that customers need to make informed purchasing choices.

Finally, new clauses 3 and 4 relate to country of origin information. This is already required for certain pre-packed foods, including beef. Origin labelling for food products, however, is well beyond the intended focus of the Bill. It is the case that current rules do not prevent British products from being labelled as British, and this is often done voluntarily. Indeed, the hon. Member for Richmond Park made reference to the “Made in Britain” campaign that is already in place. We do not believe it is necessary to legislate to set up a voluntary system when a voluntary system is already in place. In the light of that, I ask that the new clause 1 is withdrawn and all other amendments are not moved. \p Gareth Snell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State must establish a voluntary labelling system to indicate when a product has been produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom.

(2) The label must be—

(a) displayed clearly on the front-facing packaging of applicable goods;

(b) standardised in appearance, including a nationally recognised symbol or wording indicating UK origin; and

(c) legible, visible and no smaller in font size than the unit price display or equivalent information on the product.

(3) A product qualifies for the label if—

(a) it is wholly or substantially produced, manufactured, grown or reared in the United Kingdom; and

(b) it meets any additional criteria as set out by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must consult food producers, retailers, consumer groups and relevant trade associations before setting the criteria for qualifying products and the design of the label.

(5) The Secretary of State must undertake a promotional campaign to ensure consumers are aware of the new labelling system.

(6) Regulations under this section must be made within 2 months of the passing of this Act.

(7) In this section—

“product” includes food, drink and manufactured goods available for retail sale;

“produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom” includes goods where the final significant production process occurred in the UK.”—(Sarah Olney.)

This new clause would require the Government to introduce a voluntary labelling system, clearly marking goods produced or manufactured in the UK, helping consumers make informed choices and supporting domestic producers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 274.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 16, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)

This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 339.

Question accordingly negatived.

Proceedings interrupted (Order, 1 April).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed, 24, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11).—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 273.

Question accordingly negatived.

Third Reading \p Justin Madders: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Bill will help to preserve the United Kingdom’s position as a global leader in product regulation, supporting businesses, protecting consumers and ensuring a fair and level playing field across our economy, whether on the high street or on online marketplaces. It is designed to future-proof our approach to product regulation and metrology, ensuring that we can respond effectively to emerging technologies, tackle modern-day safety challenges and create the conditions for safe innovation and sustainable economic growth. By strengthening the system that underpins confidence in our goods market, we are reinforcing one of the core pillars of a productive and competitive economy.

As hon. Members will know, the majority of the UK’s product safety and metrology laws have their roots in EU legislation developed over the past 40 years. That framework served us well in many respects, but, of course,  we have left the European Union, so we have a responsibility and an opportunity to tailor our rules to the UK’s own needs, circumstances and ambitions. \p Laurence Turner: We have heard arguments today, as we did in Committee, that this measured Bill is some mysterious route back into the EU. Does the Minister agree that, far from discovering a Trojan horse, the Opposition are trying to flog a dead one and that their arguments have been made up on the hoof? \p Justin Madders: I give my hon. Friend 10 out of 10 for ingenuity. I have heard so many references to horses during the passage of the Bill that at times I felt I was at the Aintree racecourse. We can be clear that the Bill will not lead to dynamic alignment by default. \p Christopher Vince: We have heard a lot of myths about the Bill. The other myth that has been parroted is that the Bill will see the end of the great British pint. Does the Minister agree that actually it secures the great British pint? I look forward to enjoying one with him in the next few months. \p Justin Madders: Indeed, the Bill does secure the great British pint; thanks to an amendment in the other place, it will hopefully be enshrined in law. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend in enjoying one at some point in the not-too-distant future.

The pace of change in both consumer behaviour and product innovation is only accelerating. From connected devices and artificial intelligence to new materials and manufacturing methods, the nature of risk and regulation is constantly shifting. We must ensure that our regulators are equipped with the right tools to act quickly and proportionately so that we can both manage and harness the hazards and the economic potential of new technologies. The Bill provides the powers to do just that. It gives Parliament the ability to update and strengthen product regulation and legal metrology in a coherent, consistent way. \p Adam Thompson: Does the Minister agree that the Bill is instrumental in keeping the UK at the forefront of science internationally? \p Justin Madders: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—he has certainly got the measure of this Bill. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I will not give up the day job—and we will not have a Division on that, either.

This is a framework that supports businesses by reducing unnecessary burdens, supports consumers by keeping dangerous goods off the market and supports the UK economy by making our regulatory system more agile, more responsive and more transparent. In short, the Bill will help to ensure that every product on the UK market, whether made in the United Kingdom or imported from abroad, meets the expectations of safety, fairness and quality that the public rightly demand. \p Gareth Snell: The Minister rightly points out that the Bill will allow for new regulations to come on board to keep us safe, but the safety element of that comes about through the enforcement of those new rules. Can he say a little about the conversations happening across Government to ensure that our enforcement agencies are properly resourced to enforce the new regulations that are so vital? \p Justin Madders: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will be primarily responsible for enforcement at the local level, but the Bill also increases the powers of local trading standards to enforce measures.

The Bill affects the whole of the UK. We have worked closely and constructively with devolved Governments on policy development through regular engagement and throughout the Bill’s passage at both ministerial and official level. I therefore thank the devolved Governments, Ministers and their teams for working so constructively with us.

In Committee, we tabled an amendment that placed a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments where regulations contain provisions within their devolved competence. We believe that provides for the most effective and appropriate role for the devolved Governments in a way that respects the individual devolution settlements. I am pleased to report that the Senedd passed a legislative consent motion for the Bill yesterday. I have also had constructive discussions with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and both have recommended legislative consent to their respective legislatures. We will continue to work collaboratively with those bodies to develop product regulation that best supports businesses and consumers across the whole of the UK.

I will provide a quick recap of some of the changes made to the Bill by the Government since it was introduced last year, in addition to the devolution amendment, because there has been some misconception about what the Bill does and does not do. We have added a statutory consultation mechanism to ensure that stakeholders can shape product and metrology regulations. We have extended the affirmative procedure to parts of the Bill to further boost parliamentary scrutiny; for the avoidance of doubt, they are detailed in clause 13(4). The affirmative procedure therefore now applies to: the creation of criminal offences; the first use of regulations covering online marketplaces; the first time duties are imposed on a new supply chain actor; regulations conferring powers of entry, search or inspection; regulations to disapply requirements in response to an emergency; regulations covering the sharing of information between persons; regulations on cost recovery, which I have already referred to in my response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central; regulations amending or repealing the Gun Barrel Proof Acts; regulations on consequential amendments to primary legislation; and regulations amending the definition of online marketplaces. As Members will be aware from the responses on Report, there were a number of reasons that we want flexibility with regard to online marketplaces, which we believe will develop in ways that we cannot predict.

I can confirm that aviation safety products are exempted from the Bill as they are covered in existing legislation.

The Government have published a code of conduct that sets out the statutory and non-statutory guardrails to ensure that regulation made under this legislation is proportionate and well designed. It is also worth addressing the criticism that this is a skeletal Bill and pointing out that the proportion of skeletal Bills tripled in 2016-2023   compared with 1991-2015. Indeed, in the former period, some 19 separate Bills were described as skeletal by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. \p Michael Wheeler: Does the Minister agree that, far from being a skeletal Bill, this legislation provides an adaptable framework for product regulation and consumer safety? \p Justin Madders: My hon. Friend is right; indeed, this goes well beyond the measures in place when we were in the EU when it comes to parliamentary involvement. I will briefly refer to contributions made by hon. Members during the passage of the Bill.

I thank my counterpart in the other place, Lord Leong, for shepherding the Bill through the Lords, with support from Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I also thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, who has been alongside us throughout the passage of this Bill in the Public Bill Committee. The hon. Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Chippenham and for Richmond Park, who represented the Liberal Democrats in Committee and in the Chamber, are a trio that we will never forget. I hope that the short passage of this Bill is not a reflection of the high turnover in Liberal Democrat spokespeople—they have engaged with the Bill in a constructive manner.

I thank hon. Members who engaged in the Bill Committee and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz), who chaired that Committee with great expertise. It is probably worth mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central again. He has championed the ceramics industry both today and on Second Reading, and we recognise his great contributions.

Finally, I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who, as the first elected metrologist to this House, has brought a deeply technical and knowledgeable perspective to our debates, which we all appreciate—although I do not think we could ever be asked to take a quiz on the finer details of his work. \p Adam Thompson: On that point, could the Minister elaborate on how the Bill supports the advancement of British science? \p Justin Madders: I suspect that my hon. Friend would be far better at doing that himself. His speech on Second Reading was a fantastic example of how we explain legislation matters and practice. It is important that we have certainty and consistency in how we measure things and that we have a clear legislative framework for the measurements that underpins all science. He gave us a historical sweep of those issues when he spoke on Second Reading.

It is important for me to pass on my gratitude to all those officials who have supported us in the passage of the Bill, as well as the parliamentary staff who have enabled it to come through swiftly and smoothly. It will return to the other place for consideration of the amendments we have made in this place, and I am confident that—in the spirit of constructive scrutiny and co-operation that has characterised its progress so  far—it will continue on its way. This legislation is an important step in strengthening our domestic regulatory regime and ensuring that it is robust, future-facing and fit for purpose in a post-Brexit economy. I look forward to working with colleagues in the other place to ensure that the Bill finally reaches the statute book as swiftly as possible. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Andrew Griffith: Let me place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for their work in holding the Government to account on this Bill.

On Second Reading, I said that the Bill was the archetype of everything that is sometimes wrong with Westminster, but now, after months of debate in both Houses, I fear that it is even worse. In 2017, the now Prime Minister said that his party would respect the outcome of the referendum in which 17 million people voted to leave the European Union. Britain has now fallen victim to Labour’s EU surrender summit, giving up our fishing rights and our ability to make our own laws. I am happy to concede that this is no longer a Trojan horse of a surrender Bill, because it is now in plain sight. It is absurd that any Government would give up the power to shape our own regulations and meet the needs of our own consumers, electors and businesses. Those economies that will succeed in the future are those that are agile, that can adjust dynamically to events and that can tailor their own rulebook to their own particular needs.

While this Government’s track record is frankly disastrous, I still give them the benefit of the doubt when they say they wish for growth, but for the benefit of Labour Members—who I rather suspect have not read the detail of this Bill; they have been whipped into supporting it—let me spell out what it does. The dynamic alignment clauses in the Bill would mean that every time the EU tweaked its standards—shaped by the interests of 27 other states with their own different mix of businesses, often in competition with ours—Britain would have to follow suit. There would be no more bespoke trade deals around the world, as the Prime Minister and his team would be lame-duck negotiators, with the EU President holding the real strings. The Government boast of three trade deals in three weeks, but that is a hollow boast when not a single one is backed up by any detail. The Trade Secretary, who is noticeably absent today, is no doubt trying to make true what his Prime Minister has already announced. The Paymaster General confirmed to me in a written answer this afternoon that British businesses, exporters, travellers and tourists will not benefit from e-gates, as we were promised. Yet the Government, in all their naivety, are legislating to hand control of our product regulations back to Brussels.

At every stage of scrutiny, this Bill has been found wanting. The mild-mannered Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place delivered  an uncharacteristically scathing rebuke, branding it a skeleton Bill that grotesquely shifts legislative power from Parliament to Ministers. It shackles British businesses, already bleeding out, to EU standards, stifling innovation. It is a solution in search of a problem, and under the Bill—under the measures being brought forward by the Government today—there is no room for the sort of robust scrutiny that we were sent here by our constituents to do, and no accountability. It is all in the hands of Ministers who keep breaking their promises.

Let us be clear: Labour’s pattern of broken promises does not just set Britain back; it erodes the trust that people have in politics. This House has a duty to restore faith in our democracy, to protect our hard-fought sovereignty and to say no to the overreach of blank-cheque ministerial powers, such as those in the Bill. This House must tonight reject the Bill, as we will seek to do, to stop the Government from forsaking Britain’s ability to carve and determine its own future.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division. \p Caroline Nokes: Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby? \p UNKNOWN: The House having divided: Ayes 264, Noes 99.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Orders Nos. 15 and 41A(3)),

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of James Murray relating to Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill: Money.—(Christian Wakeford.)

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

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Rushanara Ali.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 31 March, be approved. —(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 2 April, be approved.—(Christian Wakeford.)

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 11 June (Standing Order No. 41A). \p Wendy Chamberlain: Today, my constituent Isla presented her petition, which has over 200,000 signatures, to No. 10 Downing Street. It calls for more investment in, and political will for, the early detection of pancreatic cancer. She and her brother Tam started the petition the night before he died, just weeks after his diagnosis. I am presenting this petition on behalf of Isla and the hundreds of thousands of others who lose loved ones because of the lack of early detection.

“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the resource needs in relation to the research and development of tests for the early detection of pancreatic cancer, and ensure the appropriate tools are available to General Practitioners across the NHS”,

and across the UK.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that there are life-threateningly few tests for early detection of pancreatic cancer therefore reducing the availability of life-saving early treatment to patients.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the resource needs in relation to the research and development of tests for the early detection of pancreatic cancer, and ensure the appropriate tools are available to General Practitioners across the NHS.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003080] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Christian Wakeford.) \p Peter Swallow: I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate on an issue that might not be right at the top of the political agenda, but affects the lives of hundreds of people in my constituency every day: street parking on residential estates in Bracknell. It is a topic that comes up on the doorstep perhaps more than any other, particularly in parts of Bracknell where we have older estates. It is a real challenge for people; it affects not only their ability to get around our fantastic community, but in some cases their safety.

One of the core challenges we face is the mismatch between older estate design and modern car ownership. Bracknell is an older new town. It celebrated its 75th birthday last year, and while it was designed with an excellent active travel network, which is built into its DNA, it was also designed around the car. It is an easy place to get around by car. We are lucky that we do not see massive issues with traffic jams and the like, but people still rely on their cars, as is the case in many towns across the country. The challenge is that many estates across Bracknell, particularly in Wildridings, Great Hollands and Easthampstead, were built when households typically had one small vehicle, if that. Now, many households have more than one car, and the cars are larger to boot. Also, because of the nature of the housing market, we increasingly see more generations living in the same family home, which only further compounds the issue.

The garages built alongside the estates that I am talking about in Bracknell Forest were built for a different kind of car. They are narrow, and many no longer fit cars of the size that people drive today. The obvious conclusion to all this is exactly what we see: vehicles spilling out on to roads, verges and pavements. Where households do not have a driveway, it causes a huge challenge around space. \p Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I think he is about to describe the incredible pressure that many residents feel because of parking problems, whether that is difficulty parking near their home, difficulty walking along a pavement because of pavement parking, or one of many other problems. It drives people absolutely crazy. There is real pressure on communities up and down the country, in my experience. Does he agree that, to help ease some of this, the Government should have a new look at existing regulations, at further refining residents’ parking schemes, and at the more tricky issues, such as cases where one person or a group of people parking again and again on an unrestricted road? In my constituency, I have had issues when people commuting to work have parked on the same road time and again, which can be frustrating for residents. As my hon. Friend says, the basic problem is that there are many more vehicles nowadays, and it is difficult to accommodate parking needs, but we must try. \p Peter Swallow: I thank my hon. Friend for that insightful intervention. In Bracknell Forest, we have few permit parking zones, because they simply would not work for our community. The point that he makes is absolutely correct, and I will come back time and again in this debate to the need for local areas to come up with local solutions to these local problems. Ultimately, communities like his in Reading and mine in Bracknell Forest know best what the solutions are to some of these endemic issues. \p Alice Macdonald: I thank my hon. Friend for the speech he is making. This issue plagues residents in my area, too. Two particular problems are: parking around school pick-up and drop-off—I wonder whether he has found the same—and, in unadopted estates, real difficulties with enforcement when there is dangerous parking. Does this issue need to be addressed by local authorities, as well as the Government? \p Peter Swallow: Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s point about the challenge around schools is well made. We all want to see more young people and families walking and cycling to school, but in some communities, that just is not possible. Also, we have to be realistic: in some communities, it just does not happen. The end result is what we often see in streets such as Staplehurst in Great Hollands, where there is a lot of conflict between those going to pick up their kids from school and the families who live there, who just need to get out without having their movements dictated by the timings of the school day. It is a real challenge. In those situations, local solutions need to be the vehicle that takes us forward, if the House will pardon the pun.

Enforcement is a really important part of the puzzle. On some streets in Bracknell Forest, at any hour of any day, a traffic warden could litter all the cars with tickets. Frankly, if there is not the parking infrastructure to allow cars to park, enforcement can only go so far, so although it is absolutely part of the solution, it is not the only part. \p Joshua Reynolds: I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way, and congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate. As he knows, Binfield in my constituency is part of Bracknell Forest. An issue in Binfield is commercial businesses being run from residential properties, which often creates increased demand for parking. I really support the hon. Gentleman’s call for localised support and action to target this issue. Would he like to work together with Bracknell Forest and me to come up with a solution? \p Peter Swallow: That sounds like an excellent campaign. I have to say that I have not necessarily identified that issue in my part of Bracknell Forest, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could have a further discussion in the Tea Room on that very important issue. \p Jim Shannon: I spoke to the hon. Gentleman before the debate, and I congratulate him on bringing forward this issue. In my constituency of Strangford, which is very similar to his, there are estates where the houses were built in the ’60s and ’70s. The roads are narrow and were never built for households with two or more cars, and the situation is aggravated when young people learn to drive. The Department back home came up with the idea of enabling those who have driveways to have a white line put across them,  so that cars cannot park in front. That is okay in theory, but it does not work, because cars have to go in and out, and there is a problem when cars park beyond the line. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that leads to frustration, anger and fisticuffs, and to neighbours falling out. If there is to be an initiative from this House—we look to the Minister for that—it has to start with legislation or direction from this place. Then councils can have responsibility for taking it to the next stage. Again, well done to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue. There is not one of us in this House who does not agree with him. \p Peter Swallow: May I say what an honour it is to be intervened on by the hon. Member? I will take his suggestion and flip it on its head. I feel that local solutions are the best way to tackle what are often local issues, and part of the reason for that is exactly what we have heard today from Members across the House: in every community and on almost every street, different issues cause the parking woes to which the hon. Member so powerfully refers. Parking is perhaps the greatest example of an issue that must be tackled from the bottom up, and this place can empower local leaders to come forward with common-sense answers and strategies to address these very real issues in our communities.

In Bracknell Forest, there are estates where a large number of homes without driveways were once council houses. They are now in private ownership, but the estates themselves have been transferred to the social housing association Abri. That makes the issue even trickier to address. Bracknell Forest council is working hard to tackle this issue in exactly the proactive and practical way to which I have referred, and it has been undertaking a scheme to convert grass verges into additional parking spaces, almost road by road. The council is identifying underused grass verges and converting them into usable and safe parking bays, and that is being done in partnership with Abri. It is an excellent example of what can be achieved when councils and housing associations work collaboratively to address shared challenges. That has not always been easy, and it has involved complex legal issues around transferring ownership from social housing providers to the council, but I thank both the council and Abri for working proactively together to address the concerns. I also make it clear that this is not a silver bullet. Such schemes are making a real difference in parts of Bracknell Forest, but I am fully aware that this is not enough and challenges remain.

It would be fantastic to see Government take more action to support local authorities to work with social housing providers in delivering such small-scale, locally targeted infrastructure improvements. It is not about massive investment or a complex solution but an obvious, common-sense one: unlocking existing local potential by simplifying the process. Of course, I recognise that converting grass verges may be anathema to some. Let me be clear: I support access to green space, and I do not want to see every corner of Bracknell Forest tarmacked over. \p Matt Rodda: Again, my hon. Friend is making an excellent point. May I remind him that there is a great deal of underused brownfield land that can sometimes be made available for parking? In my constituency, I worked previously as a councillor on a scheme to tarmac an unadopted road, which my hon. Friend the  Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) mentioned, and unadopted roads and other areas of hardstanding that are not formally used for parking can be converted without any loss of green space. \p Peter Swallow: That is a fantastic point, and it again reinforces the local need for finding solutions. As in Bracknell Forest where cars are already parked on grass verges because of the lack of parking spaces—tearing up the grass and in some cases causing safety concerns such as blocking blind corners—it is also common sense to convert some of the verges in a safer way into proper parking spaces. Rather than taking away valuable green space, it ensures that we better protect the grass verges that we do need.

Another growing pressure on our estates, which is very much on the Government’s radar, is the need to transition to electric vehicles. As things stand, EV charging on housing estates with roadside-only parking is almost impossible for many residents. Without driveways or off-street bays, there is nowhere to install a home charger. Charging cables trailing across pavements are a serious safety concern for pedestrians, wheelchair users and families alike. Bracknell Forest council has been leading the way in installing charging infrastructure in council car parks, and there is good coverage for those who need to charge.

However, there is a challenge. It cannot be right that households with a driveway, who are more likely to be affluent already, can access cheaper and easier EV charging at home without paying VAT, while households without a driveway struggle to access charging at home and have to pay above the odds at rapid charging stations. It is not just a Bracknell issue; it is a national challenge. It is a critical barrier to equitable access to EVs, particularly for those living in older estates. \p Deirdre Costigan: I thank my hon. Friend for raising these very important issues, and his constituents will be delighted that he is doing so on their behalf. In Ealing, electric vehicle charging points have been a major concern for the council to ensure they meet the need. There are currently 900 electric vehicle charging points throughout the borough, but we need 1,800 by 2030. The council has been consulting on an electric vehicle roll-out strategy to take a strategic approach to the issue. Does he agree that other areas would benefit from taking a similar strategic approach to the roll-out of electric vehicle charging points? \p Peter Swallow: Absolutely. That again goes to the point about local solutions being important. I thank the Government for their work on reforms set out by the National Energy System Operator to improve the speed at which EV charging infrastructure can be added to the grid. I will press on because I am conscious that we are fast approaching the witching hour.

Another technical but very real issue that makes it harder for local authorities up and down the country to introduce parking restrictions is that even simple localised restrictions can cost up to £1,000 in advertising fees because of the requirement, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to publicise them in a local newspaper. That is money not going towards tarmac or signage, but simply to advertising costs. As a result, residents can wait for months for a minor change that could immediately improve safety and accessibility.

Finally, I shall touch on pavement parking, which I know is a divisive subject. Many Members have argued that it should be illegal to park on pavements, and I understand why they hold such a view. I recognise how difficult it is for people with pushchairs as well as disabled people, especially blind people, to navigate pavements when cars are parked. I have also met and heard from a fantastic charity, Sustrans, on this issue. But the reality is that if we enforce a total ban on pavement parking in Bracknell Forest, there will simply be nowhere left to park. On many narrow estates, pavement parking is the only way the road can remain passable. That is why I support giving local authorities the powers to decide where to ban pavement parking based on local needs and knowledge. Again, this is about local flexibility. Councils know their communities best and communities know what is best for them. Let us trust them to make the right calls and empower them to tackle this really significant issue facing so many families in Bracknell Forest and across the country. \p Matthew Pennycook: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for raising this important matter with the Government, and congratulate him on securing this debate. I have heard his concerns regarding the inadequate provision of parking across his constituency, and I recognise the issues he raises on the accessibility of parking. These are important issues which have a direct link to the welfare of local communities and the economic prosperity of our towns. Let me cover some of the main points raised in his remarks and other interventions.

As my hon. Friend will be all too aware, competition for parking spaces, especially for accessible street parking, across this country is already substantial. The Government recognise the provision of accessible and reliable parking is particularly important outside of the major metropolitan areas, where public transportation is often limited and where people need to be able to drive to access basic services and economic centres. Although the Government understand the benefits of private car use for individuals up and down the country, with many across our communities relying on private vehicles as a key part of their lives, I also recognise that many estates are simply not equipped to deal with the number of cars on our roads. That is most keenly felt by residents in older estates.

This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that modern cars have grown not only in number but in size, as my hon. Friend rightly referenced in his remarks. As a result, the growing demand for the provision of parking risks becoming unmanageable. That will not only be frustrating to residents who own vehicles, but can also lead to irresponsible or even dangerous parking in prohibited areas.

My Department is aware of the complaints many residents of Bracknell Forest have raised about parked vehicles preventing the flow of traffic, and I welcome the measures the council has now put in place to prevent this. While the Government recognise the importance of adequate provision of street parking for local communities, in line with the Government’s position on localism, parking is ultimately the responsibility of local authorities  and it is for them to determine what is appropriate in their area, and local authorities already have powers to implement and enforce parking restrictions.

The Government understand that Bracknell Forest council has acknowledged the pressures with street parking in the community and is in the process of implementing a parking strategy with the objective of supporting the provision of parking in the borough. I note the concerns my hon. Friend raises regarding the council’s progress to date; however, it is right that local authorities have autonomy over the nature and scope of parking policies within their local area. As he rightly recognised when he spoke about local solutions, local authorities are best placed to balance the needs of residents, emergency services, local businesses and those who work in and visit their area.

Of course, the Government are committed to investing in local communities and improving local transport infrastructure. The Department for Transport recently allocated £203,000 to Bracknell Forest council from the local transport resource funding scheme. Under the scheme, local transport authorities can use this funding to build their capability and capacity to develop ambitious transport schemes, develop and update local transport plans, deliver local delivery plans, fund individual projects and retain the transport expertise to do this.

On pavement parking, I well understand that this can be a real problem for pedestrians, wheelchair users, those with prams and buggies, and especially people with mobility or visual impairments. We are mindful of the concerns many people have raised about inconsiderate pavement parking.

As my hon. Friend is likely already aware, the Department for Transport held a consultation back in 2020 on the complex problem of pavement parking. This Government intend to publish a formal response to that consultation later this year, which will summarise the views received and announce the Government’s next steps for pavement parking policy. In the meantime, highways authorities may introduce specific local pavement parking restrictions using their existing TRO-making powers—traffic regulation orders—and these can be enforced by councils using their civil parking enforcement powers.

My hon. Friend also raised the topic of electric vehicle charging on housing estates with roadside parking. The Government are committed to making EV charging infrastructure more affordable and accessible, particularly for those without off-street parking. Most electric vehicle drivers charge overnight at home, which is often the most convenient and cost-effective option. To support those without on-street parking, the Government offer a grant for homes to purchase a charge point when paired with a cross-pavement charging solution. The Department is aware of at least 26 trials and hundreds of individual installations of cross-pavement solutions across the UK. The Government are also working with local authorities to encourage this technology. In December 2024, the Government published cross-pavement guidance to help local authorities understand what they need to consider for the roll-out of cross-pavement solutions. That includes relevant planning permissions, minimum existing standards, responsibilities and case studies of trials.

For private land, such as the residential estates my hon. Friend mentioned, the landowners or private car park operators are responsible for parking provision  and enforcement. I am pleased to hear that Bracknell Forest council is working with local landowners, including housing associations, to deliver more parking capacity across the community. Housing associations are private bodies and must make their own decisions on how they run their business, but the neighbourhood and community standard is clear that providers must co-operate with partners to promote social, environmental and economic wellbeing. The standard includes a specific expectation that housing associations co-operate with local authorities to support them in achieving their objectives. However, the regulator of social housing does not dictate how individual housing associations demonstrate how they comply with this duty. I welcome the co-operation my hon. Friend mentioned. I am glad to hear his local authority is working collaboratively with Abri, the housing association in question, and I am pleased by Bracknell Forest council’s commitment, through its parking strategy, to work with housing associations generally to help alleviate the pressures on parking.

To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend once again for raising this matter with the Government. We recognise the significant concerns many communities, particularly those residing in older estates, face regarding the accessibility and availability of parking. This essential resource is under increasing pressure, and we fully support local councils in their endeavours to mitigate the challenges. As I said, local councils are best positioned to lead the initiatives, as they possess the intimate knowledge of their areas and can effectively consider factors such as traffic flow capacity, road safety and the diverse needs of residents, visitors and businesses, but I hope I have given my hon. Friend a sense of what the Government are doing to support them.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.