debates/debates2025-04-02c conversation_18
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-04-02)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-04-02c conversation_18

Imogen Walker:My constituents are struggling to gain access to the healthcare that they desperately need, and one in six Scots is on a waiting list. Meanwhile, in England, the waiting lists have been coming down for the last five months, and more than 2 million appointments have been made available. Does the Prime Minister agree that the SNP-led Government should stop blaming everyone else for their failures, when Scotland’s broken public services are their responsibility? \p Keir Starmer: My hon. Friend is right. More than 60,000 Scots have been stuck waiting for tests or treatment for over a year. That is a 46% rise in one year. I had to check that figure because it is so staggering. Despite the backlog, nearly 50,000 fewer operations are being performed than were performed before the pandemic. Let us compare that with the situation in England, where we have driven down waiting lists with more than 2 million extra appointments, and have scrapped NHS England to cut bureaucracy. Scotland’s NHS is in desperate need of reform, but the Scottish National party has no strategy, no plans and no ideas. \p Greg Smith: Earlier, the Prime Minister seemed reluctant to answer a direct question about his jobs tax. Next time he visits my constituency to enjoy the beautiful Buckinghamshire surroundings of Chequers, will he go five minutes up the road to Wendover, and explain to Kate Rumsey of Rumsey’s Handmade Chocolates why his choices and those of his Chancellor have led to a 15% increase in costs for that business? As a result, it has already had to lay people off, and has had to reduce the hours of those whom it still employs. Is that what he meant by growth? \p Keir Starmer: I am happy to tell anyone why: the Conservatives left a £22 billion black hole. They crashed the economy, they ruined our public services  and, as we mend and rebuild the country, they carp from the sidelines. Even now, they cannot bring themselves to say that they do not want the investment, or that they will reverse the decisions we have made. They actually agree with the decisions we have made, because we are clearing up the mess that they left. \p Jayne Kirkham: One year ago yesterday, my constituent James Henderson was killed with other aid workers from World Central Kitchen when taking humanitarian aid into Gaza. Jim’s family have told me that he would want confirmation from our Government that we are taking all conceivable steps to make sure that aid, power and supplies are safely returned to Gaza. Could the PM confirm that he is doing all he can to ensure this? Could he also confirm that he will continue to push for a full investigation into the death of Jim and the other British WCK workers to be completed, and for appropriate action to be taken? \p Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this appalling incident, and our thoughts remain with the families of Jim, John Chapman and James Kirby. Attacks on aid workers are never justified. The families deserve justice, and we are pressing the Israeli Government to accelerate their investigation, including into whether criminal proceedings should be initiated. Israel must stop blocking aid to Gaza, the hostages must be released, and we must have an urgent resumption of the ceasefire. \p Alberto Costa: Double child rapist and murderer Colin Pitchfork is up for parole for the fifth time. I know the Prime Minister does not have direct control—nor should he—over the Parole Board, but he does have a view. I have asked this of all his predecessors, and I will now put the question to him: does he agree that men who brutally rape and strangle to death young women should, as a matter of a principle, spend most of their natural life in prison? \p Keir Starmer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this appalling case, and I absolutely agree with him that there must be maximum penalties for anyone falling into that category. I saw many of these cases for myself, at first hand, when I was a prosecutor for five years, and worked with the police on really terrible cases, and I know the impact that such crime has on victims. I thank him for raising this. \p Priti Patel: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of the negotiations surrounding the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. \p Stephen Doughty: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. As we and Mauritius have repeatedly said, including in joint statements on 20 December and 13 January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos archipelago that protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. We are now working with Mauritius to finalise the agreement, and although it is in everybody’s interest to progress the deal quickly, we have never put an exact date on it, and we do not intend to do so now. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to enable the implementation of the treaty, and Parliament will of course have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty in the usual way before ratification.

I repeat that the Government inherited a situation in which the long-term future of the military base was under threat. This deal is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect UK security and that of our allies. It will protect the base on Diego Garcia, and cement the UK and US presence in the Indo-Pacific for generations to come. \p Priti Patel: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. It is incredibly disappointing that, only a day after Foreign Office oral questions, Ministers have had to be hauled back to the House to explain what is going on. Yesterday at lunch time, Downing Street briefed that the agreement between the UK and Mauritius, under which the UK would give away the Chagos islands and pay for the privilege, has been finalised. That was not said in this House yesterday. The Prime Minister of Mauritius has also issued a public statement confirming that. Despite being interrogated on this botched deal in the Chamber yesterday, Ministers gave no indication of this very significant development.

We are still completely in the dark about fundamental questions of enormous importance. How many billions of pounds of hard-pressed British taxpayers’ money will we be expected to fork out to lease back territory that we already own? This comes as vulnerable pensioners are having their winter fuel payments ripped away, and family farms and businesses are being punished with new taxes by this Labour Government. What safeguards will be in place to protect the military base on Diego Garcia from other states that may try to establish a foothold on the archipelago? Ministers have so far refused to publish even a map of the buffer zone. What happens to the vital military base on Diego Garcia at the end of the treaty, and what kind of sovereign rights, if any, will we be able to exercise over Diego Garcia in the meantime?

The Prime Minister of Mauritius says that he forced changes to the arrangements on the exercise of sovereign rights and the lease extension. Will the Minister finally  confirm that the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct? He cannot simply stand here and avoid these questions. The House does deserve answers; so do the British public—the taxpayers. Put simply, the British Indian Ocean Territory should remain British, but Labour has prioritised appeasing the whims of left-wing lawyers and activists, rather than standing up for our national interests. It is high time this deal was ditched.

Finally, there have been reports of implied military threats to the Chagos islands, a British sovereign territory—Labour Members may laugh, but this issue is fundamental to the security of our country—from the regime in Tehran. The Iranian regime has threatened this space. These purported military threats are important. We understand that, in response to such reports, there has been an unusual build-up of American bomber aircraft and equipment-carrying aircraft at the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. This is very serious, and we clearly need to take these threats seriously. We would welcome clarity about the Foreign Office’s diplomatic response on this issue. \p Stephen Doughty: On parliamentary accountability for this issue, I have answered no fewer than five urgent questions on the subject in the last six months, and I have answered 130 written questions from her and her colleagues. We discussed this twice at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions yesterday. As I have repeatedly said, when the details of the treaty are finalised, it will be presented to this House, and there will be full scrutiny in the usual way. I have explained that a Bill will be brought in to put into force the important aspects of the treaty that require legislative change, and there will of course be full debates, as there should be, in this House.

I simply reject the basis of much of the right hon. Lady’s question. As I have said repeatedly, if there was not a problem, why did the Government of whom she was a part start negotiations, and go through 11 rounds of them? There is a significant challenge, and this deal is paramount for our national security. We will not scrimp on our security, and it is important that the deal is put in place, as has been recognised by all the parties.

We will only agree a deal that is in the UK’s best interests and protects our national security. Importantly, the right hon. Lady asked about the security provisions to protect the base. These will include full UK control over Diego Garcia, including control of the electromagnetic spectrum, and unrestricted access to and use of the base, as well as a buffer zone around Diego Garcia in which nothing can be built or put in place without our consent. There will be a robust mechanism and review process to ensure that no activity on the outer islands can impinge on the base’s operations. Indeed, there will be a prohibition on the presence of foreign security forces, either civilian or military, on the outer islands. As the Prime Minister has said, the full details will of course be set out when the treaty is laid before Parliament, and that will include costs. We will not scrimp on security.

The right hon. Lady asked an important question in relation to Iran. She will understand that for operational reasons and as a matter of policy, we do not offer comment or information relating to foreign nations’ military aircraft movements or operations. The UK, in  close co-operation with our allies in the United States, closely monitors the security environment in the Indian ocean region to identify and mitigate any potential threats to the base on Diego Garcia. \p Blair McDougall: I share the Minister’s bafflement at the Opposition’s utter obsession with this issue. Can he confirm that under the agreement, the vital US-UK military base and its operations will be completely unaltered? \p Stephen Doughty: I share my hon. Friend’s bafflement. With so many issues going on in the world, I do question the number of times this one has been raised. We have answered all the questions before. We welcome the fact that the United States recognises the strength of the deal. It is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect UK security and that of our allies. Once signed, it will protect the base on Diego Garcia, which was under threat, and cement the presence of the UK and the US in the Indo-Pacific. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Helen Maguire: Following yesterday’s intervention by President Trump, it appears that the White House has the final say on the future of sovereign British territory. Meanwhile, the Chagossians continue to be ignored. The process of securing the deal has been shambolic. Chagossians have been denied their right to a say, and it is shameful how they have been treated. Will the Minister confirm whether there are any plans to ensure that the Chagossians are finally included in discussions at this eleventh hour of the negotiations?

Hard-working families around the country will rightly be questioning why the Government seem to be willing, reportedly, to negotiate such significant payments to Mauritius at a time when winter fuel payments have been scrapped.

The confected consternation of the Conservatives is also bemusing, given that it was their Foreign Secretary who first signalled the UK’s intention to secure an agreement. As the Minister confirmed, the treaty must come before the House for scrutiny, especially given its importance to our national security. Can he confirm when that will happen and that this House will have a vote on any final deal? \p Stephen Doughty: It was absolutely right, as I have said on many occasions, that the new United States Administration had a chance to consider the agreement. We welcome the fact that the United States recognises the strength of the deal—we heard the comments that have been made—and that is because it will fundamentally protect UK and US security interests. I remind the hon. Lady that we have legal obligations with the United States in relation to the operation of the base and it was only right that it was consulted, with full engagement in the process.

The hon. Lady asks about the Chagossians. We deeply regret, as I have said many times, the way Chagossians were removed from the islands, but the negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius, with our priority being to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia. However, we have worked hard to ensure that  the agreement reflects the importance of the islands to Chagossians. I have set out to the House a number of times the mechanisms and systems that will be in place to do that. It is really important to respect the many different views within the Chagossian community. There is not one settled view. For example, the Chagos Refugees Group, one of the largest Chagossian groups, has in fact welcomed the agreement. \p Alex Ballinger: Can the Minister confirm that the confirmation of the legal status of the base on Diego Garcia will strengthen our influence in the Asia-Pacific and put us in a strong position to counter the influence of China? \p Stephen Doughty: I absolutely can. Our national security, and that of our allies, has been at the heart of the agreement. There was a significant problem. The former Government knew that, which is why they started negotiating. We have completed the deal, with the full involvement of the United States and with consideration of all the important measures, which I have set out on many occasions, to keep the base safe. \p Iain Duncan Smith: The Minister knows the regard I have for him, but when he says he has appeared at the Dispatch Box many times with this information, he knows that it has had nothing to do with giving us information—it means he was dragged here. The question I want to ask—the No. 1 question, which was not covered in the detail he set out today—is how much will taxpayers pay for this settlement, and out of which budget will it come? Can he guarantee that at no stage will it come from the defence budget increase? \p Stephen Doughty: As I said yesterday, a financial element over 99 years was crucial to protect the operation of such a vital base—we will not scrimp on our security. Once the treaty is signed, it will be put before the House for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way, and that will include the costs. The right hon. Gentleman asks where the budgets are coming from. The terms of the treaty and the associated funding arrangements are still being finalised. Financial obligations, including departmental budgetary responsibilities, will, of course, be managed responsibly within the Government’s fiscal framework. \p Phil Brickell: Does the Minister agree that it is vital the UK Government fulfil their obligations under international law? Does he recognise that the January 2021 binding judgment of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea—[Interruption]—which was handed down under the Conservative Government, found that the UK’s current administration of the archipelago

“constitutes a wrongful act…and…must be brought to an end as rapidly as possible”? \p Stephen Doughty: There does appear to be some confusion about the different legal judgments among the Opposition, as I can hear from the chuntering. There are a number of ways in which the operation of the base was not sustainable. We are very clear that without a deal—as the previous Government recognised—we would face serious, real-world operational  impacts on the base that would erode our ability to operate key frequencies vital for our own communications and to counter hostile states, affecting everything from overflight clearances to securing contractors, with consequential rocketing costs, declining investment and a degraded facility. We were not willing to take that risk, and have therefore secured this base for our security and that of our allies. \p Andrew Murrison: The United States is busy increasing its presence on Diego Garcia, most recently with its B-2 Spirit aircraft, probably facing towards Iran. Given that, how much will the Trump White House be contributing to the endowment that the Minister proposes we hand to Mauritius? \p Stephen Doughty: As I have set out on a number of occasions, and again today, when we present the treaty, we will present the costs and the arrangements, and the House will have the chance to scrutinise them. We welcome the fact that the United States recognises the strength of this deal, which is because it is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect our security and that of the United States, and our presence in the Indo-Pacific. As I said before, I am not going to get into operational discussions about matters at the base in relation to the presence of aircraft. \p Louise Jones: I thank the Minister and his team for their tireless efforts to secure the future of this vital base, which is exactly the right thing to do. Will he assure me that no less than the most robust of security provisions will be in place? \p Stephen Doughty: I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend of that fact; it has been at the core of the detail of this arrangement. We will retain full control over Diego Garcia and have robust provisions to keep adversaries out, including unrestricted access to and use of the base for the United Kingdom and the United States, the buffer zone I mentioned, the comprehensive mechanism to prevent activity on the other islands threatening the base operations, and a ban on the presence of foreign security forces. \p Al Pinkerton: In all inhabited British overseas territories, British sovereignty flows, in my opinion, from the self-determination of the islanders and residents, and that is exactly the same with the British Indian Ocean Territory. Even though the population is displaced, British sovereignty flows from Chagossians and their right to self-determination. I ask the Minister again what efforts he has made to engage with the widest possible constituency of Chagossians, and whether he will give them a veto over this deal if it is not acceptable to them. \p Stephen Doughty: The islands are not permanently inhabited, and that is one of the fundamental issues in this situation. As I have said repeatedly, we are doing many things that will be supportive of the Chagossian community, including engaging with a number of different groups. There are a range of opinions, and I think it is important that we recognise that—there are, of course, some who support this deal. We continue to put the interests of the Chagossians at the heart of this agreement. Again, full details of that will be available in due course. \p Calvin Bailey: Yet again, the Opposition are attempting to sow division between the UK and its allies, and indeed to share our allies’ sensitive operational information. If they succeed, it will have impacts on our strategically vital relationships with the US and India. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition should consider waiting until the treaty is ready for scrutiny, rather than damaging our vital national interests in this way? \p Stephen Doughty: I completely agree—I think some of the speculation has been hugely unhelpful. We have been hugely grateful for the close co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States throughout the negotiations, and to the Administration for their extensive and detailed engagement, which has helped us to make progress on this deal. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, this agreement has been welcomed by other important partners, including India. China has not welcomed it, of course, because it knows that the agreement will strengthen the presence of the United Kingdom and the United States in the region. \p Sarah Bool: Today marks the 43rd anniversary of the start of the war in the Falklands—another key overseas territory. Government Members keep referring to the non-binding advisory judgment as the basis of the Chagos deal. If the Argentinians were to seek a similar judgment against the Falklands, would the Minister cede control? \p Stephen Doughty: I have to say, as I have said on a number of occasions in this House, that such attempts to make a false comparison are extremely unhelpful, and would not be welcomed by the residents of the Falkland Islands. I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that our support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Falkland Islands is absolute and iron-clad. I have made that clear on many occasions, as have the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Government as a whole. \p Amanda Martin: Will the Minister confirm once again that any agreement that is made will return to this House for scrutiny? \p Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend asks a very important question. As I have set out, there will be multiple opportunities for this House and the other place to consider this matter, not only through the normal Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process, but through the Bill that will be brought forward to make the necessary provisions under the treaty, which will go through the normal process. Full scrutiny will be afforded to Members of this House. \p Graham Stuart: The President and Vice-President of the United States have made clear their detestation of countries freeloading on defence and security matters. We are not asking for the detail, we are not even asking for the quantum, but we do deserve to know in this House today whether the Government have asked the US to contribute to the base on Diego Garcia that is so vital to it—yes or no? \p Stephen Doughty: As I have said on a number of occasions, we welcome the US endorsement of the deal and of its strength, and we are grateful for the close  co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States. The full details will be provided when the treaty is presented to the House. \p Sam Rushworth: I thank my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for their questions. Can the Minister confirm that this agreement will close potentially dangerous routes for irregular migration? Is that possibly one of the reasons the Conservatives opened and presided over 10 rounds of negotiations on it? \p Stephen Doughty: I can absolutely confirm that. That is also why we agreed an important arrangement as an interim with St Helena, which I have spoken to the House about. That has absolutely been at the heart of it, but our primary objective has been to protect the national security of the United Kingdom, our ally the United States and our partners. \p Andrew George: I want to go back to the questions from the right hon. Members for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), and indeed the question I asked the Minister the last time this issue was raised in the House. The Minister is well aware that what we are talking about is primarily a US base. Surely he can at least tell the House today that conversations have been held with the US, and that it fully understands that a compensatory package will be made and that there is a question over who will primarily contribute to that package. Can he make that clear to the House today? \p Stephen Doughty: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago. We are absolutely clear that the United States recognises the strength of this deal. We have had excellent co-operation with the US throughout. The full details will be provided in due course. \p Joe Robertson: Not only are the Government preparing to give away sovereign British territory, but they are preparing to pay for the privilege of doing so by handing over billions to Mauritius. The Minister cannot say where the money is coming from, but can he at least agree that that money would be better spent restoring the winter fuel payment to pensioners in need and relieving social care providers, hospices and charities from their national insurance increases here in the UK, rather than being handed over to Mauritius? \p Stephen Doughty: Quite frankly, the hon. Member neglects to mention the shocking mess that his former Government left us to inherit. I have been clear in this House on many occasions that we will not scrimp when it comes to the national security of this country, whether that is in relation to Diego Garcia or investment in defence and our armed forces. That is exactly what my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Defence Secretary have been setting out on our wider defence spending. What we are doing in this deal is protecting our national security and defence and that of our ally the United States. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: The Minister will have heard the feelings of the House, so can he provide us with the specific guarantees that the Foreign Secretary has secured in relation to preventing hostile states such as China from increasing their influence in the Chagos islands while we as a nation are still paying for them? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Member has asked an important question, and I have answered it a number of times. To reiterate, there will be robust security provisions in that regard. That is why China has not welcomed this deal. We will have full UK control with the United States over Diego Garcia. We will have a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, and we will have a robust mechanism to ensure that no activity in the outer islands can impinge on the base’s operations. Crucially, there will be a prohibition on the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, either civilian or military. \p Jerome Mayhew: What a disgrace this shabby Chagos deal is turning out to be. Labour are not just giving away our national security; they are going to pay billions to Mauritius for the pleasure. Instead of raising taxes on people and businesses in this country, why does the Minister not stand up for Britain and stop this deal? \p Stephen Doughty: We are standing up for Britain, by defending our security and that of our allies, and we will not scrimp on that. It is critical to secure the operation of this base. It is crucial to our interest and that of our allies. As I have asked many times, if there was no problem, why did the hon. Member’s former Government start negotiating over this? \p Mike Martin: This is perhaps a question for the Minister for the Armed Forces, who I notice is also on the Front Bench. On the buffer zone, can the Minister state categorically that it will be sufficiently wide to protect all the capabilities on the base? \p Stephen Doughty: Yes. \p Jack Rankin: Surrendering sovereign territory based on a non-binding legal judgment and forking out taxpayer money for the privilege—what kind of deal is that? It is one done behind closed doors, evading the scrutiny of this House. Does the Minister agree that this deal is a prime example of what happens when we have a Government of lawyers, for lawyers, rather than a Government for the British people? \p Stephen Doughty: I simply reject the premise of the hon. Member’s question. The Government inherited a situation where the effective operation of the base was under threat. Claims that we negotiated this deal simply because of the 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion are wrong. That is not the only challenge that we faced, as the previous Government knew. Without a deal, Mauritius would have inevitably pursued a legally binding judgment, and there would be huge implications from that. Not having a deal would affect the real-world operational functionality of the base, which is so crucial to our national security and that of our allies. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: The Minister made reference to the UK having full control over Diego Garcia, but earlier this month I received this response from him:

“The right to operate and maintain the naval support facility Diego Garcia is held by the Government of the United States. This includes functions as are necessary for the development, use, maintenance, operation and security of the facility.”

Will he explain what control we would have over Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia in the event that US and UK defence priorities do not align, and at what level the control over the base lies? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Member asks an important question. The US operates its naval support facility, and although I will not get into the operational details of that for obvious reasons, the full details will be provided. I can absolutely assure him that we will have control over Diego Garcia and will be working closely with the United States over it. \p David Reed: As we come to the end of this urgent question, I am still no clearer on the substance of this disastrous deal, so the House must now make assumptions. Given that the Minister is sat next to the Minister for the Armed Forces, can we assume that this deal will be coming out from the Ministry of Defence? \p Stephen Doughty: Naturally, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence work closely together on this matter, as indeed Departments do across all Government. I have been very clear that the terms of the treaty and the associated funding arrangements are still being finalised. The responsibilities will be managed responsibly within the Government’s fiscal framework. As for understanding the reasons for this deal and why it is necessary, I suggest that the hon. Member asks some of his formerly ministerial colleagues on the Conservative Benches. \p Jim Shannon: The Minister is an incredibly honourable man, and he is much liked in this House, so I say this with all gentleness. My constituents are telling me that the deal with the Indian ocean territory is overwhelming and that the cost factor is  something that they cannot quite understand—and neither can I. Does the Minister understand why pensioners in my constituency and across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are wondering why, at a time of reduced help and aid, the Government are handing over sovereignty of land and then renting it back at a cost to the public purse? Will the Minister outline where the money will come from, when it has been decided that pensioners and ill people on personal independence payments cannot have the support they deserve due to the lack of money within Government? \p Stephen Doughty: I know that the hon. Gentleman asks his question with sincerity, and he is much liked in this place too. I suggest that he makes it clear to his constituents that a financial element to this deal was crucial to protect operations. It is crucial for the security of his citizens in Strangford and the citizens of the United Kingdom and of the United States, and our interests overseas. Some of the figures that have been quoted in the media are simply inaccurate, and of course, this will happen over a 99-year period. We will not scrimp when it comes to our security. It is important that we invest in it, and that is exactly what this Government are doing. \p Amanda Martin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Is it relevant to the questions we have just had? \p Amanda Martin: It is linked to the comments of the Liberal spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). In her question to the Minister, she noted that the winter fuel payment had been scrapped. This is simply not true. The winter fuel payment has not been scrapped, it has been means-tested, and to say otherwise is misleading. It is similar to when the Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition Government means-tested child benefit— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think we have got the gist; it is a point of clarification rather than a point of order, and the hon. Lady has got it on the record. Let us move on. \p Carla Denyer: (Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement about the Israeli Government’s announcement that they are expanding their military operations in Gaza. \p Hamish Falconer: We are deeply concerned about the resumption of hostilities in Gaza. The UK does not support an expansion of Israel’s military operations. Continued fighting and more bloodshed is in nobody’s interest. All parties, including Israel, must observe international humanitarian law. We urge all parties to return to dialogue and ceasefire negotiations, ensuring the return of all who have endured unimaginable suffering. It is clear that this conflict cannot be won by bombs and bullets, but by diplomacy.

Aid should never be used as a political tool. Israel must restart the flow of aid immediately. Blocking goods supplies and power from entering Gaza risks breaching international humanitarian law, and it should not be happening. We are doing everything we can to alleviate that situation. Gaza is also the most dangerous place in the world to be an aid worker. Over 400 aid workers have been killed since the start of the conflict. Despite renewed fighting, the United Nations and humanitarian organisations must be able to deliver their vital work.

A year on from the appalling attack on World Central Kitchen aid workers, lessons have not been learned. We are appalled at recent attacks on aid workers, which include the attack on a United Nations Office for Project Services guest house and the killing of at least eight Palestinian Red Crescent medics. Our thoughts are with the victims and their families. Those responsible must be held accountable. The Government of Israel must urgently ensure that there are effective deconfliction mechanisms in place to enable agencies to deliver their impartial mandates safely.

On 28 March, the UK and France called an urgent UN Security Council meeting to discuss the risks facing humanitarian aid workers in Gaza. Since the hostilities resumed, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, the Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, the Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, the EU high representative Kallas and the UN emergency relief co-ordinator Tom Fletcher.

A return to a ceasefire is the only way we will bring the conflict to an end and return to negotiations for a lasting peace in the region. That is the only way to deliver the two-state solution that we all want to see. Both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to live in peace and security. \p Carla Denyer: The Israeli Government’s brutal decision to expand their military operations in Gaza is not about security; it is about domination and erasure. It comes on top of 18 months of collective punishment, including, since 2 March, the longest aid blockade since the war began. I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the UK does not support the Israeli Government’s expanded military operation in Gaza. Will he now finally name  what is happening as genocide and undertake a structural investigation into genocide and other crimes under international law committed in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

To ensure that the UK is not complicit in Israel’s ongoing genocide, illegal occupation and system of apartheid, will the Minister immediately suspend the direct and indirect supply, sale or transfer—including transit and trans-shipment—to Israel of all weapons, munitions and other military and security equipment? Will he immediately suspend the provision of training and other military and security assistance and recognise that, otherwise, there is a clear risk of contributing to the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including crimes under international law?

As the Minister mentioned, the UK is a significant provider of humanitarian aid to the region. What assessment has he made of the impact of today’s reports on the humanitarian crisis? Although he touched on this lightly, given the UK’s level of influence with Israeli authorities, will he confirm that he will use his position to actively oppose current and planned attempts by Israel to establish a permanent military presence in Gaza, and to oppose moves to alter Gaza’s borders and demographic make-up or to shrink its territory, including through any expanded buffer zones and construction of permanent checkpoints? \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Lady asked a series of important questions. As I have said to the House on a number of occasions, determinations of breaches of international law are for competent courts and we support those courts in their work.

On weapons, I want to be clear that we continue to stand by the assessments that we made soberly in September and the suspension of licenses that that involved. The hon. Lady asked about the UK’s view on a permanent presence in Gaza. I am happy to restate our policy now. We welcome the proposal by Arab nations, called the Arab initiative, which would allow for a reconstruction of Gaza, the safe return of Palestinians who have been displaced, and for those remaining in Gaza to rebuild their lives without forced displacement, which we oppose. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. \p Emily Thornberry: We have had several urgent questions and statements on Gaza over the last few months. Each time, I have come to the Chamber and asked the Government: what is plan B? What is plan B when Israel ends the ceasefire, which is what has happened? What is plan B when Israel’s far-right Government choose their survival over the lives of the remaining hostages, which is what seems to have happened? What is plan B when annexation of either the west bank or Gaza is not just threatened but actually happens, which is what is happening now? My question is this: what are the Government doing to turn our allies’ heads from American trade wars and towards the tragedy unfolding in the middle east, to do whatever they can to restore a ceasefire and the road to peace? \p Hamish Falconer: My right hon. Friend, who has been pressing on these issues for some time, is right to raise those questions. She asks whether there is a plan B. In  all of my experience, there can be no plan B in Israel-Palestine; there is only one route, which is widely understood by our allies in the region and beyond, and it must be a two-state solution. The route to a two-state solution must involve compliance with international humanitarian law.

It is clear even from the short exchange that we have already had in the Chamber that the British Government’s policy and the Israeli Government’s policy differ. They will continue to differ until we return to a pathway to a two-state solution. There is no plan B. Our plan A is for a two-state solution, and we will work with our allies in the region, on the Security Council—as we did on Friday—and closer to home in order to pursue those arguments. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. This is clearly a difficult and dangerous moment for the middle east. A way must be found through the dreadful impasse that has led to the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement.

As has been said time and again, the key to a sustainable end to the conflict is the release of the remaining 59 hostages so cruelly held by Hamas terrorists since the atrocities of 7 October. Their continued captivity is intolerable. The British Government should be able to bring their influence to bear, and the Foreign Secretary should be directly involved in all efforts to find a way through, working with Israeli counterparts, the US and key regional players and mediator countries. We said that in the Chamber yesterday.

The Minister stated yesterday, as he has today, that the Government are

“in regular contact with all those involved in negotiations.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 147.]

That includes the Foreign Secretary, who spoke to his Israeli counterpart last week. Will the Minister inform the House what direct Minister-to-Minister discussions have taken place about the current military operations? Were Ministers informed in advance, and have they been given any information about the objectives that Israel is seeking?

Every week we come here to ask questions of Ministers, and it is unclear exactly what level of influence the Government have. What is the Government’s plan? What is their vision of a way through? What discussions have they had in recent days with vital interlocutors?

On humanitarian aid, does the Minister feel that he has made any progress in his efforts to try to unblock the current aid access situation? We have spoken about this many times. Will he update the House on what has been happening to British aid while the restrictions remain? Where is that aid?

It was the Conservatives’ position when in government, as indeed it is now the position of the Labour Government, that there can be no role for Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists in Gaza’s future. Will the Minister be proposing to our critical partners a road map for how this will end and how that future will become a reality? \p Hamish Falconer: These are important questions that the right hon. Lady has asked. The Foreign Secretary has been directly involved in Minister-to-Minister contact. I, too, have been talking with all those affected. I very  much welcome her comments about the hostages. Of course, the whole House wants to see them all released, and I am sure that many of us will be thinking of Avinatan Or—he has a British mother—who has been held, almost certainly in terrible conditions, ever since 7 October. I know that the whole House will continue to think of those hostage victims.

The right hon. Lady rightly asked about humanitarian aid. I accept that our efforts in recent days to try to prevent the blockade from continuing in Gaza have not been effective. In the first part of this year, we saw a very welcome increase in aid going into Gaza, including UK aid. Even during that greater flow, there were still unwelcome restrictions on the nature of the aid going in, which made reconstruction, shelter, tents and sleeping bags hard to get into Gaza when they were desperately needed. So there were improvements, and we can see a route by which we might see a significant increase in the amount of aid getting into the Gaza strip, which is desperately needed. But at the current time the reports are extremely depressing; we discussed some of them yesterday.

The right hon. Lady asked about our plan for reconstruction and what discussions we are having with others. We have discussed the Arab initiative with those involved closely. We think it is a plan with real merit. It must not allow Hamas to have a role in government—we are absolutely clear on that point, and I think Arab partners are very much of the same view. That is the basic idea from which we must work. \p Abtisam Mohamed: On 30 March, the first day of Eid, Israeli attacks on Gaza killed dozens of Palestinians, adding to the death toll since Israel breached the ceasefire agreement. Israel is now in the process of enacting the largest forced displacement, ordering hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from Rafah. How will this end? Israel cannot and will not stop. Is the goal ethnic cleansing? We are witnessing that. Is the goal the complete destruction of Gaza? We are now witnessing that. Is the goal the permanent occupation of Gaza and the west bank? We continue to witness that. Is the goal a complete end to the two-state solution? Israeli Ministers have made their intentions clear. Will the Minister unequivocally condemn their actions for what they are: war crimes and crimes against humanity? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has been fearless and persistent on those questions. I do condemn the comments of Israeli Ministers which amount to forced displacement or the annexation of Palestinian territories. We recognise international humanitarian law and call on all our allies, including Israel, also to abide by it. The scenes in Gaza in recent days have been hard to watch, and we will continue to make those points to the Israelis with all the force that my hon. Friend would expect. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Monica Harding: Israel’s expansion of military activity in Gaza, including a strike on UN medical facilities, displacement of civilians and the Defence Minister’s new proposal to seize large swathes of territory is gravely disturbing. It seems that international humanitarian law is being violated. This week’s reports that the Israel Defence Forces killed and buried 15 humanitarian workers in a mass grave is also  appalling. The ceasefire must be restored. Israel must immediately end its illegal blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza to bring desperately needed relief to 2 million people who have suffered enormously. Hamas must also release the remaining hostages immediately and unconditionally.

Will the Minister update the House on the conversations he is having with Israeli, American and middle eastern partners regarding the restoration of the ceasefire? All sides must recommit to a political process. He says that there is only one route, so I ask him once again: will this Government now recognise a Palestinian state, giving hope to millions of Palestinians? Will he also outline what the UK is doing to hold those who attack aid workers in violation of international humanitarian law accountable and to protect those aid workers who remain in Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: Those are important questions. Let me start with humanitarian aid workers. The whole House will have heard the Prime Minister respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). We of course want to see accountability when humanitarian workers are struck. We particularly expect accountability when British nationals are affected. My thoughts are with the families of all those affected by the World Central Kitchen incident. What do we want to see next by way of accountability? We want to see the Israeli Military Advocate General going through the investigation at a proper speed—it has been a year—coming to proper findings and answering the question of whether criminal charges should now be laid.

This House has discussed questions on the recognition of a Palestinian state many times. We will recognise a Palestinian state as part of a contribution to a two-state solution. We are all watching the events in the Occupied Palestinian Territories at the moment and seeing how distant a functional Palestinian state looks under these circumstances. Our first efforts must be to restore the basic functioning of Palestinian life, in both Gaza and the west bank, where it is also under threat. \p Uma Kumaran: I recently visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the Foreign Affairs Committee. I travelled to Area C in west bank and saw at first hand the settler violence that Palestinian men, women and children are facing day in, day out. They are living their lives in constant fear. In this House we all support a two-state solution, but that is being undermined daily by the actions of the Israeli Government, especially in the west bank; we are seeing it being annexed in real time. The Minister says that we will recognise the state of Palestine when the time is right, but I fear there may be no state left to recognise. Will the Government look again at stopping all settlement goods coming into the UK? \p Hamish Falconer: Those are important questions. The UK considers settlements illegal under international law. We are clear that settlement goods must be properly labelled and they do not benefit from the trading regimes that would otherwise apply to both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. My hon. Friend’s question is the right one. We need to ensure that there remains a  viable path to a two-state solution. There is no other path to peace in the region, and all our efforts are focused on that outcome. \p Desmond Swayne: When I was the Minister responsible, the current Minister was then an outstanding official in the Department. He will therefore know that when I presented an egregious list of complaints to the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, as well as to the chief negotiator, he simply stormed out of the meeting, leaving the ambassador with his head in his hands. I therefore ask: what leverage do we actually have? \p Hamish Falconer: The right hon. Gentleman is kind about my service. I know that he raised some of the issues with some force, as he says, during his time in this ministerial role. That underlines the hard truth here, which is that the Israelis must be persuaded to relent from a course of action that both the Conservative and Labour parties, as well as the other parties in this Chamber, have seen is totally undermining the long-term stability of the region, which is important not just for Israel and for Palestine, but for the UK and our friends and allies in the middle east. \p Blair McDougall: The poor people of Gaza are trapped between Hamas, who refuse to release the 59 hostages, and Defence Minister Katz, who is now threatening the “total destruction” of Gaza. Does the Minister share my despair at the lack of leadership committed to peace? Will he also talk about what diplomatic efforts we are making, as well as through aid spending, to try to create moderate leadership in the region that can establish the long-term circumstances for peace and reconciliation? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has done much work over the years on questions of peacebuilding. We, too, are committed to playing our part in trying to build up the connections between the two societies that could allow for the kind of moderate leadership at the most local level that is so necessary for making peace—we saw that in our own experience of Northern Ireland. Many in this Chamber have rightly pressed us on the proposals from the Alliance for Middle East Peace, and we look forward in the coming period to setting out what we will do to support peacebuilding efforts. I watch with dismay, as does the Foreign Secretary, the many civilians asking for peace on both sides; the many civilians protesting both in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for a return to a ceasefire. That is what we want to see. \p Richard Foord: We have heard Ministers refer many times to the risk of breaches of international humanitarian law. On the one occasion, on 17 March, when the Foreign Secretary admitted that withholding aid to Gaza was

“a breach of international law”—[Official Report, 17 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 41.],

he had to retract the admission and refer again to a risk of breaches. If the recent attacks on aid workers constitute a further risk of breaches, will the Minister outline what would constitute an actual breach? \p Hamish Falconer: The Foreign Secretary has clarified his comments on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and he will know well from his own background  that a long-standing policy of Governments of all kinds is that it is not for Ministers to act as courts. There are competent international courts that make such determinations. \p Jonathan Pearce: The resumption of the conflict in Gaza is incredibly tragic, and it is especially heartbreaking for the hostage families and all those brave people we have seen protesting in Israel against their Government and in Gaza against the death cult that is Hamas. Does the Minister agree that the conflict today could end if Hamas released the 59 hostages and left Gazans to live in peace and security? Will he update us on plans for the international plan for peace for Israelis and Palestinians? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is right: the hostages must be released, and Hamas can play no role in the future of governance of Gaza. Their role, which was correctly described by the shadow Foreign Secretary as being supported by Iran, has been malign. It has been malign for the Palestinians, for the Israelis, for the UK and for the region.

On my hon. Friend’s question about the proposal for the international peace building fund, we will come back to the House with further details of our approach. As the situation continues to evolve, we want to carefully consider how best we can contribute to peace building, in the way that I described in answer to a previous question. \p Jack Rankin: I thank the Minister for raising, in his answer to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the plight of Avinatan Or, who I am proud to be twinned with. He was brutally captured by Hamas terrorists 544 days ago. In March, his family received a sign of life for the first time, and in that same month a number of colleagues heard in Parliament from his mother—Ditza, a British citizen—her moving story in Parliament about her continued fight for her son’s release. Does the Minister agree that Hamas could end the war now by releasing Avinatan and all the remaining hostages, and will he assure Ditza that all avenues are being pursued by this Government to make that a reality? \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Ditza. I too met her, and Avinatan’s sister, recently. Those two incredibly strong women are doing absolutely everything that they can for their loved one, and I can assure them from this Dispatch Box that we are doing everything we can to secure his release. \p Melanie Ward: I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the killings of the British World Central Kitchen workers by Israel in Gaza, and I extend this sentiment to Palestinian aid workers too. It is almost a year since I was last in Gaza, and not a day goes by when I do not think about what I saw. Does the Minister agree that what Israel is doing in Gaza is reaching new and uncharted territory, in its level of danger both to Palestinians and to the prospects of a two-state solution ever being realised? Does he further agree that it is past time for fresh, co-ordinated international action to stop this? When will he be able to come to the House to outline what this action will be? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has seen events in Gaza with her own eyes, and I know from all her work before she came to this place how committed an advocate and an actor she has been for those suffering some of the most unimaginable pressures and horrors. I agree that they continue to suffer those pressures and see those horrors. We took the step of calling the UN Security Council to session on these questions on Friday solemnly and soberly. We will work with our international partners on these questions because they are an egregious threat to the life of Palestinians, to a two-state solution and to the stability of the region. I will come back to the House to give her further updates, as my hon. Friend would expect. \p Layla Moran: We need a ceasefire now—again—because the situation on the ground is as bad as it has ever been, if not worse. I spoke to my friend whose family are in Gaza and he told me that last week their home was bombed multiple times while they were sheltering in the basement with no food or water. They are now barely surviving, surrounded by destruction, terrified and without aid for over a month. He said:

“This is not self-defence. This is the destruction of families like mine.”

If this Government do not support this escalation, where are the consequences? We do have leverage. Why have they not suspended all arms sales to the IDF—not because of a risk of it hitting civilians, but because we have principles and will show intent? \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for sharing that story in the Chamber. I know that many Members of this House have received similar stories over the last few days, and indeed have been doing so for the 18 months that this conflict has been running. I have set out our position on arms a number of times in this House, and I would like to say that the decisions taken in September were decisions of principle and they remain decisions of principle. The two principles that underline our position in relation to arms licences for sales to Israel are that we are concerned about risks of international humanitarian law and that we will continue to defend Israel against threats to its security and safety, including from Iran. We have suspended weapons that could be sold to Israel, and we have flown the RAF in its defence when Iran threatened to strike it with missiles. The world is incredibly complicated, things are moving very quickly, and I recognise the strength of feeling in this House on the question of arms. Our position remains the same, and it is one of principle. \p Tan Dhesi: What we are witnessing in Gaza is the weaponisation of starvation. With the ongoing blockade of food, water, medicines and shelter now in its second month, there is also the heart-wrenching, despicable discovery of the killing of a further 15 aid workers found in a mass grave, and large-scale hostilities have now restarted. This must stop. Given that it is clear that the Netanyahu regime is not listening to the UK Government and will only listen to President Trump, what pressure are our Government putting on the US to ensure that the Israeli Government finally end their aid blockade? \p Hamish Falconer: As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will confine my comments to the discussions that we have, rather than the policy of other allies. But my hon. Friend, who has raised these issues many times, is right. I have said it at this Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister said it at Prime Minister’s questions earlier and the Foreign Secretary reiterated it yesterday: we want the aid blockade to end immediately. It should not have been put in place. Palestinian civilians are suffering, and we expect urgent action. We of course discuss these issues with Secretary Rubio, with Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and with a whole range of our counterparts in the US system. We work closely with our American colleagues on the middle east and in a whole range of national security fields, and we are clear about our policy with them, as we are with the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority. \p Jeremy Corbyn: Can I ask the Minister to bring a sense of urgency to this? The people of Gaza are starving. Every bakery is closed. There is insufficient water. There is no power. No schools are open. No hospitals are fully functioning. It is an utterly desperate situation, yet I believe we are still allowing RAF Akrotiri to be used as a staging point for Israel and still supplying parts for F-35 jets, which are bombing the people of Gaza and bombing the rubble there. What are the Government doing to ensure that Israel stops the bombing and that food aid gets through very, very urgently for the people of Gaza, merely to help them survive? \p Hamish Falconer: I hope the House is under no doubt about the urgency with which myself, the Foreign Secretary and the whole ministerial team treat these issues. I think I have already answered the question in relation to arms in this session. The humanitarian need has been on terrible and vivid display over the last few days. We are aware of the reports to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and we raise these issues with the urgency they demand. \p Paul Waugh: The Hostages and Missing Families Forum in Israel said this morning that it was horrified to wake up to the news of the expanded military operation, and that is because it knows the risk that this poses to its loved ones. But it is the loved ones of Palestinians who have already suffered so much that are most relevant today. They themselves know that the annexation and the forced displacement of men, women and children is simply unacceptable, so can the Minister tell me exactly what he and this UK Government have done to make representations to Israel, both about that Israeli aggression and about the 13 new expanded settlements in the west bank, which are deliberately designed to suffocate any future state of Palestine? \p Hamish Falconer: I can assure my hon. Friend, who has been a doughty campaigner on these issues, that we have raised both the risks of returning to war and indeed the settlements he refers to directly with the Israeli Government, and we will continue to do so. \p Christine Jardine: I welcome the Minister’s reply to the urgent question, but I am sure he will forgive me when I say that we have heard all this before. There is a sense of hopelessness in this place  at the downward spiral we seem to be on, but it must be nothing compared with the hopelessness being felt by the Gazans and also the Israeli population. The Israeli regime is not listening to us or to its own population, who are protesting and simply want the hostages home. The region needs some hope, and it has already been suggested that if we are to go down the route to a two-state solution, we need a breakthrough. That breakthrough might come if this Government recognise Palestine as a state. \p Hamish Falconer: I recognise the hon. Lady’s remarks. The sense of hopelessness must be acute in Gaza, and I say to all those watching in the region that the UK will continue to do everything it can, no matter how hard it is, to try to return to a ceasefire. I have addressed the question about the recognition of a Palestinian state. There must be a breakthrough. We need to get back on the path that both sides were on before if stability is to return to the region. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members still want to get in, and there is an important statement to come, so could questions be a little briefer, please? \p Florence Eshalomi: I thank the Minister for coming to the House and the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for raising the matter. I concur with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) in that we have been here before. We keep getting the same responses. Our constituents continue to write to us about this—they want hope. The reality is that over a thousand Palestinians have been killed within the last fortnight. Today marks a month since Israel broke that ceasefire, blocking critical aid into Gaza in defiance of international law. I ask the Minister—I know he and the Foreign Secretary are working hard—what more it will take before we as a UK Government take a different course of action, because Israel is not listening to warm words any longer. \p Hamish Falconer: My constituents in Lincoln have strong views about the horrors they see, and I know many constituents right across the country are writing to their Members and strongly expressing their views. I would not describe our policy as “warm words” and I think many of our friends in the region would not describe it as such either. We have taken concrete action since becoming the Government. We have restored aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We have taken the arms suspension measures that have been discussed. We have sanctioned settlers. We have continued to use our position at the UN Security Council to try to bring attention and action to some of the most egregious areas of concern, and we will continue to do so. I cannot promise this House that I will be able to return next time with something different to say. The fact that my remarks may seem repetitive indicates that the problem is difficult and the solution feels distant, but we must continue to work on the path that this whole House knows we must get back to, which is towards a two-state solution. \p Brendan O'Hara: Last week, the Foreign Secretary was unequivocal in saying that both sides—Hamas and Israel—were guilty of committing atrocities. Does the Minister agree with the Foreign Secretary that that is the case? \p Hamish Falconer: I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to return to the question asked by the Liberal Democrat Member. To be clear, on the determination of crimes, we leave that to courts. On the determination of risk, we take action. \p Andy McDonald: As affirmed by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion, Israel is violating the peremptory norms of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, the prohibition against racial discrimination and apartheid, and the prohibition against unlawful use of force. Its occupation of Palestine is illegal and must end as soon as possible. Will the Minister acknowledge that the UK has a duty to suspend all military co-operation and trade with Israel—a duty that stems from a wide range of intersecting international obligations—in the face of grave illegalities committed by the state of Israel? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks me about the advisory opinion of the ICJ. We accept that the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal and have been clear about that policy position. I am afraid that we will take some time yet to return to this House with a full response to the ICJ’s advisory opinion, which has a number of novel elements of international jurisprudence, and we are considering it with the seriousness and soberness that it requires. We agree on the fundamentals: the settlements are illegal and must be brought to an end. \p Brian Mathew: Recent polling suggests that over 60% of Israelis will support any deal that brings the remaining hostages home. If that can be achieved, the likelihood is that peace and rebuilding can be achieved, especially if Egypt can be involved, along with finance from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Will the Government please push for that? \p Hamish Falconer: I can confirm that we want to see all the hostages returned and a reconstruction plan for Gaza based on the Arab initiative, with the full involvement of the region—a reconstruction plan that can allow Palestinians to remain in their homes. \p Alex Ballinger: I was devastated to hear of the expansion of military operations in Gaza this week, alongside the aid blockade in the region. That is a clear breach of international humanitarian law. The Minister has said that he urges Israel to respect IHL. If Israel continues to ignore the international community on that, what concrete steps will we take to hold it accountable? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has served both in our military and as an aid worker. He knows well and feels strongly, as do many in this House, the agonies of what we are seeing. We have determined that there is a serious risk of breaches of international humanitarian law by the Israeli Government. We will continue to press them on those points. I will not issue further comment on sanctions, which I think was underlying some of his question, as to do so could reduce their impact. \p Sammy Wilson: While no one wants to see the continuation of war in Gaza, under the terms of the ceasefire agreement Israel has the right to take action where there is an immediate threat. We have seen that Hamas have refused to release hostages and are now firing rockets into Israel. They are planning further attacks and, indeed, attacking and murdering their own citizens who protest against them. Is it not reasonable in those circumstances for Israel to take action to defend its own country? Should it not be the priority of this Government to ensure that Hamas release the hostages whom they are cruelly and cynically holding, and to ensure that UK aid is not used to prop up Hamas and help them to reassert their authority? \p Hamish Falconer: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: of course Israel has the right to legitimate self-defence consistent with international humanitarian law. Concerns about the risk of a breach of international humanitarian law underpin our concerns. He is absolutely right that Hamas are a threat not just to Israel but to their own people, and I have been absolutely clear on that question on numerous occasions at this Dispatch Box. Where there are any reports that Hamas are benefiting from aid going into the Gaza strip or anywhere else, we take serious action in response. \p Stella Creasy: If the rule of international law is to mean anything, we must uphold it, so just as we recognise that taking hostages is a breach of international law, we must recognise that killing aid workers is a breach of international law. My constituents will be listening to the Minister, recognising the work being done but completely perplexed as to why we are not doing more to uphold international law in practice. He is right to argue that the courts need to be involved. He said that he wanted this issue to be dealt with by the relevant competent court and talks about novel elements of jurisprudence delaying our ability to do that. Can he explain to my constituents what more it would take for the United Kingdom, through the auspices of the UN Security Council, to make a referral to the International Criminal Court given what we are seeing and to uphold international human rights law directly? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks an important question. I recognise that, for constituents in Walthamstow and elsewhere, questions of international law may seem very arcane when we are faced with the kinds of images that we are all seeing this morning and have been seeing for months, so let me clarify. She refers to the ICJ advisory opinion. That advisory opinion, long in gestation, refers to the presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It pre-dates the 7 October attacks. She also refers to the ICC, which has heard referrals in relation to conduct on both sides of the conflict since the 7 October attacks. We respond in the fullness of time, as required by the ICJ, which has taken some time in its complex determinations about the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We have responded on the ICC to the timelines required—we did so late last year. \p Andrew George: We can all see the discomfort of the Minister in having to embroider language, referring merely to the risk of the breach of international law and not speaking as plainly on behalf of our country as many Members would wish him to  speak. Of course, we all want the hostages to be freed, just as we want the 2 million hostages in Gaza being held hostage by the murderous IDF, which is treating them with disdain and starving them, to be freed. If the Minister is not prepared to make the statement that many of us wish for him to make, will he at least admit that the actions of the far-right Israeli Government can no longer be described as self-defence? \p Hamish Falconer: I have been accused of many things, but not of embroidering, so if there is any doubt, let me be clear: the position to which I stick at the Dispatch Box on the determinations of law is one that has been held consistently by both parties in government for a long time. There is a good reason why we would not want people to stand at the Dispatch Box making determinations of law, and it is why we have courts and an international legal order that this country has a proud history of establishing and maintaining. We have determined that there is a risk of those breaches. We are not making a determination; we are looking to our own laws—passed, in fact, by those now on the Opposition Benches—and following them through thoroughly and vigorously. In the discharge of our duties, we have said that we think there is a serious risk of breaches of international humanitarian law. That is the same as saying that we think there is a serious risk that Israel is not simply acting in its own legitimate self-defence. That is why we have taken the steps that we have. \p Tulip Siddiq: Last year, I raised the concerns of a constituent whose family member was stuck in Gaza without food and water. The situation has worsened since the aid blockade. I am particularly worried about the escalation of hostilities impacting most on women and girls. Supplies of female hygiene products are at critical lows, women are giving birth on hospital floors, and doctors are performing C-sections without adequate medical supplies. May I ask the Minister, on behalf of the hundreds of constituents who have written to me, what the UK Government are doing to end the aid blockade? Will he reassure me that the Government have communicated the sheer urgency on the ground to the Israeli Government? \p Hamish Falconer: I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on particular cases involving constituents in Gaza. My hon. Friend works incredibly hard for her constituents, as do many other Members. Where I am in direct correspondence with Members about the fate of constituents and their relatives in Gaza, I will not provide a running commentary from the Dispatch Box, but the Foreign Office will do everything it can to ensure that British nationals in distress, and their loved ones, including in Gaza, are able to get to safety. I can confirm to her that we have raised the urgency of these matters with the Israeli Government. \p Shockat Adam: Another day, another statement, another day of predictable and depressing answers. Nothing is more predictable and depressing than the statement, “We are doing everything we can.” Are we really doing everything we can when we do not call out genocide and ethnic cleansing as we see it happening in real time? Are we doing everything we can when we have not imposed bilateral economic sanctions?  Are we doing everything we can when we have not even called in the ambassador to express our concerns? If we are indeed doing everything we can, why have the Government just sold £9 million-worth of technology for Israeli submarines that are being built to house nuclear weapons? \p Hamish Falconer: We are doing everything we can. I recognise from the commentary of many Members how unbearably frustrating they and their constituents find this situation. I have been calling for a ceasefire ever since I have been a Minister. It is also deeply depressing for me to be in this situation today, as I have been so many times in the House. We will continue to do everything, in accordance with the measures I have laid out this afternoon, to bring the conflict back to a ceasefire. \p James Asser: The Minister has been generous with his time, not just today but over the past few months, both in the House and in private meetings, but every time we meet, the situation is bad and getting worse. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said, it is now as bad as it has ever been. Does the Minister agree that unless we in the international community take firmer immediate action to force change as a matter of urgency, nothing will be different and there will be no point talking about peace or a two-state solution, because those opportunities will be lost not just for now but for the foreseeable future, and the consequences for those in the region, particularly the people of Gaza, will be unimaginable? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. In the time that we have been in government, we have seen the situation deteriorate, but we have also seen it improve. I hope to be able to return to the House with the news that we are back at a ceasefire. I recognise how distant that feels at this moment, but a ceasefire would be not just a vital step towards a two-state solution and an enormous contribution towards getting aid into Gaza, but the step change required for international diplomacy to bring stability to the region. \p Will Forster: Some 400 aid workers have been killed in Gaza over the past 500 days, and we are now a year and a day on from the awful attack on the World Central Kitchen. How many British aid workers are in Gaza, and what tangible action will the Government ask Israel to take to guarantee their safety? \p Hamish Falconer: I do not believe that I am in a position to confirm the current number of British nationals in Gaza as aid workers, but if I am, I will write to the hon. Member. \p Dawn Butler: Those at the Hostage and Missing Families Forum, which represents most of the captives’ families, said that they were horrified to wake up this morning to the Israeli Defence Minister’s announcement about expanding military operations in Gaza. They also said that the Israeli Government have an obligation to free all 59 hostages from Hamas captivity, and to pursue every possible channel to advance a deal for their release. Hostages have been released only when there has been a ceasefire, so a ceasefire is paramount for the release of hostages. If we believe that  Israel should stop bombing Gaza, we need to stop supplying it with parts for bombs. If we believe in a two-state solution, it is about time that we recognised Palestine. \p Hamish Falconer: I have already commented on the question of recognition. I assure my hon. Friend that we are not providing parts for bombs. We have set out the provisions on arms suspension. There is a question about the global supply chain for F-35 parts where those parts are going indirectly to Israel, on which I have elaborated in the House on a number of occasions. That remains our position. \p Llinos Medi: Nearly 24,000 women and children have been killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023. In the light of evidence submitted to the UN Human Rights Council showing Israel’s use of starvation as a method of war, the denial of human rights and humanitarian assistance, and a concerted policy of destroying Gaza’s healthcare system, will the Government take immediate and tangible steps to demonstrate the UK’s commitment to upholding international law by ceasing provision of military support to Israel, suspending all export licences and imposing a two-way arms embargo? \p Hamish Falconer: I set out our position on arms suspensions earlier in this urgent question. \p Clive Betts: Let me try to approach this in another way. It is obvious that Israel has been emboldened by the explicit and implicit support of the US Government for what it is doing—that has been a fundamental change. The US Government have ruled out a two-state solution, as I understand. What has the Minister been doing, or what can he do, to work with our colleagues in the European Union, and with the Arab states, to develop a clear plan for a two-state solution, and a clear timeframe for all countries recognising a Palestinian state? \p Hamish Falconer: As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not seek to characterise the foreign policy of others; they can set out their policy themselves. On co-operation and co-ordination, we have been in extensive dialogue with those involved in the Arab initiative, and we have worked with Germany, France and Italy, and made joint statements on this and wider issues recently. I expect that in June we will join an important international conference about a two-state solution, where we will discuss that with our partners. \p Ayoub Khan: Time and again we have heard Ministers at the Dispatch Box say that they are doing everything they can, and talking about the diplomatic levers that they are trying to pull. We all know that since the ceasefire was broken because of the Israelis not complying, 1,100 people have been killed, mainly women and children, and 15 aid workers assassinated—we know they were assassinated because some of them had their hands tied behind their back. The Minister knows that there are only three actions we can take: stop trade; sanctions; and recognising Palestine. Those are the only actions that this Government can take to prevent Israelis causing more damage. Which one will he take? \p Hamish Falconer: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was a diplomat before, and ultimately it is diplomacy that will resolve this conflict. That is the lever to which we must most vigorously apply ourselves. \p Rachael Maskell: Just suppose that we closed our airbase in Cyprus. Just suppose that we applied greater sanctions, and withdrew export licences. Just suppose that we recognised the state of Palestine. Would the Minister be making the same statement? What analysis has he made of that? \p Hamish Falconer: It is hard enough to respond to the facts as they are. I will not be drawn by my hon. Friend into such a complex chain of hypotheticals. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for his answers, and for his understanding and honesty. Hamas are terrorists, murderers, rapists, and child killers. They hide their AK47s and their weaponry in children’s beds. They hide their missiles in their schools, hospitals and houses. What steps have the Minister and the Government taken with the UN to bring all the kidnapped hostages home alive, rather than in the coffins that were paraded around by Hamas terrorists—murderers—at the last hostage handover? What steps are they taking to underline the point that the Israelis would not be intensifying their plans to strike were the murderous Hamas not content to hold hostages and fire rockets into Israel daily? \p Hamish Falconer: We have worked with our partners in the region, the Israeli Government, the US, and many others to try to secure the safe release of all those with UK links who have been held hostage. Of course we want to see all hostages released, but it is on British nationals and those with links to the UK that we have turned the focus of our efforts. This has been heartbreaking for me, and for so many in this House. It has been so joyful to see British nationals escape from the clutches of Hamas alive, and a heartbreak when British-linked nationals have returned deceased. I know that the whole House will be hoping for Avinatan Or, and all others who are being held, to be returned alive and well soon. \p Alex McIntyre: The killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, many of them women and children, by Israeli forces is simply heartbreaking. The Minister knows that I have been raising my concerns, and those of my constituents, with him since I was elected to this House last July. I am grateful for and appreciate the steps that he and the Government are taking on aid and arms, yet here we are. What more can the Government do to stop the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, ensure the release of all remaining hostages, and ensure that aid gets to those who so desperately need it in Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his persistence on these issues. So many colleagues on the Labour and Opposition Benches have raised the plight of Palestinian civilians and of hostages with real force and urgency, ever since we came into government, and I am sure they will continue to. We will continue to take the steps I have outlined to try to effect a change, and we recognise the greater urgency for us all as military activity intensifies. I hope to return to this House in due course with updates on our diplomatic efforts. \p Adnan Hussain: Under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, to which the UK is a signatory, states have an obligation to prevent and punish genocide. That obligation to prevent involves acting immediately, so will the Minister outline what the Government are doing, and say what steps they are taking to ensure that genocide is prevented in Gaza? \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Member will have heard my previous comments about determinations. I will answer the question that I think he is asking, which is about what we have done since we came into government to try to reduce the suffering in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and indeed in Israel. We have taken firm and far-reaching steps—on the suspension of arms, on the restoration of funding to UNRWA, by using our role on the Security Council, and by raising these questions forcefully with the Israeli Government and all relevant regional partners. We are working night and day to try to ensure that those in harm’s way are no longer at risk. I recognise today, as we have done almost every day since we came to government, that there is yet more to do. \p Rupa Huq: Since Hamas’s war crimes of 7 October, we have seen multiple flagrant breaches of the rules of the international order. This week, 15 Palestinian paramedic Red Crescent workers were found in a mass grave alongside their abandoned emergency vehicle. That comes on top of a four-week total aid blockade. What are our red lines about how this war without end, in which ceasefires and signed agreements can be tossed aside, is being conducted? \p Hamish Falconer: Our position on the conduct of war is that taken by international humanitarian law. We have set out the risks and our concerns about breaches, and we continue to take actions that are in line with our assessment. \p Paula Barker: More than 300 Palestinian children have been killed since Israel’s new offensive began. What worries me about the Government is that they do not seem to have any red lines that Israel must not cross. We need robust action, not words. The two-state solution, which is on its knees, is not a by-product of peace; it is the route to peace. If the time for recognition is not now, then when is it? What will the Government’s response be when Israel permanently occupies part of Gaza, as its Defence Minister seems to be insinuating it will? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has a long commitment to these issues, and I know that she has travelled to the region. She is right to say that the two-state solution must be central to this. She asks about annexation; I can be clear once again from the Dispatch Box that we want a resolution that provides for the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be Palestinian, as is consistent with relevant Security Council resolutions. \p Andrew Pakes: I commend the Minister for the care and concern with which he updates this House, but we keep coming back to the same point and situation. This morning’s announcement by the Israeli Government about more incursions is condemnable.  We all know where this leads. Over the past year and a half, we have seen mass displacement. It leads to suffering, and to hostages not being released, and it takes us close to the abyss. Will the Minister join me in making it clear that any forceful transfer of Palestinian civilians, and any annexation of Palestinian territory, is unacceptable and would be a breach of international law? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend remains deeply committed to these issues, and I am pleased to reassure him that we do not support the expansion of military operations by Israel announced this morning. We continue to oppose forced displacement of the Palestinians. Palestinian territory must not be reduced in the conduct of this war. \p Andrew Slaughter: In the past few days, the worst extremist, Ben-Gvir, has rejoined the Israeli Government; Red Crescent medics have been killed by Israeli forces; and Israel has started a fresh ground invasion, killing hundreds of women and children, with the specific intention of annexing Palestinian territory. After every atrocity and illegal act, the Foreign Office expresses its concern, and then things get worse. Has the Minister considered what steps the Government should take to make things better on the ground for Palestinians and Israelis? \p Hamish Falconer: Of course. That is the thought in our mind every day as we see the imagery, and are sent it by our colleagues and our constituents. Every day, this Government see with our own eyes the horror in Gaza, and every day we ask ourselves what we can do to try to ensure that this goes in the direction of our policy, and not in the direction that it has done—the direction of the end of the ceasefire. That led to far too many hostages continuing to be detained, and aid restrictions have continued long after I and others have called for them to end. As my hon. Friend would expect, every day these questions haunt us. \p Richard Burgon: We are back here again—aid workers shot dead and dumped in a shallow grave; hunger used as a weapon of war; hospitals bombed. Now there are new plans to seize large areas of Gaza. All that has come in the past few days. Israel is carrying out war crime after war crime. On 29 December, the Foreign Office issued a press release rightly referring to Russian war crimes, so I do not see why there is reticence here. I am afraid that expressions of concern are not enough. When will the Government act, treat Israel as they have rightly treated Russia, and impose serious sanctions? \p Hamish Falconer: I have set out the steps we have taken and the sanctions we have issued, and I will continue to return to this House with further updates. \p Martin Rhodes: I recognise what the Minister has said about what has been done, but given the desperate situation, what more could be done through diplomatic efforts to ensure that Israel allows in humanitarian aid at speed and at scale, and to support the Arab initiative, so that Gaza is rebuilt as part of a recognised, viable Palestinian state? \p Hamish Falconer: We will continue to work with our partners who are party to the Arab initiative, and indeed our partners in the United Nations Security  Council, where we have called sessions and issued statements. We will continue to work along those lines in the way that my hon. Friend would expect. \p Brian Leishman: I have a simple question, and am looking for a very simple answer. Do the Government recognise Israel’s plan for large-scale forced evacuations in Gaza as ethnic cleansing? If not, why not? \p Hamish Falconer: We continue to oppose forced displacement in Gaza. \p James Naish: I put on record my sincere desire to see the Israeli hostages returned as soon as possible. The International Development Committee recently spent time in Geneva as part of its inquiry on international humanitarian law. We discussed at length the way that countries increasingly conflate the legality of resorting to war with the legality of conduct in war. We see aid being blocked and land being annexed without, it seems, legitimate justification, or even significant condemnation. Will the Minister please explain what the Government are doing to ensure that international humanitarian law stops being openly broken, and is given the respect it deserves? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend and east midlands colleague is right to raise the issue of the deterioration of the application of international humanitarian law. There are too many places in conflict where there is a very serious risk of breaches of IHL in the conduct of hostilities. We are doing all we can in Geneva and New York, and on the ground in places including Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to ensure that the risk of breaches of IHL does not continue. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Minister for coming to the House to respond to questions. \p Bridget Phillipson: With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on the roll-out of nurseries in our primary schools.

This Labour Government are bringing the change that families deserve. We made promises to the parents and children of this country and, not nine months in, we are acting to deliver on them. Free breakfast clubs are already being rolled out, the curriculum and assessment review is in full swing, and children’s social care is seeing the biggest overhaul in a generation. We have funding for 10,000 new places for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, backing for up to 10,000 more apprentices to qualify, new improvement teams for our schools and a new allowance for our kinship carers—promises made, promises kept. Here, today, we go further.

This £37 million in funding for 300 primary schools to open and expand nurseries is a big step towards delivering 3,000 nurseries for schools, a big step towards delivering childcare for parents and a big step towards delivering the best start in life for all our children. I want that best start in life for every child, because I want opportunity for every child. I want every child in every village, town and city across our country to grow up knowing that success belongs to them. That is the kind of country I want to live in—the country that this Labour Government want to build, with opportunity not just for some, but for all our children.

To achieve that, we need to start early, before university or college, and even before school—in the earliest years of our children’s lives. Those years are fundamental to opportunity. That is where gaps in learning and development first appear, and the longer we wait, the wider they grow and the harder they are to close. That is why, when I am in schools, colleges and universities—even in those places—they agree that the biggest chance to make an impact on our children’s lives sits in those crucial early years. That is why this is my No. 1 priority.

If we get this right, and we set all children on the track to success, that is where they will stay. That is why, despite the huge fiscal challenges that we inherited from the Conservatives, we chose to invest more than £8 billion in the early years at the last Budget. It is why the early years are a central part of the Prime Minister’s plan for change, setting the target of a record share of children starting school ready to learn. That is why I am today announcing the 300 schools that will be delivering our first wave of new and expanded school-based nurseries. Many of these school-based nurseries will serve communities facing big challenges, where there is strong evidence of need. Overall, it means up to 6,000 more nursery places for young children where they will have the biggest impact, with most of them starting in September this year. That is vital, because that is when the final stage of the 30 hours a week childcare entitlement will kick in. When that is joined up with the offer for three and four-year-olds, working parents of children from nine months right up to the beginning of school will get 30 Government-funded hours of childcare a week.

The 300 schools are just the start. It is 300 on the road to 3,000 school-based nurseries. We will work with schools, voluntary and private providers, teachers and local partners to find and spread what works. By  the end, it will mean that tens of thousands more parents have the power to choose the hours they want to work.

What a contrast with the Conservatives, because what we inherited was not just an offer that they had not bothered to fund, but a pledge without a plan, with places, promises and provision missing. Parents made decisions on the back of those promises. Again and again, I hear from parents how much they have been relying on the promises that the previous Government scattered about like confetti. Across our country, this Government are delivering change in months, when the last Government waited 13 years before signing a post-dated cheque.

The changes that we are making will give parents more control over their lives, time to choose their working hours and money back in their pockets. The last Coram report showed that the effects are starting to flow through. Childcare costs for under-threes in England have halved since the expansion, but ultimately childcare and early years education is about children. It is about launching a lifetime of learning and starting as we mean to go on, so as we roll out these school-based nurseries, we are also adding the biggest ever uplift to the early years pupil premium, closing the attainment gap and giving every child the support that they need to learn and grow, and we are supporting early years educators to build their expertise.

It is not just what is taught in those nurseries that counts, but where they are located: they are in primary schools, which is no accident. We are centring schools in their communities, starting early, working with the voluntary sector and private providers too, so that the move from nursery to school is a natural step, from one room to another, sometimes even in the same building, as is the case at St Anne’s church academy in Weston-super-Mare. Having a nursery on site means that stronger, longer lasting relationships with families can be built. Parents feel that they are part of the community, so they engage more when their child starts nursery and then moves into school. When their child starts reception, there are no big, scary changes, building the sense that school is where they are meant to be.

I saw that powerfully this week when I went to Peterborough to visit Fulbridge academy. Little Oak nursery sits at the heart of the school. While I was there, I spoke to Hannah, a working mum whose little boy, Nile, goes to the nursery. She told me all about the difference that Little Oak was making to her family, and about how her son is making friends and taking big strides in his learning, ready to join his two older siblings at school in September. The nursery plays a big part in making Fulbridge academy the centre of that community.

It is the same for free breakfast clubs, which is why we announced the 750 early adopters this year. Schools are the beating hearts of their communities, where children come together to eat, learn and grow. It is good for attendance and achievement, for behaviour and belonging, and for children and their life chances. That is the point: this is action for them, to give them the start that they deserve, because that is my No. 1 priority, built on a  deep and fierce commitment to the children of this country in the first years of their lives, taking their first steps into the world.

In our youngest children’s faces and in the faces of all who work with them, we see something that for so long has been missing from our country: hope. We see the hope of a brighter and better future, the hope of a secure and prosperous world, the hope that tomorrow can be better than today and the hope that this is a Government that are on their side. That is the future that we shape together, not face alone. That is the hope that so many people in our country have—that our best days lie ahead of us. That is what the people of this country chose in the general election last July, when they chose hope over fear, and chose a brighter tomorrow, not a bitter yesterday.

And that is why I am so focused on getting on and delivering change, because it matters so much for lives now, not in some distant future. Early years are where futures are made, where life chances are won and where healthier societies are built. That is the prize on offer. Our youngest generation is the first generation for whom opportunity is open to all, right from the start, and I know that Members from across the House will agree that that is a prize worth fighting for. I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Laura Trott: We welcome the Education Secretary’s announcement, but let us be absolutely clear: the policies that she is talking about represent investment of £37 million, but the Government are taking away half a billion pounds from nurseries by failing to compensate them for the national insurance increase. That will have a catastrophic effect on nurseries up and down the country, which will be forced either to close or to put their prices up. “Catastrophic” is not my word, but that of the Early Years Alliance, following Labour’s national insurance bombshell on the childcare sector.

In her statement, the Education Secretary said that she inherited a “pledge without a plan”—what a load of nonsense! It is our plan that is delivering the expansion of funded childcare this autumn, and our plan that she today confirmed has already halved costs for under-threes, according to independent research. That is our plan, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is her plan that is shutting nurseries up and down the country, and that will put up costs for parents.

Just last week, I hosted a roundtable with some of the unsung heroes of the sector—nursery owners. Many were in tears, struggling with very real decisions about whether they can keep their doors open. One of the owners shared with me that she is stopping her own salary so that she can continue to pay her staff the amount they deserve. Another owner was having sleepless nights worrying about how she would provide proper care for the children now that she can no longer afford the staffing costs, thanks to this Government’s decisions.

It is clearly absurd for the Government to ask the sector to absorb the increases in national insurance while keeping fees the same. The consequences of that are entirely predictable: nurseries will have to either close or put up their prices. A recent survey by the Early Years Alliance  said that, sadly, around 400 nurseries that it spoke to may have to close because of this Government’s jobs tax. That is what the Education Secretary’s No. 1 priority looks like. Parents will lose out too. According to the National Day Nurseries Association, increases to national insurance contributions will force nurseries to raise their fees by 10%. Those are the obvious consequences of this Government’s decisions.

Will the Education Secretary finally admit today how much the jobs tax is costing the childcare sector? Will she monitor the impact of closures that happen thanks to her jobs tax on childcare availability? On the specifics in her announcement today, will she confirm the locations of the school-based nurseries and how they were chosen? Were they chosen on the basis of surplus primary places or are they in areas where we need more childcare provision? If it is the latter, how were they identified?

Those nurseries will be based in schools, so is it her intention that they will mimic the school timetable, or will there be year-round provision and will their hours be longer than the school day? Will school-based nurseries be compensated for the impact of the jobs tax? If so, what will she do to address the inequity that that will cause with other providers?

As the Early Years Alliance has said today

“if the government is truly serious about breaking down barriers to opportunity, it must come to the realisation that increasing school-based provision can only ever be one piece of the puzzle. Failing to recognise this will simply mean that more families lose out.”

It is right: under this Government, more families will lose out.

While I welcome the Education Secretary’s announcement, the reality is that Labour’s decisions are making childcare more expensive and harder to find—[Interruption.] Hard-working families will bear the brunt of this Government’s failure. It is time for the Education Secretary to stop making broken promises and actually make early years her No. 1 priority. \p Bridget Phillipson: It must be profoundly draining for the right hon. Lady to come to the Chamber when faced with such good news and to bring such studied, forced negativity every single time. Six weeks ago, I was in the House delivering the news that we are supporting hundreds of schools across our country to open free breakfast clubs, and we got much of the same studied, forced negativity then. Today, not nine months into this Government, we are beginning the roll-out of school-based nurseries, as we have promised to the people of this country—[Interruption.]

I spoke about visits, and the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) should go and visit the school-based nursery that will shortly be opening in his constituency. I never hear from Conservative Members that they will be visiting those nurseries or breakfast clubs, so maybe they could take time out of their busy schedules to go and do precisely that. The only priority that they have is to bring back tax breaks for private schools, taking away resources from our state schools. That is the one idea that they have. Their idea of fresh thinking is to spend money they did not raise on plans they did not make.

On the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), we are investing £8 billion in expanding early years entitlements, alongside doubling   the early years pupil premium, a £75 million expansion grant and compensation for school-based nurseries. The contrast between this Government and the Conservatives is like night and day. I am proud that at the Department for Education, under a Labour Government, it is week in, week out the Department for hope—the hope of a brighter and better future for our children and our country.

We have free breakfast clubs, a cutting-edge curriculum for all our children, the biggest overhaul of children’s social care for a generation, funding for up to 10,000 new school places for children with special educational needs and disabilities, backing for up to 10,000 more apprentices to qualify, new improvement teams in our schools, a new allowance for kinship carers and new support for expanding foster care. That is the difference between this Labour Government and the Conservatives. We are the party of hope. If the Conservatives’ recent leadership contest was anything to go by, they cannot decide if they are the party of fear or the party of despair. \p Amanda Martin: Early years is another strand of education that was decimated by the last Government. Although those on the Conservative Benches have not valued this sector, as a former teacher, a mum and now an MP, I know its value for children and families in our communities. Although in Portsmouth we do not have one of the 300 nurseries announced in today’s first wave, I commend the Government on this initiative. I take this opportunity to commend and praise all those who work in the sector, providing opportunities for the young people in my city. I thank them for their fantastic work. I also take this opportunity to ask the Secretary of State to update the House on delivery of the planned September 2025 childcare expansion, and to explain how she expects parents to benefit from the 30-hours roll-out across the fabulous nurseries in my city. \p Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings real expertise to this place, through her background and wealth of experience in education. Through the expansion that we are rolling out this year, parents will see considerable savings, but crucially it will ensure that all our children get the best possible start in life. While I recognise her disappointment that her own constituency did not benefit this time around, I note that Portsmouth South secured a school-based nursery this time around. Of course, this is only phase 1 of what will be a wider roll-out as time progresses. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Munira Wilson: Access to flexible, high-quality early years provision gives children the start they deserve and parents the choice they need to live their lives, and it is one of the best possible investments we can make in the future of our country. For those families living in childcare deserts left by the previous Conservative Government, today’s announcement will be welcome news.

I welcome the sorely needed uplift in the early years pupil premium, but school-based nurseries can only ever be part of the puzzle. We will never fix the crisis in early years without fixing the deep problems facing private and charitable providers. They deliver the vast bulk of the Government’s free entitlement, yet they face  some of the toughest challenges in making ends meet. The Government’s national insurance hike, the failure to ensure that rates actually cover delivery costs and damaging guidance to local authorities on funding agreements, which came into effect this week, mean that many are struggling to stay afloat. We have already heard that the Early Years Alliance survey found that four in 10 said they would reduce their number of funded places for three-year-olds and four-year-olds in the next year. Some 94% said they would be forced to raise their fees for parents for non-funded hours, and almost a third said they were likely to permanently close. Can the Secretary of State tell me how that is extending choice for parents? Building Blocks nursery in Teddington in my constituency is now operating at a loss and faces some incredibly painful decisions that will hurt parents, children and staff.

While I welcome today’s announcement, will the Secretary of State commit to an urgent review of the rates paid for free entitlements to ensure that they cover delivery costs? Will she finally take this opportunity to recognise the deep damage that the national insurance hike is doing and ensure that early years providers are exempted? Finally, will she look again at the damaging guidance issued by her Department on charging and funding agreements? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Like her, I pay tribute to the big range of providers that play a crucial role in supporting our children’s early education. That extends to private voluntary providers and childminders, who are a crucial part of the sector. The announcement we are making today on school-based nurseries is designed to deal with many of the challenges that she identifies arising from the childcare deserts left behind by the Conservatives. We also know that school-based providers have a greater share of the market in more deprived areas, and 34% of those announced today will serve disadvantaged communities.[Official Report, 23 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 9WC.] (Correction) Alongside that, I note that the hon. Lady welcomes the biggest ever uplift that we have secured in the early years pupil premium, which will make a big difference to the life chances of children from more disadvantaged backgrounds. When it comes to the rates, we will always continue to keep those under review.

The hon. Lady asks about the charging guidance that has been issued. I believe it is important that parents have greater transparency when it comes to charging and fees, and where they are able to exercise greater choice in what is being offered to them. I believe that is the right approach, not least as we move towards a system in which the vast bulk of childcare is backed by Government. \p Peter Dowd: I have seen more Tory MPs changing a lightbulb than there are in the Chamber today. I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State—as does Thomas Gray primary school, a very good school in my constituency; the parents and children do a fantastic job there—and I thank her for it. Does she agree that, quite simply, actions speak louder than the many words the Opposition say? \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree with my hon. Friend. Like him, I pay tribute to the amazing staff working right across education in our schools and nurseries for the vital work they do. \p Julian Lewis: I like the right hon. Lady, and I really enjoyed her sunlit-uplands speech—anyone would think there was a leadership contest on in the Labour party. I did not quite hear the answer to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) about the way in which the increase in national insurance contributions will hit all nurseries at once, whereas at the moment we are getting an initial tranche of 300 out of an intended 3,000 new arrangements for her announcement to be fulfilled. Over how long a period does she expect to get from 300 to 3,000? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman likes a bit of hope and optimism; I think we could all do with a bit of hope and optimism in the current world. The leadership contest I am really looking forward to is the one that we are going to see very soon in his own party. It will be a treat for all of us in this House, although I hope it does not happen, because I would much prefer for things to carry on just as they are.

I note the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asks. We have secured an extra £2 billion in the Budget, taking the total to £8 billion for early years entitlements. In addition, we have a £75 million expansion grant, compensation for public sector employers and, alongside that, the biggest ever uplift in the early years pupil premium. We are working very closely with the sector to deliver the places and the staff required, and we will continue to do so in the months ahead. \p Neil O'Brien: Answer the question! \p Bridget Phillipson: In answer to the question, this is the first phase, and we will roll out the 3,000 over the course of this Parliament. \p Katie White: I warmly welcome the refocusing on early years by this Government, and I also welcome the school-based nursery announcements today; I am particularly excited about the one at Tranmere Park primary school in Guiseley in my constituency. How many children do we think will be affected by this announcement, and how many parents will benefit  from it? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I look forward to the extra places that will be available in her constituency to serve local families. What we are setting out today will create 6,000 new childcare places, most of which we expect to be available from September 2025. We are moving rapidly to support schools to put in place the spaces for children that we know are required. \p Manuela Perteghella: Behind capital funding, what gives children the best start in life is the people, such as early years practitioners, teachers and teaching assistants. The early years sector is struggling with a crisis in recruitment and retention, especially in rural areas such as my constituency. That leads to fewer places for children and higher costs for families. What steps are the Government taking to address the lack of resources, skills and experience in schools and other early years sectors for delivering high-quality education to under-threes? \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree with the hon. Lady that it is the brilliant people working in early years education who make the biggest difference to our children’s life chances. Of course, we need to put the capital in place to create the physical provision, but it is the people who deliver it who matter the most—I know that the hon. Lady brings expertise in that area to this House. I agree that there is more to do to support the workforce, but we have already taken important steps to support the sector to recruit and retain more staff ahead of the final phase of the roll-out. We have also recently introduced an experience-based route to working in the sector at level 3 and have published the early years teacher degree apprenticeship standard, a new undergraduate route to early years teacher status. Later this year, we will set out more details on wider reform, including looking at the questions about workforce that the hon. Lady has raised. \p Grahame Morris: I warmly welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend and neighbour. I particularly welcome the fact that Yohden primary school in my constituency—one of the most deprived and disadvantaged communities not just in the county, but in the country—will benefit. That is tremendous news, but can my right hon. Friend outline the Government’s timetable and commit to expanding the scheme still further, so that parents across my constituency and others can look forward to an improvement in childcare provision? \p Bridget Phillipson: I join my hon. Friend in sending my best wishes to the staff at Yohden primary school, and I recognise the important work that they do to support families and children from more disadvantaged backgrounds. This announcement is an important first step in the Government’s ambitious plan for change, breaking the link between background and success, and making sure that a record proportion of children start school ready to learn. This is the first phase of what we intend to do, but there is more to come right throughout this Parliament. \p Julia Lopez: On Friday, I met 20 incredible women running nurseries and pre-schools in Havering. They contacted me because they are in utter crisis. Business rates, national insurance and wage bills are all rising, while the Government cap what they are allowed to charge and then do not cover the cost of the free childcare hours being offered. Fees are going up, and nurseries are now at risk of mass closure. The Education Secretary is driving private nurseries to the brink while not providing enough school-based ones to fill the gap, and I am afraid that her talk of hope is absolutely delusional. As a parent with two small children who speaks regularly to the women running those nurseries, watching Labour Back Benchers jeering the shadow Secretary of State for asking questions is absolutely disgusting. What urgent action is the Education Secretary taking to prevent a meltdown in childcare that is going to affect working families across this country? \p Bridget Phillipson: I, too, speak to early years providers, schools, nurseries and childminders right across our country on a regular basis, unlike Conservative Front Benchers, who seem to spend most of their time complaining about announcements that this Labour Government are making. I also pay tribute to the early  years workforce and the staff in the hon. Lady’s constituency for the important work that they are doing. As I have said in a number of answers, we have set out £8 billion in funding, alongside the biggest ever uplift to the early years pupil premium and a £75 million expansion grant to create the places that are required, and that is on top of the £37 million of capital funding that I have announced today. \p Natasha Irons: I welcome this Government’s continued commitment to breaking down barriers to opportunity, and I welcome the investment in the nurseries at Monks Orchard primary school and Fairchildes primary school in my constituency—I visited Fairchildes earlier in the year, and I know that that money will go to very good use. Does the Secretary of State agree that accessible childcare is essential support for all families, and can she outline how today’s announcement will help to boost household incomes? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has been able to see at first hand in her Croydon constituency the impact that this funding will have on families. It will support us in ensuring that a record proportion of children arrive at school ready to learn, and will make a significant difference in supporting families and child development. Critically, as my hon. Friend identifies, it will also put more money directly back into parents’ pockets—the figure is £7,500. \p Helen Maguire: I welcome the Government’s announcement today, but not every parent needs a full childcare place; many just need somewhere to go with their child, especially in the early months, as parenting can be an isolating and overwhelming experience. What are the Government doing to support community-based options such as one o’clock clubs and the Sure Start centres, which provide vital spaces for parents and children alike? \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree about the importance of family support services, especially for our youngest children. The hon. Lady mentioned Sure Start; that was a proud achievement of the last Labour Government, and when her party was in coalition with the Conservatives, we saw Sure Start centres close right across the country. However, she makes a fair point about the support that is required in the early years, which is why we are doing more, and will do more in the months ahead. While access to early education is a critical part of what many families want, alongside access to high-quality health visiting and speech and language support, community provision is also critical. That is why I am working very closely with the Health Secretary to ensure that all families have good access to both education services and health and care services. \p Damien Egan: I would like to express my gratitude and welcome this news today. Two new nurseries will be opening in Bristol North East, the Tynings school in Staple Hill and Avanti Gardens in Fishponds, both areas that have lots of young families but not enough nursery provision. Can the Secretary of State reassure other families in Bristol North East and across the country that this announcement is just the start, and that under a Labour Government, we will see lots more nursery places opening? \p Bridget Phillipson: Parents in my hon. Friend’s constituency will be able to benefit now from the expansion of school-based nurseries, but this is just the start. Alongside the expansion in primary schools that I have set out, we are working very closely with private and voluntary providers and with childminders to deliver the places that families in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country were promised by the Conservative party, but that this Labour Government will deliver. \p Alison Bennett: Emma, who runs a nursery in the small village of Sayers Common in my constituency, wrote to me recently about the impact of national insurance rises. I recognise that today’s announcement is focused on really deprived areas, and I can see that two primary schools in Crawley in West Sussex that will benefit. That is a town with proper deprivation, but deprivation also exists in rural areas, and I am worried that today’s announcement is giving with one hand to deprived urban areas, but taking away with the other by hammering nurseries in our rural villages with increased national insurance contributions. \p Bridget Phillipson: I can assure the hon. Lady that the list of schools announced today covers constituencies the length and breadth of our country, serving constituencies both urban and rural. I recognise her point about ensuring that there is good, adequate provision in our rural communities as well, and if she wants to share Emma’s letter and experiences with me, I would be happy to respond. \p Mary Glindon: I thank the Secretary of State for investing in Battle Hill primary school in the ward in which I live, where I was proud to be a school governor for 20 years. Does she agree that investing in nurseries in deprived areas such as Battle Hill is essential in order to give very young children a good start to their education journey? \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree with my hon. Friend—that is where we will make the biggest difference to children’s life chances. All the evidence is clear that where gaps open up early, they endure into the long run, which has a lasting impact on children’s ability to do well at school and get good GCSEs and on their earnings potential into the future. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work she has done over many years to support her community, including as a school governor. \p Vikki Slade: While I, too, am excited about the opportunities for some communities, I am really concerned about the growing gap between school-based nurseries and community-based ones—settings in my constituency such as Cuddles, Trailway Tots, and nature nurseries. When those nurseries have written to Ministers to express their concerns, they have often been encouraged to apply for small business rate relief, but given the space standards, that relief simply does not apply. In 2023-24, the average early years setting paid £21,000 in business rates, so those nurseries cannot apply because of the standards required by the education service. In Wales and Scotland, nurseries are exempt from business rates, and schools have them factored into their funding formula. How are we going to make sure that community settings benefit and that we are not just seeing toddlers transferring into school settings, with other settings closing? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am sure that if the hon. Lady writes with further information, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), will be happy to respond to her questions, but I hope I can give her some reassurance by saying that 27 of the schools that will receive funding will be in a partnership with a private or voluntary early years provider on the school site. Moreover, many of the providers that will deliver the service I have announced will do so around the school day: many schools will ensure that there is provision throughout the year, but also at the start and the end of school days, often delivered in partnership with private or voluntary providers. \p Jenny Riddell-Carpenter: Four schools in Suffolk will benefit from today’s announcement, and two of them are in my constituency. I am delighted that Reydon and Waldringfield primary schools will benefit. Does the Minister agree that this new scheme will directly benefit rural constituencies such as mine at a time when access to nursery provision is even more challenging for families, including working families, than it is for their urban neighbours? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am delighted to hear about the impact that this will have on my hon. Friend’s constituency and throughout Suffolk. We believe that in rural communities there is an important role for school-based provision and expanding early years opportunities. Where schools are already at the heart or our communities, what I have announced will allow further provision, creating early years places that will support children and their families, and, crucially, it also represents an important step in supporting child development. \p Sarah Dyke: I welcome the announcement. Curry Mallet Church of England school in my constituency was successful in this funding round, and can expand its early years provision. However, many early years providers, such as Hassockmoor Childcare in Barrington, face significant funding challenges. Given that more than three quarters of entitlement places are provided by private voluntary or independent nurseries, why are those not more central to expansion plans as they continue to experience the nightmare of increased employer NICs, price rises and, sadly, the risk of closure? \p Bridget Phillipson: They are central to our plans, and they have a critical role to play in support for children and families and delivery of the roll-out, but school-based nurseries also have an important role in supporting children from more disadvantaged communities where they already have a higher proportion of the market share. We think that that can be expanded further to provide high-quality early years provision, which will involve working with private, voluntary and independent providers. \p Matt Rodda: I pay tribute to the early years workforce, and I strongly support the Secretary of State’s announcement, which builds on other announcements made recently by her and others in her Department. Will she say a little more about the benefits for, in particular, the most disadvantaged children, including those who may have English as a second language? \p Bridget Phillipson: We know from all the evidence that children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds have the most to gain from high-quality early years education. Today’s announcement will allow us to provide more places for them, alongside the expansion and the big uplift in the early years pupil premium. When it comes to childcare, we are determined to enable children from more disadvantaged backgrounds to take up places. \p Paul Kohler: I welcome the announcement and, in particular, the increased funding, but the Government also need to address the problems of funding nursery provision in the private sector. The Castle Kindergarten in my constituency has written to me saying that new restrictions on what nurseries can charge parents to bridge the gap between Government funding and the actual costs of childcare services are putting most private providers in a precarious position. According to a recent article in The Times, nearly 60% of childcare providers plan to limit the number of Government-funded places owing to those restrictions. Will the Secretary of State meet me, along with my constituents, to discuss this issue? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that further. In respect of charging and guidance, I think it an important principle that parents should have transparency on what they are being charged and what they are being charged for, especially when it comes to access to Government-backed provision. As for funding, I have already told the House that we have increased the early years pupil premium by 45%, and alongside that is the £75 million expansion grant. This year, the rate for under-twos has increased by, on average, 3.4%. \p Sally Jameson: I welcome the announcement of capital funding, which will benefit Armthorpe’s Shaw Wood academy in my constituency, but what revenue funding nurseries will receive? \p Bridget Phillipson: The investment in my hon. Friend’s constituency will allow parents to take up the offer of expanded childcare and entitlements, and we will ensure that the places are available to them. Eligible parents will have access to the entitlements that we are expanding and rolling out with the £8 billion of investment that was announced in the Budget. \p Callum Anderson: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and warmly welcome the inclusion of Great Horwood Church of England school in the first round of funding. Like every school leader in Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes and the country as a whole, the school’s headteacher, Paula Shaw, is working tirelessly to ensure that all children and their families have the opportunity to thrive. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital to ensure that parents in both urban and rural communities never have to choose between their families and their jobs? \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to Paula Shaw and the team for all their work to support children and families. We were delighted that so many schools came forward to apply to take  part in this first phase. Demand far outstripped supply, so we will be returning to this. However, I am also delighted that Paula and her team felt able to take part and to see the benefits that the extra places will bring to my hon. Friend’s constituents. \p Paul Foster: This has been a game-changing announcement for my community. Not only has Runshaw college in Leyland been awarded £1.8 million as part of the higher education capital improvement funds, but Northbrook primary academy, also in Leyland, and Longton primary school have been included in the school-based nursery provision. I am delighted about that, and I thank the Ministers. Does the Secretary of State agree that this offers a huge opportunity for the development of young children, as well as putting large sums back in the pockets of working people? We promised and we delivered, and that is why the Conservative Benches are empty. \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for the people of South Ribble, and it is a testament to his hard work that he continues to make the case for investment. As well as putting more money back into parents’ pockets through our breakfast clubs and by rolling out primary-based nurseries, we are enabling all our children to have a brilliant start in life. I know that my hon. Friend is as passionate as I am about ensuring that we break the link between background and success, so that where a child is from does not determine what that child can go on to achieve. \p Ian Lavery: I am delighted that the fantastic Ringway primary school in Stakeford, in my constituency, will be among the first in the country to host a school-based nursery. That, combined with the much-needed—and long in the planning—rebuilding of the school facilities will have an immeasurable impact on the life chances of young people in my area. Does my right hon. Friend agree that investments of this nature, mainly in socially deprived areas, will be of huge importance, and will she commit herself to rolling out further such schemes on my patch as soon as possible? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend can be assured that the early adopters breakfast clubs programme, for instance, was just the start of a national roll-out. I, too, am delighted that Ringway is part of the first phase of our school-based nurseries programme, and we are determined to ensure that there is more provision throughout the country. Of those that I have announced today, 34% will serve communities that experience disadvantage. It is important for us to ensure that all families can take up childcare and early years provision, and it is critical that we deliver those places.[Official Report, 23 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 10WC.] (Correction) Today’s announcement of £37 million of capital investment, including investment in my hon. Friend’s constituency, will be a crucial part of that. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I had the opportunity only last week to visit Jerounds primary school in my constituency, and saw the incredible work that it was doing in supporting young people and showing them the value of community pride and the importance of oracy. I have to say that they gave their local MP a very good grilling. I am delighted that Jerounds will be one  of the 300 schools to deliver on our pledge of a new school-based surgery. May I ask how this will benefit children and parents in my constituency, and, like others, ask for more provision in Harlow? \p Bridget Phillipson: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the team at Jerounds for their amazing work in giving our children the best start in life. I am delighted that they were able to take part in the scheme. My announcement and those made by others across Government mean putting more money back into parents’ pockets, but also ensuring that all our children have a brilliant start in life and parents are given extra choices when it comes to the working hours that best fit their family circumstances. \p Luke Akehurst: I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that seven new school-based nurseries will be established in County Durham, including one at Bloemfontein primary school in my constituency. The headteacher has said that this will transform unused space at the school and help address the current shortage of nursery spaces in our area. Does the Secretary of State agree that parents in Craghead and beyond in North Durham will benefit from cheaper childcare through these new school-based nurseries? \p Bridget Phillipson: As my hon. Friend sets out, parents right across County Durham will be able to benefit from higher-quality, more affordable childcare that is more available. We are putting money back into parents’ pockets, but we are also providing the places that are required across our country, including in communities that have the most to gain from high-quality early years provision. We know that children from more disadvantaged backgrounds gain the most when they can access early years education, and that is the difference that this Labour Government are making. \p Deirdre Costigan: I thank the Secretary of State for today’s announcement, which includes funding for more nursery places at Allenby primary school in Ealing Southall, saving local families an average of £7,500 a year in childcare costs. Does she agree that taken together with yesterday’s increase to the national living wage, which will see £1,400 added to 3 million people’s pay packets, this is clear evidence of Labour delivering on our promise to make work pay? \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I join her in sending my best wishes to Allenby, which is taking part in our first phase. She is right to say that this is the difference that a Labour Government are making. We are supporting working families and putting more money back into their pockets, and we delivered a record pay rise yesterday. Alongside that, we have a crucial focus on making sure that, in the early years, our children get all the support that they deserve to break the link between background and success. \p Terry Jermy: Swaffham is a small market town in my rural constituency. It has seen significant house building over the last few years, so every time I go there people are keen to talk about the impact of childcare and the lack of spaces, which is why I am so pleased that Swaffham Church of England  primary academy is being funded as part of this scheme. May I warmly invite the Secretary of State to Swaffham to see the positive impact that this policy is having on rural communities such as mine? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend raises an important point: where we see housing development and changes taking place, we must ensure that we have high-quality childcare and early years provision running alongside that. Through the bidding that schools were able to take part in, we considered questions about local need, and I am delighted that Swaffham will be taking part. Either I or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be happy to visit the area to see the provision, perhaps when it is up and running. \p Jodie Gosling: I could not be more pleased to welcome today’s news. As a former nursery manager, I understand the need to ensure that all children have the very best start. I remember the sense of abandonment when Sure Start, health visitors and school nurses were retracted from our community provision. Like many others, I had to face salary cuts and salary sacrifices to keep our nursery doors open over the last eight years under the previous Government. On Friday, I visited Stockingford academy, one of the schools benefiting from the today’s announcement, and heard from its dedicated team about the challenges they face. This year, only 7% of the 75 children are on track. Does the Secretary of State agree that the new provision will transform high-deprivation places, where 46% of the population already have high levels of debt? \p Bridget Phillipson: That takes me back to June last year, when my hon. Friend, who was at that point Labour’s parliamentary candidate, and I launched Labour’s plan to deliver more school-based nurseries. Today, coming out of that plan, we have announced the action that parents in this country voted for. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Long questions are just going to prevent others from getting in, so I ask Members please to keep them short. \p Sean Woodcock: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), I actually think there are fewer Conservative Members present than there are pages in the book “The Very Hungry Caterpillar”, which says everything about where they are coming from.

I am really grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement and for the fact that the town of Chipping Norton in my constituency will get one of the first 300 school-based nurseries announced today. Does she find it hard, as I do, to take lectures from the Conservative party when it comes to the provision of childcare? \p Bridget Phillipson: Yes. It is this Labour Government who are getting on and delivering the childcare places that parents across our country want to see, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Banbury. I know how hard he works for his constituents to make sure that their voices are heard in this place. He is a real champion for local families, and I want to make sure that, by working together with him and colleagues from right across the House, we deliver better life chances for all our children. \p Tristan Osborne: According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ small business report, early years education is vital for children’s development, so I welcome today’s announcement that school-based nurseries will be created at Horsted infant school and two other schools in Medway, and at five others in Kent. Does the Minister agree that this investment, coupled with that given by Labour councils across the country through school streets programmes, will create a true learning environment that is fit for purpose? \p Bridget Phillipson: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the important contribution that Horsted, in his constituency, will make as part of this scheme. I agree that we have to do a lot more as a country to make sure that all our children get a brilliant range of experiences, including in their early years, with the highest-quality provision. Today’s announcement takes us a step further towards that reality. \p James Asser: The Secretary of State said in her announcement that many of these school-based nurseries will be in places with the greatest need. That is certainly the case in my constituency, and I am very grateful that Portway primary in West Ham has been included. I have said in this House before that my constituents do not lack ambition; they lack opportunity, and education is the golden ticket to that opportunity. Does the Secretary of State agree that nurseries provide opportunities not only for children but for adults, and can she assure us that, as the programme is rolled out, the focus will remain on areas that have not only educational needs but economic needs and other forms of deprivation? \p Bridget Phillipson: As my hon. Friend says, the expanded provision at Portway in his constituency will make a big difference by supporting parents to take on work opportunities, to have more money in their pockets, and to take on the hours that suit them. Critically, it will allow us to provide more support for children, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, right across his constituency. \p Perran Moon: Treleigh primary school sits at the heart of my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency. It is surrounded by an area that suffers from profound levels of poverty and deprivation. If ever there was an area that needed some good news on early years, it is mine, following the shameful neglect by the previous Government. Does the Minister agree that new childcare places in new and expanded nurseries, including at Treleigh primary school, will help children from the most deprived backgrounds have the best start in life, after the life chances of children from deprived backgrounds were ignored by the Conservative party for years? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the impact that this policy will have. On average, 40% of the overall gap between disadvantaged 16-year-olds and their peers has already emerged by the age of five. That is why it is critical that we invest in the early years to give more children the best possible start in life, and today’s announcement will create much needed high-quality early years provision and places, including in his constituency. \p Sam Carling: I enormously welcome the Government’s decision to introduce 300 new Government-funded school-based nurseries. I am particularly delighted that one of them will be in the Hampton Vale primary academy in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State agree that these new nurseries will make a real difference to families in my constituency and across the country by saving them up to £7,500? \p Bridget Phillipson: Yes. Today’s announcement will support parents to save up to £7,500 a year, putting more money back into their pockets. Taken together with our commitment to roll out 750 free breakfast clubs from later on this month, it is clear that this Labour Government are on the side of working parents. \p Josh Newbury: The announcement of a new school-based nursery at the Heath Hayes primary academy in my Cannock Chase constituency is very welcome, and shows that this Labour Government are keeping their promises and delivering for parents and children. As capacity is very stretched at Heath Hayes, this capital investment is very welcome. I am the parent of a child who benefited hugely from a school nursery. Does my right hon. Friend agree that school-based nurseries set children up perfectly for going into reception? \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen for myself the impact that this policy has, particularly for parents who already have older children at school. It eases the transition from nursery to reception and sets up children to succeed. Importantly, it allows staff to build relationships with parents and families, and to identify whether problems are developing in areas such as SEND, where the earlier we spot problems, the earlier we can intervene and put in place the support that is required. \p Dave Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, because this is an investment in early years, which is an investment in the future of our communities. In my constituency, there is an investment of hundreds of thousands of pounds at Springhill primary academy in Burntwood, Boney Hay primary academy in Burntwood and St Stephen’s primary in Fradley. These schools do amazing work in supporting the next generation, and this money will be used to renovate facilities, give children a better environment in which to start their learning, expand the number of places and help provide the 30 hours of free childcare that working parents so desperately need. Can I put on record my thanks to these schools, and can I ask if the Secretary of State will join me in visiting schools and celebrating the work they do? \p Nusrat Ghani: Just say yes, Secretary of State. [Laughter.] \p Bridget Phillipson: I will do my very best to visit Lichfield to see the fantastic provision and, critically, to see the brilliant work my hon. Friend is doing to champion local schools and nurseries in his constituency. \p Markus Campbell-Savours: We on these Benches recognise that school-based childcare offers some of the best childcare. I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State, which means that the  Government will be supporting the expansion of the rural nursery at Paddle school near Cockermouth. Could the Secretary of State share with the House how these plans will help parents get into work? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend knows better than most the importance of high-quality provision, including in rural communities, allowing parents to avoid having to travel considerable distances. This announcement will make a big difference in his constituency and in constituencies across the country. From the applications to the scheme, we saw real demand. More than 640 schools applied to take part, so there is a big demand, which we want to take forward in future phases, including in rural communities. \p Josh Simons: After a night of little sleep, I am feeling something that many have said in this Chamber before: being a parent in this country is too exhausting and too expensive. That is why on Friday I am hosting a coffee morning targeted at dads, with former Wigan Warriors players and Andy’s Man Club. It is also why I am so delighted that, down the road, Hindley Green community primary and Hindley St Peter’s will benefit from this Government’s investments in new nurseries. This Labour Government are investing in the working families I represent. Can I thank the Secretary of State for that, and ask her about the timeline for rolling out the scheme to further schools that I represent in my constituency? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he is doing to support local families and also dads. Becoming a parent for the first time can be a daunting experience for mothers, but it can also be daunting for fathers, and they need support as well, so I pay tribute to him.

This is the first phase of our announcement. We will draw on the experience of the schools that take part in the first phase as we take forward future phases. The majority of the 6,000 new places created will be available from September 2025. That is the difference that a Labour Government are making. \p Dan Aldridge: I am so excited to hear about the nursery at St Anne’s church academy in Weston-super-Mare, especially from the Dispatch Box today. People such as Julie McCallum at Play and Learn pre-school in Worle have shouldered the burdens of the previous Government’s evisceration of early years and of their lack of strategy. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking so many early years practitioners across my constituency and the UK for their tireless work to give our children the best start possible? \p Bridget Phillipson: I congratulate the amazing early years workforce and our education workforce in Weston-super-Mare and across our country. They are the people who make the biggest difference for children in such settings. Important as capital is to creating the places, it is the people who deliver for our children and support them in their earliest years who make the biggest difference, and for that they deserve our praise. \p David Williams: We started out with six Conservative Members, which we can divide by two to get the number now left on their Benches. Given their track record in this field, perhaps the rest have been put in detention for the rest of the day.

I am so proud to see that Smallthorne primary academy in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove has been selected for a new school-based nursery. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that these nurseries are vital in places such as Smallthorne, not only for the childcare they provide, but for helping with school-readiness, closing the developmental gap early on and giving every single child the best start in life? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the difference that early years provision makes, not just in those crucial early years but right throughout children’s lives. The evidence could not be clearer. I am delighted that, in Smallthorne and in many communities across our country, more children will have the opportunity to benefit from high-quality early years provision, which is critical to their life chances and also really important for parents in his constituency. \p Noah Law: I am sure that the children of Pondhu primary school and their families are delighted to welcome the investment in the nursery announced by the Secretary of State, not least because St Austell Central has sadly become the second most deprived ward in the whole of Cornwall. What impact does the Secretary of State expect the investment to have on the life chances of children living in deprived families? \p Bridget Phillipson: We know that children from more disadvantaged backgrounds will have the most benefit from high-quality early years education, and they benefit the most when that starts earlier. So much of the overall gap will have opened up by that age; 40% of the overall gap between disadvantaged 16-year-olds and their peers has already emerged by the age of five. That is why it is essential that we do more to support children and families when children are younger. That is right for those children and their families, and it is also an investment in our country’s future. \p Andrew Pakes: Looking at the Conservative Benches, I am sure that those on the Conservative Front Bench are glad that this statement is about nurseries, rather than school attendance—or truancy.

I thank the Secretary of State for joining me in Peterborough earlier this week to meet the fantastic pupils, parents and staff at Fulbridge academy, which excels in giving great education to students in my constituency. Will she join me in congratulating and paying tribute to Ben Erskine and the brilliant staff team at the school? Does she agree that with leadership, a relentless focus on standards and the resources in today’s announcement, absolutely nothing can hold back the ambition of working-class communities like mine? \p Bridget Phillipson: I was delighted to join my hon. Friend in visiting Fulbridge and to meet the brilliant staff team, who are doing so much to support all children in that community, so that they can achieve all they are capable of. There should be no ceiling on  children’s ambition and aspiration, including in working-class communities. I know he will continue to champion his constituency and community, and ensure that, alongside our plan for change, we deliver a country in which background is no barrier to getting on in life, and in which we have broken the link between background and success. \p Peter Swallow: I warmly welcome the news that Uplands primary school in Sandhurst has been awarded funding to expand its school-based nursery. Will the Secretary of State set out what this means for Labour’s commitment to delivering top-quality childcare for families across my constituency and the country? \p Bridget Phillipson: This Labour Government want to make sure that families can access childcare support. That is important for families’ work choices and, critically, for children’s development. That is why we have set ourselves an ambitious target of ensuring that a record number of children are school-ready when they start school, and high-quality early years provision, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is a critical part of that. Alongside that, this announcement will put more money back into parents’ pockets. \p Michael Wheeler: I feel as though I should declare an interest, as I am the proud dad of a little boy who is literally taking his first steps as our Government take these important steps in a critical area.

I welcome the statement and all the Secretary of State’s work in this area. I particularly welcome the fact that St Stephen’s in my constituency of Worsley and Eccles will be home to one of these nurseries. As the Secretary of State well knows, I have long been a champion of available, affordable and accessible childcare, especially for working parents. Does she agree that delivering on these aims is a real sign that our Government are delivering for children and their parents? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For many years, when our party was in opposition, I campaigned alongside him to make sure that working parents get the support that they need to get on at work, have good working standards and conditions and, critically, can access high-quality early years provision and childcare. This announcement of about £37 million of extra capital investment, including at St Stephen’s in his constituency, will make a big difference to working parents in his constituency and across our country, but it is also an important part of this Government’s plan for change, which breaks the link between background and success. \p Sam Carling: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am looking for guidance on how I can raise a breach of the behaviour code by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). He was galivanting around my constituency yesterday, and I thought it a real shame that he did not tell me about his visit in advance, as the behaviour code requires him to; I could have taken him around all the communities that would be impacted by his party’s plan to privatise the NHS. This follows an incident in February, when the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), also visited my constituency without telling me in advance. How can I ensure that section 43 of the behaviour code is upheld in future? \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I take it that he has notified the Members concerned that he intended to refer to them. \p Sam Carling: indicated assent. \p Nusrat Ghani: I remind all hon. Members that they must inform colleagues in advance whenever they intend to visit another colleague’s constituency, unless the visit is made for private purposes. That is now most definitely on the record. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on this important matter. Two weeks ago, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) came to my constituency campaigning, and did not inform me that he was visiting. I would very much welcome it if you perhaps took this opportunity to remind him of the behaviour code, too. \p Nusrat Ghani: The hon. Member, if he was following procedure, should have informed me or the Clerks that he intended to raise that point of order. Maybe his point is a matter for next time. It has been raised and recorded. \p Sam Carling: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: We do not need continued points of order on this issue, thank you so much. We will proceed. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Blair McDougall presented a Bill to make provision about labelling requirements for certain groceries products where the manufacturer has reduced the size of the product; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 218). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Andrew Pakes: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision that occupiers of dwellings owned by certain forms of co-operatives shall occupy those dwellings by virtue of their membership of the co-operative and not as tenants or under any other type of property interest; to make provision for co-operative tenure and for the rights and obligations of the co-operative and its members; and for connected purposes.

It is my privilege and my pleasure to introduce the Bill. I have always had co-operative values. They are in my bones. It is not far from the mark to say that I was born in the Co-op. It certainly fed, clothed and provided essential goods to me in my early years, and I have taken those values with me throughout my life. For six years, I served as a director of the Co-operative Development Society, supporting community housing projects and co-operatives across the country. Co-operative housing is more than just an idea. Despite the significant barriers they face, there are hundreds of co-operative housing projects across the country, and the number is growing.

Just last week, I was lucky enough to visit Coin Street, just over the river in Waterloo. Forty years ago, the Coin Street Community Builders came together to fight against the rapid development of unaffordable commercial housing in London, which was leading to the total collapse of the community around them; shops, schools and community spaces were all closing. They fought hard to buy the land and build a new housing co-operative on the banks of the Thames. Today, there are four housing co-operatives on Coin Street, all managed by their residents, many of whom have lived there for decades. These are more than just homes. For the people who live there, they are routes to training, education, decision-making and genuine power. This is housing done differently.

For too many people, housing is something they have little control over. Working people have faced a housing sector that is broken, and have little opportunity to change that. For too long, when it comes to housing, power has felt very distant from communities, but for co-operative housing projects, power has always sat directly with residents. When decisions are made, residents are in the driving seat. They have an active stake and say in the places they call home. The power of that should not be underestimated. Crucially, co-operative housing projects provide an alternative to the spiralling rents and mortgage costs that too many Members will be familiar with, and which have plagued the housing sector for decades.

I want to place on record my thanks to Lucy Grove and Finn Byrne from the Coin Street team, and to Tom, a Coin Street resident, for all the work that they do to promote co-operative housing and its potential, and for showing me around last week. I pay tribute to David Rodgers, the long standing chief executive officer of CDS Housing, and his successor Linda Wallace, and to my great friend Laura Blake for all the work she did alongside me to promote co-operative housing.

Now is the moment to grasp the opportunity that co-operative housing offers. Just last week, the Government announced a new funding package for community-led housing, co-operatives and community land trusts, unlocking thousands more homes over the next decade. This Labour Government understand that community-led housing is about putting power into the hands of local people, who will take a lead in designing the homes they want to see in their communities. This is the first time the Government have supported this approach to financing house building on this scale, and it has rightly been warmly welcomed by the sector, and by communities who want to get involved in locally led community housing solutions.

Unlocking the power of co-operative housing will be possible only if it is given a foundation in law. Co-operative housing does exist in the UK, and in many cases it thrives, but local people seeking to form a housing co-operative face an uphill legal battle. Without co-operative housing tenure being set out in law, advisers, regulators, lawyers, banks and others who would normally be tasked with supporting people with their housing are not properly equipped to do so in the case of co-operative housing. The United Nations has declared this to be the International Year of Co-operatives, and has called on member states to create “enabling environments for co-operatives”. This Labour Government already have a bold commitment to doubling the size of the co-operative and mutual sector, and have been clear that co-operatives should play a vital role in driving inclusive growth that is felt by working people and communities. Now should be the moment to commit to a co-operative housing tenure, so that this part of our sector can grow and thrive as it has never been enabled to previously.

As is sadly often the case, the UK lags behind our neighbours around the world when it comes to co-operative housing and its position in law. Sweden has had co-operative housing law for more than a century, and Norway for almost 80 years. It is no surprise that in those two countries, and in many more, co-operative housing is far more prevalent and successful than it is here.

To close, I want to reflect briefly on the role that co-operative housing projects are playing in wider communities. I am proud and privileged to be a Labour and Co-operative MP, and to be part of the Co-operative party’s “Community Britain” campaign, which argues that work is already under way in so many of our communities to solve, in serious and innovative ways, the big challenges that our country faces. We see that in local community-owned energy projects, in which people come together not just to tackle climate change through clean energy, but to upskill local people. We see it in agriculture, in amazing initiatives such as the English Mustard Growers co-operative, which is keeping mustard alive in my constituency and across the east of England. We see it in local initiatives such as Men’s Sheds, which are fighting the loneliness epidemic, or community kitchens, which are bringing people from different cultures together.

What I learned at Coin Street is that it is more than just a housing development. The co-operative model has fostered a genuine community. Built on land owned by the co-operative are a community pub, a collection of small independent businesses, a multi-purpose neighbourhood centre including a nursery and a soon-to-be-developed community leisure centre. The co-operative even has a relationship with the renowned Rambert  ballet school nearby, which allows residents of all ages to access dance and culture at accessible and affordable prices.

Coin Street is a rich community, led by the needs and wants of local people. It all starts with the co-operative model—groups of people coming together to build something different and reap the benefits. At a time when shared spaces like community centres, pubs and leisure centres have disappeared across the country, there is surely a case for this model to come to the fore.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Andrew Pakes, Helena Dollimore, Dame Meg Hillier, Paul Waugh, Preet Kaur Gill, Ms Stella Creasy, Alice Macdonald, Gareth Snell, Florence Eshalomi, Sarah Hall, Alex Sobel and Rachel Blake present the Bill.

Andrew Pakes accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed (Bill 219). \p Michael Shanks: I beg to move,

That the draft Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.

Good afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. This instrument is another important step in supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar, which are critical to achieving the Government’s mission for clean power by 2030. An effective planning system is key to unlocking the new infrastructure our country needs to deliver our energy security and resilience. It is important that planning applications are determined through an appropriate planning route that reflects a project’s size, impact and complexity, where potential issues are identified and mitigated as necessary.

The nationally significant infrastructure project regime is governed by the Planning Act 2008, whereby decisions on development consent are made by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. The NSIP regime applies to larger projects, with a megawatt threshold determining which energy generating projects are deemed nationally significant. Following submission into the NSIP process, an extensive examination period will commence, where interested parties—including local authorities, people of office and the general public—can make written or oral representations to the examination, ensuring that the voices of communities are heard during the decision-making process. \p Andrew Murrison: Rather than traducing what remains of our countryside, what assessment has the Minister made of the UK-Morocco power project run by Xlinks, which would deliver 11.5 GW of energy and power about 8% of our grid needs? It would seem that the block to this project is not the Moroccan Government, nor the Governments of countries through whose territorial seas the cable would pass, but resides instead in Whitehall. What is the Minister doing about it? \p Michael Shanks: I give credit to the right hon. Gentleman for the ingenious way he brought that up in a debate on solar and wind in the UK. He raises a good point. We are looking at the detail of a proposal that has been put forward by a private company—I am not going to say anything more on the Floor of the House. \p Andrew Murrison: rose— \p Michael Shanks: I have given way already.

Turning back to the statutory instrument in front of us, until recently the de facto ban on onshore wind generation in England introduced by the Conservatives limited the deployment of onshore wind in England. Those changes to the planning legislation set an almost impossible bar to meet, resulting in the pipeline of projects shrinking by more than 90%, with less than 40 MW of onshore wind generation consented and becoming operational in the intervening period.

In July 2024, this Government disapplied those planning policy tests and committed to reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime, reversing the damaging policies of the past 10 years and placing onshore wind  on the same footing as solar, offshore wind and nuclear power stations. As such, through this instrument, onshore wind projects with a generating capacity of more than 100 MW in England will be eligible to be consented under the NSIP regime. \p Leigh Ingham: This legislation is crucial to achieving our net zero commitments. GE Vernova, a renewables company in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, struggled with really long waiting times for an expansion of its site, but it has recently been approved, which means good new jobs for people who live in my constituency. That exemplifies the importance of streamlining the planning process, which will eventually lead to lower bills for people in my constituency and around the country. Does the Minister agree that this legislation is integral to developing the jobs we need across the country, and would he like to come and visit GE Vernova with me? \p Michael Shanks: I thank my hon. Friend for that warm invitation; I will of course consider it, and I look forward to visiting her constituency at some point. She makes an extremely important point. We are reforming the planning system to deal with challenges that have meant that, for too long, infrastructure that is incredibly important for our energy security has been held back by dither and delays in the process. We want to sweep that away and move forward much more quickly. The prize is energy security, but as she rightly points out, this is also about jobs and investment in communities right across the country. \p Lewis Cocking: Will the Minister give way? \p Michael Shanks: I will, then I need to make progress. \p Lewis Cocking: The Minister talks about our energy security. What will increase our energy security is issuing new oil and gas licences so that we can have more home-grown energy. Why will the Minister not change his policy on that? \p Michael Shanks: We really are stretching this debate, but I am very happy to discuss this matter. The point has been raised on a number of occasions, and the answer is always the same: it is not delivering energy security at the moment. We have said very clearly that oil and gas plays a crucial role in our energy mix now, and it will continue to play a role for decades to come, but the North sea is already in transition. The reality of the past 10 years under the Conservatives was that more than 70,000 jobs were lost, with no plan for how to deal with it. We are determined to deliver on the transition and on energy security, which will get us off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel prices that we are all still riding. \p Kit Malthouse: Will the Minister give way? \p Michael Shanks: I will make a little progress and come back to the right hon. Gentleman. Although we have 90 minutes, I am conscious of time.

This instrument is about making sure that onshore wind projects in England that offer capacity of over 100 MW will be eligible to be consented under the regime. It reflects advances in turbine technology over the last decade, with modern turbines being larger and more powerful. Reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime will provide an appropriate route for nationally significant projects seeking planning consent where they are of a certain scale and complexity, so that local impacts can be carefully balanced against national benefits and the need to meet the UK’s wider decarbonisation goals. This will provide greater confidence for developers and grow the pipeline of potential projects in England once again. \p Kit Malthouse: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. He talks about national impact. I wonder what provision there is under this legislation for protected national landscapes. Many of the windiest places in the UK are among our most beautiful, whether it is the hills and mountains of our national parks or the downs of our national landscapes, like the North Wessex downs in my constituency, which was an area of outstanding national beauty but is now a national landscape. Many of my residents are concerned, because the Minister is quite right that the turbines that are now being developed are huge. It is likely to mean that for most of our lifetimes we will lose the landscape to these new developments. Will this system still encompass consideration of protected landscape and make sure that it stays as it is for future generations? \p Michael Shanks: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As I have always said from the Dispatch Box in this role, there is a balance to be struck here. We need to build nationally important infrastructure, and that does mean much more onshore wind in England to match the significant amount of onshore wind that has been built in Scotland over the past few years, including not far from my constituency. But the balance must be struck with protecting land as well. Even if we build the significant number of projects that are needed, there will still be protections for land in the areas he mentions. The planning system allows for those considerations to be taken into account.

The NSIP regime already includes nuclear and solar. We are saying that the ban on onshore wind introduced by the Conservatives was not a rational decision, so we are bringing it back into this process. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister says that it was absolutely rational, but his party’s former Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), said that it was “always mad”. I think we should remember that not everybody in the Conservative party agreed with it, including, I suspect, the shadow Minister himself.

Let me come to the second part of the statutory instrument: the question of solar. Solar has been subject to a 50 MW NSIP threshold since it was originally set out in the Planning Act 2008. However, much like onshore wind, solar panel technology has seen significant advances in efficiency, enabling a greater megawatt yield per site. Evidence suggests that the 50 MW threshold is now causing a market distortion. With modern technology, mid-sized generating stations have a generating capacity greater than 50 MW and therefore fall within the NSIP regime. That is likely to be disproportionate to their  size, scale and impact. That has resulted in a large amount of ground-mounted solar projects entering the planning system artificially capping their capacity just below the 50 MW threshold, leading to a potentially inefficient use of sites and grid connections. \p Perran Moon: The approach set out in the order is a continuation of the Minister’s work to build the clean energy infrastructure that the country needs. I agree that the capacity threshold and the reintroduction of onshore wind generation stations into the definition of nationally significant infrastructure projects will help deliver the triple benefits of decarbonisation, energy security and job creation. However, as the Minister knows, Cornwall is a leader in the roll-out of onshore wind and solar energy. Does he agree that the order will further opportunities for renewable energy growth across Cornwall that would have been ignored by the flat Earth climate change deniers in the Conservative party? \p Michael Shanks: I thank my hon. Friend for the point, although I am disappointed, because while he normally invites me to visit Cornwall, he did not on this occasion. I will not take it personally. Since he was elected to this place, he has done a fantastic job in delivering jobs in his community on the clean power mission, most recently by looking at some of the raw materials that are so essential. He has made great progress on that, so I pay tribute to him.

My hon. Friend is of course right about the Conservative party’s scepticism of a policy that it used to support so wholeheartedly, and one that has delivered economic growth right across the country. It has now turned its face against that; I am not sure whether that is flat Earth or not. I am sure that the shadow Minister will regale us with his long list of commitments in this space, but it is clear that the drive to net zero is delivering industrial opportunities, jobs, manufacturing and investment in communities that have suffered for so long under economic decline, as well as delivering on our climate ambitions and energy security. That is the right path for us to be on.

I will return to solar for a second. Raising the NSIP threshold to 100 MW for solar will ensure that mid-sized projects have access to a more proportionate planning route via local planning authorities. It should incentivise projects that would otherwise have capped their capacity to develop to a more optimal and efficient scale. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: We are talking about increasing the threshold from 50 MW to 100 MW. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the average size of NSIP projects approved by the Government since last July. If so, why has the threshold been kept artificially low at 100 MW and not raised significantly higher? Otherwise, we will see huge numbers of smaller projects coming through and being classified as NSIPs, such as those approved by the Minister so far, rather than larger projects. \p Michael Shanks: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of written questions on this topic to try to get to the heart of the matter, and he is now testing me on the number, which I think we did provide him with in response to one of those written questions. Since it is not on the tip of my tongue, I will write to him with the answer. On the general point, I do accept what he is  saying. Part of the reason for the instrument is to try to get to a more rational point where we do not have projects limiting themselves artificially to a level based on a figure.

We settled on 100 MW because we think it strikes the right balance by allowing larger projects that can deliver the outcomes we want in the energy system through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, while limiting the number of projects coming into the national planning process. We think that balance is right, but we will continue to look at it. The hon. Gentleman has raised important points with me in in written questions that I am happy to discuss with him in more detail.

The Government are mindful that mid and large-scale solar and onshore wind projects that may be preparing to enter the planning system might have already invested and undertaken preparatory steps with the expectation of entering a particular planning regime. Therefore, changing the NSIP criteria at short notice could result in projects entering into a different regime from that which they expected, which could increase costs for developers and cause delays. Therefore, the instrument before us also makes transitional provisions for onshore wind and solar projects that are already in the planning process when the order comes into force. The provisions will therefore ensure that projects already progressing under one regime will not be required to move into a different one.

In conclusion, through consultation, we sought views and supporting evidence on reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime. We received a range of responses from different groups of people. Most agreed with our approach and the majority agreed with the 100 MW threshold. Indeed, although we initially consulted on the idea of a higher threshold of 150 MW, based on the analysis of those consultation responses, we concluded that a 100 MW threshold would be more appropriate and would reflect modern technology.

This instrument is another important step forward in delivering our clean power mission, supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar and establishing the UK as a clean energy superpower. It supports all our work as a Government on delivering an effective planning system—one that ensures that applications are processed efficiently through an appropriate regime and that avoids distortionary effects on deployment. The measures ultimately aim to support our future energy security and resilience, alongside our 2030 goals and wider decarbonisation targets. I commend the order to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Andrew Bowie: In just four short weeks, people across England will go to the polls to determine the future of their local communities. At that same time, the Labour party seeks to impose on those very same communities vast new energy infrastructure: huge solar farms and wind turbines with blade heights of 180 metres to 200 metres, destroying swathes of England’s green and pleasant land and going against the wishes of local people. As ever, only the Conservative party is standing up for those communities, and only the Conservative party believes that people in those communities should have a say over their local area. Labour would silence those communities, choosing  to impose rather than to seek consent. In four weeks’ time, voters across this country will have that choice before them.

The order provides a route to approval for onshore wind that entirely bypasses the consent of local communities and empowers the zealotry of the Secretary of State to impose infrastructure irrespective of the concerns of local people. \p Harriet Cross: In my constituency of Gordon and Buchan, the Suie and Correen hills are subject to a planning application for a new onshore wind farm. There is also concern that, because of that, there will be new pop-up infrastructure next to it, whether substations or batteries and so on. One project leads to another and then to another—it overtakes local communities, it means that local landscapes and local businesses change, and there is an impact on farming, too. Does my hon. Friend agree that such projects cannot be looked at in isolation? This has to be about their holistic impact across the board, not just about the individual scheme, one at a time. \p Andrew Bowie: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, living, as we do, in the north-east of Scotland and seeing around us the huge increase in energy infrastructure planned for rural communities over the next few years—it is quite daunting. It is therefore no surprise that there has been such vociferous campaigning against the plans, whether those for wind turbines, pylons, energy substations or battery storage facilities, all of which are in the pipeline for our communities. That is why there is such a pushback there and also such concern across many of the communities that will be affected by the change in England over the next few years. That is why we oppose the SI before us.

In their first week in office, the Government approved three solar farms across Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Rutland, against the wishes of the local communities. Today, the Minister seeks to go further still. In increasing the threshold for solar, he pushes for the development of giant solar farms. To be eligible for sign-off by the Secretary of State, solar farms have to be 100 MW in capacity. Currently, the largest—Shotwick solar park in Flintshire—is 72 MW. The change signals a free-for-all for giant-scale solar, and the instrument brings onshore wind over a 100 MW capacity into the NSIP scope. In Lancashire, that means Scout Moor II being in the Secretary of State’s gift to approve. Calderdale wind farm, with 65 turbines covering 9 square miles, is planned for Yorkshire and will be built on grouse moorland and farmland. In Lincolnshire’s prime agricultural land, the breadbasket of England, this means a potential onslaught of proposals, despite the county council’s opposition to large-scale plans.

I know how much this means to local communities—my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) has also made this point. I represent a constituency that is being subjected to vast swathes of energy infrastructure, and over the next few years approval will be sought for a whole host of new plans that will indelibly change a landscape that people are proud and happy to live in right now. \p Lewis Cocking: Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than making it easier for large-scale solar and onshore wind applications, the Government should be focusing on “fabric first” and increasing the energy efficiency of our housing stock, thereby reducing energy demand rather than destroying our countryside? \p Andrew Bowie: Absolutely. I would be keen to see exactly what the Government are proposing on that front. Their plans, which are stripping away the rights of local communities, are doing great damage to communities across this country with shocking disregard— \p Perran Moon: If the shadow Minister is so confident about Conservative party policy, will he come back to the House after 1 May and tell us how the Conservatives have performed in those local elections? \p Andrew Bowie: I would be delighted to come back and compare notes on how our respective parties have performed in the local elections on 1 May. The choice before the people of England who are going to the polls on 1 May is quite clear. Where they have a Conservative local authority, they get better services and better value for money, as is being demonstrated right now by the comparison between Birmingham and Bromsgrove. There could not be a better illustration of the difference between Conservative party local delivery and Labour party failure. That is what is on the ballot paper on 1 May, and I will debate the arguments around that with the hon. Member any day of the week.

The Labour Government have made no secret of their plans to double onshore wind and treble solar, to be achieved by empowering themselves while disenfranchising local communities. In Lincolnshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire, they are silencing local opposition. They risk alienating the British public in their costly rush to a renewables-based system without consultation and with no consent.

The race to Clean Power 2030 is being done at the expense of all else. It is being done at the expense of our energy security, our national security and our standards on ethical supply chains. Just last week in this very House, Labour whipped its MPs to vote in favour of allowing Great British Energy to invest in supply chains despite evidence of modern slavery—the Labour party! The week before, the Secretary of State was collaborating with the People’s Republic of China, sacrificing our national security and tacitly admitting that his wrong-headed targets were unachievable without imports made with coal power. Perhaps the Government received advice on how to achieve community consent from President Xi Jinping. \p Kit Malthouse: I understand that this particular sector is out of fashion with the Government, but one of the other sacrifices is likely to involve Scotland’s, and indeed England’s, precious raptor population. Raptors often suffer as a result of high-density wind farms and are effectively minced as they fly through the air. In California and elsewhere, we see high numbers of bird deaths, particularly birds of prey. Would the Government not be better off, in my hon. Friend’s opinion, putting their time and investment into low-orbit solar, in which the UK, along with Japan, leads the world? \p Andrew Bowie: I bow to my right hon. Friend’s expertise on raptors and on British bird life in general. That sounds like an entirely sensible suggestion. The Minister is taking notes, and I very much hope that he will take that suggestion back to the Department in which he is lucky to serve.

The Minister has told us that onshore renewable infrastructure can unlock lower bills and that it is the cheapest energy source, but that is not the case. We have the second highest on-stream renewables in Europe, yet the UK’s domestic energy bills are among the highest in Europe. We also know from the Office for Budget Responsibility that the cost to businesses and households of subsidising renewables will increase from £12 billion to £19 billion by 2030. That is the true cost of the Government’s rush to net zero.

We are very proud of what we achieved during our years in government, building the first and fifth largest offshore wind farms in the world, which are generating power for Great Britain right now, and halving our emissions while growing the economy faster than any other developed economy. But this Government need to be honest with the British people about the cost of their arbitrary targets. The Labour party makes no attempt to account for the whole-systems cost associated with the renewables-dominated system. In fact, the Secretary of State cancelled the analysis commissioned by his predecessor. He does not want to know how much it costs, and it is clear that the Government do not want to know. It is wilful ignorance driven purely by ideology.

At the election, the Labour party promised us £300 off energy bills. Yesterday we saw the price cap and bills go up. On the Opposition side of the House, we stand with communities, seek to empower local people and understand their concerns. We oppose this instrument, which enables the Secretary of State to continue to ride roughshod over the concerns of local communities in vain pursuit of the Government’s own legacy. Will the Minister recommission the whole-systems cost analysis that his Government scrapped on day one, and look at the facts? Can he tell us the cost of running the gas-fired power station fleet for 5% of our power, in addition to the rising curtailment costs, paid to turn off the growing number of wind turbines? Can he confirm that his proposed community benefits package is significantly lower than the scheme considered by the previous Government? What is his message to the residents of Lincolnshire, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire and elsewhere, as they make their decisions on 1 May? \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 349 and the Noes were 14, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

We have four more speeches. \p Cat Eccles: I thank the Minister for expediting this important legislation to transform the energy landscape in the UK. I have long campaigned  for renewable energy measures to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to produce green power of our own. The UK has suffered significantly, like many other countries, from the cost of oil and gas skyrocketing due to the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. The Conservatives did nothing to help the situation. They abandoned much of the country’s energy storage, leaving us reliant on fossil fuels pumped in under the channel, and did not take energy security seriously. They further compounded the situation by scrapping their net zero targets and championing dirty, polluting gas and oil.

Last year, the UK hit a historic milestone, with 42% of energy coming from renewable sources, including 31% being generated by wind power. As energy bills rise yet again, it is clear that we need to break the shackles that hold us hostage to energy companies charging extortionate rates just to keep the lights on. British people simply cannot afford for the status quo to continue, financially and environmentally.

I am proud that this Government are leading the way by setting up Great British Energy to give us energy independence, security and longevity, but that needs to be backed up by planning infrastructure changes that support our aims. I understand concerns that our countryside and agricultural land could be at risk from the development of renewable power sources and upgrading the grid, but I am confident that this Government will ensure that infrastructure is always in the right place and done in the right way.

Creating the infrastructure is not the end of the story. Due to the lack of energy storage and grid capacity, around 8.3 terawatt-hours—about 10% of the wind power—is effectively lost. Even though National Grid is working at speed to upgrade the networks to ensure that not a single watt-hour is lost, we need to do more.

Two years ago, my husband and I retrofitted and upgraded our home by removing the gas, installing solar panels and an air-source heat pump, and fully insulating externally. But we quickly realised the battery was not big enough to store all the energy we were producing, and despite being able to sell some of it back to the grid, it would have been better to be able to store more of it for a rainy—or rather, snowy and icy—day. Scale that up, and it is the same for the whole country. We need to harness that additional energy to help to reduce the need for fossil fuels.

I hope this change will filter down into the house building industry. It has long been a bugbear of mine that developers are only required to install an electric vehicle charging point on new build homes. We need to mandate solar panels on every roof and proper insulation, so that heat does not escape through the walls, and ensure that homes across the UK are fit for the future. I also take this opportunity to welcome the fund made available by West Midlands Mayor Richard Parker to help small businesses to make the transition to renewable energy. Small and medium-sized enterprises have been hit hard by energy price rises, and uncapped tariffs have caused bills to spiral to unsustainable levels.

To drive growth, we need energy security to make bills affordable for residents and businesses alike. Breaking down the barriers to tackling climate change and the energy crisis will help us to meet the Government’s ambitious targets for energy storage and grid reinforcement, but we must move at pace to match the growth of renewable generation. Streamlining planning processes  and investment in energy storage will help our country to transition to a low-cost, green and clean power grid by 2030. \p Pippa Heylings: We are living in the shadow of the former Conservative Government’s failure to invest in renewable energy and insulate our homes. Those failures have contributed directly to an energy crisis that has left households struggling with soaring bills and businesses facing crippling costs. The majority of people polled in this country want to see more action on climate change and saving our planet, not less.

The Liberal Democrats are unwavering champions of renewable energy. Now more than ever, we need to strengthen our home-grown energy security and stop our dependency on despots such as Putin. We welcome the lifting of the effective moratorium on onshore wind, which we have long called for. That was an extremely short-sighted and irresponsible Conservative policy. The planning changes that they made in 2015 and 2016 introduced a de facto ban in England, resulting in a loss to our manufacturing and local economies. The project pipeline for onshore wind shrank by over 90%, and less than 40 MW was consented to and became operational in the intervening period. \p Harriet Cross: The supply chain is important for the roll-out of onshore and offshore wind, and the oil and gas sector supply chain will be crucial, but it is being worn away by the rush to end our use of North sea oil and gas. Does the hon. Member agree that preserving that supply chain, and ensuring a managed transition from North sea oil and gas, will be vital to any roll-out of onshore and offshore wind? \p Pippa Heylings: We are absolutely and critically supportive of a just transition in the North sea, to move off fossil fuels alongside and parallel to our increased use of renewable energy.

It is therefore right to reintroduce onshore wind into the nationally significant investment regime, ensuring that there is a level playing field with other generating technologies such as solar, offshore wind and nuclear, which are already assessed under that regime. The motion also raises the threshold for solar projects deemed nationally significant from 50 MW to 100 MW. In one way, that increased threshold will help to prevent poor land use, given that the previous threshold incentivised developers to put in an artificial cap of 49.9 MW, which led to 40% of proposals coming in at that level. Increasing the threshold in local planning decisions also means that biodiversity net gain will be required of solar farms, ensuring that, where they are approved, they are nature-friendly. It will also give local voices a greater say in determining the location and suitability of large-scale solar projects up to 100 MW—that is important.

However, local decision making about large-scale solar cannot happen in a vacuum. We need a joined-up approach that balances the need for food security, energy infrastructure, new homes and nature recovery. That is why we welcome the Government’s launching of consultations on both the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plans, which together should  determine the most strategic energy mix, how much solar we need, at what scale and where best to locate it across the country. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: The hon. Member is, like me, a Cambridgeshire MP. Cambridgeshire has already had Sunnica, one of the largest solar farms in the country at 2,400 acres, approved. We have another 1,900 acre project in my constituency, as she well knows, and others are in the planning process. Does she agree that Cambridgeshire residents should not have to bear the brunt of these projects? I know that she is a staunch advocate for the move towards solar, but would she, like me, stand up for her residents if someone was looking to build a nationally significant infrastructure project of that scale in her constituency? \p Pippa Heylings: That is exactly the point I am making. I have been talking with my constituents, particularly about the controversial new large-scale Kingsway solar farm in my constituency. We need a land use framework and a strategic spatial energy plan that tells us and informs local planning and decision making about the scale of solar energy that we need across the whole country, where it is best located, where it can fit in and feed in, and the energy mix. We need to consider that mix and the balance of food security, energy infrastructure, homes and nature recovery.

Equally, we need genuinely significant community benefit schemes applied to large-scale generation schemes, similar to the community benefit approach applied in Scotland. We want to ensure that all national infrastructure projects and major energy generation infrastructure—not just transmission—provide minimum levels of community benefit, invested at ward and parish level into community benefit funds and determined by the local communities most affected. We must take communities with us and show that they are part of the energy transition, and that it is done with them, not to them.

We have deep reservations about the Government’s approach overall to nationally significant infrastructure projects in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which appears to be a power-grab, stripping away local voice and letting developers off the hook for their impacts on nature and wildlife. Nature is not a blocker; it is an enabler of good growth and wellbeing, and while we climate-proof our energy system, we must also ensure that nature is part of future-proofing our economy. We will always speak up for a climate and nature combined approach.

Although we are supportive of the motion’s ambition to streamline planning for major projects such as onshore wind, we register our concern about the Government’s broader changes to NSIPs and planning, including the exemption of category 3 persons from compulsory purchase consultations, and the implementation of several Henry VIII clauses that hand sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and undermine local government and local voice. It is entirely possible to accelerate renewable energy deployment and uphold the community voice in planning decisions while protecting nature, and that is what we need to see. \p Elaine Stewart: I thank the Minister for explaining why this motion is so important, and how it will unblock the system and  unlock potential. The move to cleaner home-grown energy demands nationwide delivery of our critical infrastructure, yet the current planning system is holding that back. Without home-grown energy we will not have control over energy prices in the UK, and we need the infrastructure to deliver that. There will always be a degree of opposition to the development of wind farms—that is democracy—but it is how we respond to local concerns that makes a difference. Burying our head in the sand, as the Conservatives chose to do for 14 years, is simply not an option.

It is important to share some experiences of the development of wind farms from my constituency, and to be clear that Scotland is on a different track, as wind farm developments fall under national planning framework 4. I want to share two lessons from my constituency. People across the country understand and see the natural benefits that the infrastructure covered by motion will unblock. Those include local employment opportunities through construction and maintenance, a boost to the local economy, increased local spending and, of course, a legacy of endless clean energy. However, experience from my area shows that those natural benefits should be topped up by community benefits.

Lesson No. 1 is that there is a need for community benefits and a fair and transparent model of distributing them. The Nine Community Council Group in my constituency represents nine Cumnock and Doon Valley communities, which manage and distribute community benefits from multiple wind farm developments across the area. They embody a collaborative community approach to wind farm benefit, and that must be the way forward for the country.

Lesson No. 2 is to consider the impact of building this crucial infrastructure on other crucial infrastructure, such as roads. By their very nature, wind farms are often in rural areas where transport links are already under-resourced. In rural areas people use roads more to go to work, to shop, and for basic living. Building wind farms is a great boost to the local economy, but it can take its toll on the roads. That means that we need to do more to support and invest in maintaining good road links in those communities.

Those lessons are about taking people with us when it comes to the transition to clean energy. Ayrshire’s story is about making the move from coalfields to clean fields. It is one to be replicated, but we must ensure that our communities are onside in the process. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I reiterate my opposition to the measures that this Government wish to impose. The slew of nationally significant infrastructure projects approved by this Government since July is the vanguard of many more. In Huntington, the proposed East Park solar farm is set to be bigger than Gatwick airport, at 1,900 acres spanning 6 miles. Nearly 75% of the agricultural land involved is graded as our best and most versatile land. Though the Energy Minister has previously stated to me that

“no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented which will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land”,

this Government’s track record and ideological zealotry on this point strongly indicates that there is no upper limit on the quantity of agricultural land they are   willing to develop. Last week, during consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister said that she would protect our high-quality agricultural land. I would be interested to hear from the Government how exactly they plan to do that, given their track record of building on it.

I regularly speak to constituents who feel voiceless and ignored. The Secretary of State has shown himself to prioritise ideology over listening to valid concerns, let alone pragmatic details. The Government are willing to move the goalposts to reach their aims, and it is my constituents who are paying the price without being heard. They are receiving nothing in the way of direct compensation, and no firm commitment to cheaper energy bills or to ensuring that community benefit funds appropriately compensate local communities.

Clause 5 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill even removes the requirement to consult category 3 people who can make a claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Instead, they will be informed that their land will be taken only at the acceptance stage. My online petition of residents in the villages surrounding the solar farm received more than 1,100 signatures. That was the only time those residents feel they have been able to make their voices heard. I urge the Government to listen to these people and thousands of others like them across our rural heartlands.

The Government take pride in announcing with this statutory instrument that the solar NSIP threshold has been raised from 50 MW to 100 MW. The average megawatt output of a solar farm application in 2010 was 3.8 MW. The average solar NSIP application approved since this Government came to power is 488 MW, to refer to my previous question to the Minister. By keeping the threshold artificially low, the Government open the door to huge numbers of solar farms becoming NSIP by the back door. I would welcome a review on setting that NSIP threshold at a much higher level, given the scale of current nationally significant infrastructure projects.

I have previously asked the Minister about the quality of photovoltaic panels and the fact that they will create more and more energy going forwards. We must also look at where the panels will be sourced. The Energy Minister has previously confirmed to me that the Government are

“determined to eradicate forced labour in global supply chains, including in the manufacture of solar panels”,

yet they whipped Government Members against a Conservative motion that would have prevented Great British Energy from buying solar panels when there is evidence of modern slavery in the supply process. The Government are more interested in scoring political points than in taking the steps to eradicate forced labour.

The Government have repeatedly demonstrated that they are prepared to ride roughshod over local wishes in pursuit of their ideological goals. With their manipulation of the system to force through tens of thousands of acres of solar panels, much of them on our best and most versatile agricultural land, and by making rolling changes to national policy statements while keeping the solar NSIP threshold artificially low, the Government show once again their contempt for our embattled rural communities. \p Kit Malthouse: As well as the contempt being shown for local communities and consultation, does my hon. Friend lament the lack of imagination? There are plenty of places where many people would welcome solar farms, such as on motorway and railway embankments. They could easily be delineated for such development, and it would not necessarily impact on our landscape. There is also the continuing lack of any compulsion for the inclusion of solar on warehouse roofs. We could probably create exactly the same amount of power as his constituency is likely to create by putting solar panels on the roof of every warehouse in Park Royal to the west of London. Again and again, we look to virgin land first, rather than being imaginative about better solutions. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, with which I wholeheartedly agree. The Government have a target of building 1.5 million—sorry, that was downgraded in the spring statement to 1.3 million—new homes. It would be sensible for them to implement some sort of legislation that would mean that those 1.3 million new homes had solar panels on their roofs. I urge the Minister to ask what assessment has been done on how much energy could be generated were we to do that at full scale instead of building solar farms on our best rural heartlands. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: Will the hon. Member support the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), aptly named the sunshine Bill, which would make solar panels mandatory on the roof of all new homes? \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I will leave my decision until we have a vote on that Bill, but I will look at it in more detail. \p Michael Shanks: With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond briefly to some of the points raised in the debate, but I will not detain the House long, as I know we are keen to progress through the Order Paper.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this wide-ranging debate. The regulations lift the nonsensical ban on onshore wind in England that the Conservatives drove through. For 10 years, that ban has held back energy, security and economic development opportunities across the country. The measures before us come to a rational position on solar in the planning system.

I will respond briefly to the points raised about nature and other issues. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) put it particularly well: the public want us to take action on the climate crisis. The Conservative party might want to pretend that that does not exist any more, but it does. The greatest threat to nature in this country is climate change. We will tackle that, but in doing so, we will deliver energy security.

On the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), let me say that neither of us Scottish MPs will have a vote in the elections in four weeks’ time, but people will have the choice between the Conservative party, which has still not owned up to any of the mistakes that it made in 14 years, and the party that is trying to fix the mess. They can choose between a party  that is moving forward to deliver economic growth and energy security, and a party that would rather hold us back and keep us on the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuels. Today’s vote is a chance for us to demonstrate that we want that economic opportunity, and want to deliver energy security and climate leadership. I urge hon. Members on all sides of the House to support us today.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 100.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved . \p Mike Kane: I beg to move,

That the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 14 March, be approved.

The aim of the regulations is to support the transition to zero emission vehicles, to reduce the regulatory burden on business, and to drive economic growth on our journey to becoming a clean energy superpower.

Businesses and families are choosing to make the switch to cleaner, greener vehicles that are cheaper to run and reduce noise and air pollution on our streets. The UK was the largest electric car market in Europe in 2024, and so far this year demand is up 42%, according to industry figures. However, zero emission vehicles can be heavier than equivalent petrol and diesel vehicles because of the weight of their battery or power train, which can push them into a higher driving licence category than their petrol or diesel equivalents.

Regulations to partially solve the problem were passed in 2018, allowing category B licence holders to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles weighing up to 4.25 tonnes if they fulfilled additional requirements, including receiving five hours of additional training from an accredited instructor, driving only for the purpose of transporting goods, and having no ability to tow. However, following the rapid growth of zero emission technology since 2018, the existing regulations represent an unnecessary barrier to switching to zero emission vehicles. The cost of the training, and of taking drivers off the road to complete it, can be prohibitive and time-consuming for businesses. These regulations will therefore enable the holder of a standard category B licence to drive a fully electric or hydrogen-powered vehicle up to a maximum weight of 4.25 tonnes without those additional requirements. Existing category B rules on ages and passenger numbers will apply.

Category B licence holders can also usually drive minibuses weighing up to 3.5 tonnes if they fulfil additional requirements, including the requirement for the driver to be over the age of 21. The regulations apply the same additional requirements to zero emission minibuses weighing up to 4.25 tonnes. They also allow zero emission vehicles weighing up to 4.25 tonnes to tow a trailer, just as rules permit their petrol and diesel counterparts to, provided that the total combined vehicle and trailer weight does not exceed 7 tonnes.

It is important that people with disabilities should have equitable driving licence flexibilities. To ensure that they are not excluded from the benefits of these regulations, an eligible zero emission vehicle may weigh up to 5 tonnes if it is fitted with specialist equipment for the carriage of disabled passengers. That additional weight allowance also applies to minibuses. \p Luke Akehurst: Could the Minister elaborate on the types of vehicles that will be covered by the provision for additional weight for disabled users? \p Mike Kane: The provisions apply to electric vehicles, not to gas or synthetically fuelled vehicles.

The fuel types in scope of these regulations are zero emission, rather than alternative fuels. The only vehicles not covered by these regulations, but that were in scope of the old ones, are gas-powered vehicles. The Government estimate that there are fewer than 30 on the road today, and their technology does not require an additional weight allowance.

A public consultation on these proposals was held in 2022 and received 89 responses, which were largely supportive of the changes, though some concerns were raised about safety. Following a detailed analysis, the Government are confident that these regulations pose an extremely low risk to road safety. Between 2020 and 2023, there were a total of nine collisions involving such vehicles, and six of them were minor collisions. However, we will closely monitor incident data as it becomes available, to protect the safety of all road users. In the unlikely event that a concerning trend emerges, swift action will be taken to protect the public. The Department will publish detailed safety guidance, which we are working with industry to disseminate.

In closing, these regulations are a common-sense measure to equalise the driving licence rules for zero-emission vehicles and their petrol and diesel counterparts. I commend this statutory instrument to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Greg Smith: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly as it relates to the use of synthetic fuel donated for my summer surgery tour last August.

My concerns about this statutory instrument, unlike my concerns about other recent pieces of parliamentary business, are narrow, which means—this will be a relief to Members from across the House, I have no doubt—that my remarks will be brief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have never had such a big cheer.

I thank the Government for bringing forward sensible reforms, which will decrease the regulatory burden and provide more flexibility for category B licence holders. Many of the reforms are sensible steps that were widely supported in the consultation during the last Parliament. It is unfortunate, but unsurprising, that the Government’s so-called plan for change did not involve scrapping the limitations in this statutory instrument. Narrowing the scope of eligible vehicles from alternatively fuelled vehicles to zero emission vehicles is a mistake that cannot be ignored. As we transition to new technologies, we as a country must be less prescriptive. Too often, Governments want to tell industry and innovators what to do, and I am afraid that the restrictive nature of this measure risks hampering our country’s attempts to reduce emissions.

Let me be clear: my concerns are not a judgment on whether the Government are right or wrong to suggest that zero emission vehicles will be most effective. The issue is rather that limiting the measure’s scope to a smaller subset of non-petrol and non-diesel fuels makes them far too narrow. \p Kit Malthouse: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the regulations could be of serious detriment to the UK’s synthetic  biology research community? Significant effort is going into the creation of engineered bugs that can turn renewable matter, such as sugar cane, into fuel for internal combustion engines. In a circular economy, that would represent a completely renewable source of energy that would be carbon neutral throughout its entire life cycle. \p Greg Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point, which I have been making for many years. I certainly did so during my time on the Transport Committee in the previous Parliament, and outside this place, as I have engaged with the classic car sector and all parts of the industry. He is right that there is a big innovative drive for sustainable fuels, if I can call them that. Some of them derive from feedstocks, others from waste matter, and they work in the internal combustion engines that we already have—in jet engines as well as motor vehicle engines.

There are also entirely man-made synthetic fuels that require no such feedstocks. They do not require food to be grown in order to be burned. There are innovators on that in this country and all over the world. For example, Zero Petroleum, just next door to my constituency—just over the Oxfordshire border at Bicester Heritage—has developed a fuel that works in every jet engine and every internal combustion engine that we enjoy today. It is entirely man-made; it is literally made out of air and water. It is a mixture of green hydrogen with atmospheric carbon capture. However, the ZEV mandate and the approach that the Government are taking in this statutory instrument rule that technology out of order, because there is still carbon at the tailpipe. The regulations ignore the fact that the carbon at the tailpipe is the same volume of carbon that is captured out of the atmosphere to make the next lot of fuel. In fact, a whole-system analysis shows that technology to be carbon-neutral—one volume of carbon is in a perpetual cycle. However, no matter how much Ministers and the Government claim to be technologically neutral, the test at the tailpipe, and the test in this statutory instrument, which explicitly refers to zero emission vehicles, rather than alternatively fuelled vehicles, do in fact mean that the Government pick a technological winner at every step, rather than letting our great innovators innovate. \p Scott Arthur: I am interested to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge and experience of alternative fuels. He perhaps understands this statutory instrument better than I do, but I understood that it was about the weight of vehicles, and that an alternative fuel going through the internal combustion engine does not result in additional weight. Will any of the technologies that he is describing result in additional weight, and might they therefore fall foul of the limits in the regulations? \p Greg Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right that this is fundamentally about weight, but on the point about synthetic fuel, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) drew me on to a moment ago—I rarely need asking twice, given the number of years I have spent talking about this—it is true that there would not be an addition of weight. However, there would be for some alternatively fuelled systems. For example, in the case of hydrogen, the fuel tanks have to be much more robust. They certainly are in a hydrogen combustion vehicle, of which there are very few. As far as I understand it, it is only JCB that  has developed the technology for a construction plant, but there could be an application to road vehicles in the future. Hydrogen runs at about 700 bar in the fuel tank, so we obviously would not put it in an existing car’s fuel tank; it simply could not take the pressure. There would be weight implications for such a system. \p Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is interesting, when sitting in the Chamber, to hear colleagues’ expertise on subjects that we did not know they had expertise in. I wish to draw my hon. Friend back to a slightly different subject, which he was beginning to touch on. Electric vehicles, which of course have batteries, tend to be far heavier than equivalent vehicles with an internal combustion engine. Some of the vehicle combinations that the Minister talked about—for example, he mentioned a vehicle and a trailer not exceeding 7 tonnes gross vehicle weight—would vary in weight depending on whether the car or van was electric. That might affect a person’s decision to change from a vehicle with an internal combustion engine to an electric vehicle. \p Greg Smith: My hon. Friend makes an accurate point. In some ways, the statutory instrument seeks to address that point. However, he is right that when real people out there in the country make choices on their vehicles, they will make practical decisions such as the one outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), rather than looking at some of the other things the Government from time to time wish they were thinking about when they make those choices.

To make rapid progress, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the consultation was conducted, 25% of respondents —I accept that that is only a quarter—favoured retaining alternatively fuelled vehicles on the basis of the extra flexibility offered by the current alternative fuels definition, particularly for hard-to-transition use cases. That is a small subset, but we risk limiting the capability of industry and technology if we close down the possibility of innovation. There may be occasions when the additional weight would be beneficial to those alternative fuels. However, without flexibility we will not know the answer. Those 25% will have to maintain the status quo. However, we believe we must let the technology decide, not the Government, to ensure that those hard use cases are not abandoned.

For those who may not be aware, the Government have already withdrawn this SI to correct a drafting error. All the Opposition are asking is for them to do exactly the same: amend the error, bring back the changes, and allow the reductions in regulation without the restrictions on alternative fuels. That is not only the right approach, but the fair one. \p Mark Francois: I rise to make one very brief point. The regulations amend the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999. To get a driving licence, one has to pass a driving test. I have had lots of complaints from constituents, as I am sure have many right hon. and hon. Members, about the increasing wait times for driving tests. I have had extensive correspondence with Loveday Ryder, the chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, but some  of the replies have been very unsatisfactory. Will the Minister go back to the Department and look at what we can do to speed up driving tests, in particular by combating the bots that capture the tests and sell them on for profit? \p Paul Kohler: We are pleased that the provision maintains the ability of those with category B driving licences to drive zero emission vehicles up to certain weight thresholds. As has been noted, the SI also reduces the scope of eligible vehicles, from alternatively fuelled to zero emission. Alternatively fuelled vehicles produce less carbon dioxide than petrol and diesel vehicles, but they still produce CO2. As the vehicles do not, therefore, meet the cross-party consensus that all new cars and vans should be zero emission by 2035, we support the restriction to zero emission vehicles.

However, we again remind the Government that more needs to be done to ensure that EV charging infrastructure is in place. It is no good for people to be able to drive electric vehicles if they are unable to charge them. In addition to improving our EV charging infrastructure, we support other incentives such as restoring the plug-in grant. However, at this point we need convincing—not that we might not be convinced—that removing the five-hour training requirement, which is also contained within the SI, is a good idea. Incentives should not come at the cost of reduced safety and if a five-hour training requirement was thought necessary in 1999, I would like the Minister to explain why it is no longer required. \p Mike Kane: With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to the points that have been raised. I thank hon. Members for their consideration.

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said that he would be brief and got a cheer, but then went on for just a little while to talk about his favourite subject of synthetically fuelled cars. We know he has one. \p Mark Francois: That was brief! [Laughter.] \p Mike Kane: I think Churchill famously said from this Dispatch Box that a fanatic is someone who cannot change their mind and will not change the subject. I say that gently—[Laughter.] I really am being gentle there.

The intention of the SI is to support the transition to zero emission vehicles. The driving licence flexibility is therefore designed to account for the additional weight of heavier batteries in fully electric vehicles and some implementations of hydrogen fuel cell technology. Vehicles powered by natural gas or biogas are not net zero. I get what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is saying about the single life cycle of the carbon, but they are not subject to the standard category B licence requirements, meaning that they can be driven if they weigh up to 3.5 tonnes. The Government estimate that there are currently fewer than 30 such vehicles on the road.

E-fuels and synthetic fuels—which I know are the hon. Gentleman’s area of expertise and interest—are not disadvantaged by the standard category B requirements, which apply to petrol and diesel vehicles, and are therefore  not included in the SI. As I have said, synthetic fuels are already treated no differently in the driving licence regulations to their petrol or diesel counterparts, and do not require the additional weight to achieve payload parity. The instrument seeks only to achieve parity with zero emission vehicles.

I am not sure about the issue with driving licences raised by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is no longer in his place. I will undertake to write to him.

In closing, this instrument, while technical in nature, represents a common-sense step that will support industry to make the switch to zero emissions and decarbonise our road transport as we make progress to net zero. It will cut transport costs for business, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and further accelerate our progress to becoming the clean energy superpower that we so hope to be. I trust that the House has found this debate informative and will join me in supporting the legislation. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 101.

Question accordingly agreed to. \p Nicholas Dakin: I beg to move,

That the draft Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 March, be approved.

This draft instrument amends the fixed tariff for whiplash compensation set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 by applying an inflationary uplift to the tariff values. In doing so, the amendment gives effect to recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor on 21 November 2024 following the completion of her statutory review of the 2021 regulations. By adjusting the whiplash tariff values to account for inflation, the Government will ensure that claimants can continue to receive proportionate compensation until the next review in 2027.

The whiplash reform programme changed the way claimants are awarded damages for low-value whiplash injuries following road traffic accidents. The aim of the reforms was to ensure an efficient, proportionate and reliable system for both claimants and defendants involved in road traffic accident-related whiplash claims. At their core, the measures aim to reduce the number and cost of whiplash injuries and deliver savings to consumers via reduced motor insurance premiums. Elements of the reform programme were delivered by the Civil Liability Act 2018, which introduced several important changes to the civil claims process. Alongside measures that introduced a legal definition of what constitutes a whiplash injury and banned the settling of such claims without medical evidence, the 2018 Act empowers the Lord Chancellor to set a fixed tariff of damages for road traffic accident-related whiplash injuries lasting up to two years.

The 2018 Act measures were supported by additional secondary legislative changes to increase the small claims track for road traffic-related personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000, and the introduction of a new pre-action protocol for personal injury claims below the small claims limit in road traffic accidents. At the same time, the insurance industry-owned and developed Official Injury Claim portal was launched to assist claimants affected by the reforms.

The first whiplash tariff was set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, which came into force on 31 May 2021. The 2018 Act requires the Lord Chancellor to review the 2021 regulations, and thereby the whiplash tariff, within three years of its implementation and every three years thereafter. In fulfilment of that statutory obligation, the first review of the whiplash tariff was completed on 22 May 2024 and the Lord Chancellor published her report of the statutory review on 21 November 2024. Upon reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor concluded that the structure and component parts of the whiplash tariff were effective. However, she recommended that the tariff amounts be uprated to account for consumer prices index inflation between 2021 and 2024, and to incorporate a three-year buffer to account for expected inflation until 2027. She did not consider that any other changes to the 2021 regulations were necessary.

In reaching her conclusions and recommendations, the Lord Chancellor took into consideration relevant industry and courts data, as well as information from a  Ministry of Justice call for evidence, which ran from 6 February to 2 April 2024. In accordance with the review, this statutory instrument increases the whiplash tariff damages values and, subject to approval by both Houses, the new tariff will apply to all road traffic accident-related personal injury claims in England and Wales from 31 May 2025.

I believe that the House will find it helpful if I provide some additional explanation of the increase that will be applied to the whiplash tariff. By way of background, I should say that the whiplash tariff operates via a rising scale of fixed compensation payments determined by injury duration, up to a maximum of two years.

The payments in the original whiplash tariff set in 2021 range from £240 for whiplash injuries lasting three months or less to £4,215 for whiplash injuries lasting between 18 and 24 months. There is a separate, slightly higher, tariff for cases where any minor psychological injury, such as low-level travel anxiety, is incurred at the same time as the whiplash injury. Claims for whiplash injuries that last longer than two years fall outside the fixed tariff.

When the tariff was first implemented in 2021, the amounts were set to include a three-year buffer. The buffer was designed to account for expected inflation, according to the available forecasts at that time, and to ensure that claimants were not under-compensated in the years between the tariff’s implementation and the first statutory review. In reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor recognised the impact of inflation on the whiplash tariff amounts, noting that inflation over the first three-year period ran at a higher than expected rate, and, as most respondents to the 2024 call for evidence had noted, the real value of the tariff had fallen. In the light of this, she concluded that the tariff should be uprated by actual inflation between 2021 and 2024, and should again include a buffer to account for the expected inflation until the next review in 2027. The whiplash tariff will therefore be increased by around 15% for claims arising from road traffic accidents occurring on or after 31 May 2025.

As I have mentioned, this increase has been calculated using the consumer prices index inflationary measure. After careful consideration of the available data and evidence, the Lord Chancellor determined that CPI remains the most appropriate measure for uprating the tariff amounts by inflation. In contrast, she considered that the alternative retail prices index measure, if applied, would likely overstate inflation. It is worth noting that the use of CPI is in line with common practice across Government, as recommended by the Office for National Statistics.

In accounting for inflation, the Lord Chancellor also decided that the whiplash tariff should continue to be future-proofed by applying a CPI rounding over three years from 2024 to 2027. This approach is consistent with the method used to protect claimants from additional inflationary impacts when the first whiplash tariff was set in 2021. While this three-year buffer could lead to some over-compensation in the short term, not implementing it would allow the real value of claimants’ damages to decrease and risk significant under-compensation in the long term. Therefore, this buffer protects access to justice and minimises the risk of claimants being under-compensated in the years leading up to 2027.

I would, though, like to acknowledge that some respondents to the call for evidence expressed concern that the buffer would artificially increase the amount of compensation available and potentially undermine cost savings. However, the difference in the tariff levels using the buffer is not substantial enough to significantly impact on savings. The tariff amounts are only being adjusted to account for inflation and, as such, it is our view that this does not represent a real-terms increase in claim values.

Conversely, I am aware that other stakeholders suggested that the whiplash tariff should either be subject to an annual review or be index-linked to inflation to ensure annual increases. As the Lord Chancellor made clear in her report, these arguments are not compelling. A three-year review period, as anticipated by the 2018 Act, strikes the right balance between adequately compensating claimants and maintaining a stable system that is as simple to understand and administer as possible.

It is also worth noting that the recent high inflationary cycle was driven by a unique set of circumstances and is not a regularly occurring event. Therefore, while it is appropriate that the whiplash tariff is regularly reviewed against inflation, three years is the appropriate length of time to hold such reviews. Other than uprating the whiplash tariff to account for actual and expected inflation, as I have explained, no other amendments to the 2021 regulations are made by this instrument.

In accordance with her statutory obligation, the Lord Chancellor has consulted the Lady Chief Justice before making this instrument. The Master of the Rolls, acting on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice, expressed his endorsement of the proposal to uprate the whiplash tariff. He also noted that the judiciary would not welcome any further derogation from the principle that damages are assessed and awarded by the courts. As we have seen, in accordance with the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor by the 2018 Act, the instrument only adjusts the level of damages for whiplash injuries lasting up to two years.

The amendments that this instrument will make to the 2021 regulations represent a balanced, proportionate and practical approach to uprating the whiplash tariff ahead of the next review. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Kieran Mullan: As the Minister explained, the Government have conducted their statutory review of the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 and determined that, while the existing tariff structure remains appropriate, an inflationary uplift is required. The proposed amendments will increase compensation for whiplash injuries occurring on or after 31 May 2025 by 14% to 15% across all tariff bands. That adjustment accounts for inflation since 2021 and provides an additional buffer for expected inflation until the next statutory review in 2027.

The framework of the tariff remains unchanged, including the two-tier structure for “whiplash only” and “whiplash with minor psychological injury”, the requirement for a single medical report to support a  claim, and the option for a discretionary uplift of up to 20% in exceptional cases. The review process highlighted challenges in determining prognosis due to inconsistencies in medical reporting. The Ministry of Justice has committed to working with the pre-action protocol medical report provider MedCo to improve the clarity and quality of medical reports, and we welcome that commitment.

I understand that the Treasury is due to report later this month on whether insurers have, in fact, passed savings from these reforms on to policyholders—the primary, or certainly an important, aim of the policy’s original intention. It is important that motorists receive the anticipated lower premiums. We look forward to the findings of the review, and it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that it is on track.

Furthermore, while the statutory instrument is limited to amending tariff amounts, it forms part of a wider framework of reforms to be reviewed. A post-implementation review of the whiplash reform programme is due to take place in 2025-26, and we welcome the opportunity to assess its effectiveness in delivering fair compensation and maintaining access to justice.

We support the regulations and recognise their role in ensuring that claimants continue to receive fair and proportionate compensation. We look forward to the continued monitoring of the system to ensure that it remains balanced and effective. Given the extensive and thorough review of the regulations provided by the Minister, I do not seek to comment any further. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: The changes today are simple: the compensation tariffs for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in whiplash claims are being uplifted by approximately 15% to reflect inflation since the original 2021 figures were set, with a buffer to account for future inflation. These updates are welcome, but also present us with an opportunity to reflect on the broader balance we strike between tackling fraud and protecting the rights of those with legitimate injuries.

Whiplash has long been a contentious area of UK personal injury law. We have one of the highest rates of whiplash claims in the world, which has undoubtedly contributed to the rise in motor insurance costs, and whiplash claims have historically added billions of pounds to insurance costs.

In my constituency of Chichester, the picture is particularly concerning. According to a study by the Driving Instructors Association, Chichester is now the most accident-prone city in the UK, reporting 232 accidents per 100,000 residents, which is 54% higher than the national average. Even more alarmingly, Chichester has the highest fatality rate of any city, at 5.6 fatal accidents per 100,000 residents. These are not just statistics; they are lives lost and families changed forever. That underlines the real-world impact of road safety and why fair, accessible compensation for those injured on our roads is vital.

The 2021 reforms that introduced fixed tariffs and mandatory medical assessments have had an impact, and the number of whiplash claims has declined, but whiplash still accounts for a large share of personal  injury claims, and the need to ensure fairness in the system remains. We must remember that behind every claim is a person, often in pain, unable to work, potentially scared to go back out on the roads and navigating an unfamiliar legal system. For them, the process must be simple, fair and accessible. Victims should never be discouraged from seeking rightful compensation because of excessive bureaucracy or overly rigid procedures. That is why the Liberal Democrats have consistently advocated for a balanced approach.

During debate on the Civil Liability Act 2018, my colleagues in the other place, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, worked hard to push for stronger safeguards. They argued that the definition of “whiplash injury” should be written into primary legislation to allow full parliamentary scrutiny, and they pushed for compensation to be based on Judicial College guidelines, not simply on fixed tariffs, to preserve judicial discretion and to reflect the severity of injuries. They also urged the previous Government to ensure that any savings made from reducing fraudulent claims are passed on to consumers through lower insurance premiums—a promise that the insurance industry has been slow to honour and which is certainly not reflected in the consumer experience. We also look forward to the findings of the review on whether those savings have been delivered to customers.

We continue to support a system that is firm on fraud but fair to victims. Yes, we need robust safeguards, such as mandatory medical assessments and closer co-ordination between regulators, insurers and law enforcement to root out dishonest claims, but that must not come at the expense of those with genuine injuries. It is critical that review mechanisms are in place not just to track inflation, but to assess whether the tariff system continues to serve justice. We believe that the Government must do more to simplify the claims process, particularly for those who do not have or cannot access legal representation.

The updated tariff is a necessary correction for inflation, but it must not be seen as the end of the matter. The long-term success of the system depends on three things: maintaining fairness for claimants, preserving judicial discretion where needed and ensuring that promised savings are felt by customers. We must remain focused on people, not just on policy. \p Nicholas Dakin: I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for the support of the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition on the direction of travel.

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), for reminding us that behind every claim is a person, and that this is about helping real people and real lives. The official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), rightly mentioned the report on reducing insurance costs for consumers. We share his and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s concern about that, which I think is felt across the House.

The report was published on 27 March and shows that the whiplash reforms have reduced insurance costs for customers. It was produced by His Majesty’s Treasury, which worked with the Financial Conduct Authority to fulfil its statutory obligation under section 11(7) of the Civil Liability Act 2018. Although it is a factual reporting  of the information from insurers provided to HMT through the Financial Conduct Authority, it does not represent the Government’s view, so it is right and proper that, separately from the report, the Ministry of Justice will undertake a post-implementation review of the whiplash reforms later this year. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. \p Caroline Nokes: I am sure I heard the Minister ask for the leave of the House at the beginning of his remarks.

Question put and agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft Cornwall Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.—(Gerald Jones.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft East Midlands Combined County Authority (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.—(Gerald Jones.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.—(Gerald Jones.)

Question agreed to. \p Alicia Kearns: Rutland is a proud and ancient county, recorded in the Domesday book and with a Lord Lieutenant since 1559. We have a strong connection to the monarchy, symbolised by the statue of Her late Majesty the Queen in Oakham, which was built last year—the first in Britain since her passing. However, without legislative changes to the Lieutenancies Act 1997, Rutland will lose its ceremonial county status. I do not believe that the Government intended to put our ceremonial county status at risk, but the consequences of their reforms to local government have done exactly that. No other county is in this position.

Despite our small size, 7,141 people have signed the petition in the last six weeks—that is over 17% of Rutland’s population, and more than one in six Rutlanders. It is one of the biggest wet petitions to be delivered to Parliament in the 21st century, and I hope that demonstrates to the Government how strong the feeling is in our community and county. Rutland’s motto is “Multum in Parvo”, much in little, and we are asking for just a little, which would mean so very much to us. The petitioners therefore request

“that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and protect Rutland’s status as a ceremonial county regardless of the outcome of Local Government Re-Organisation and Devolution.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Rutland and Stamford

Declares that the Government proposals for Local Government Re-Organisation and Devolution risk the status of Rutland as a ceremonial county; and further declares that the earliest record of a Lord Lieutenant in Rutland is 1559 and that, regardless of the outcome of Local Government Re-Organisation, the petitioners urge the Government to ensure the protection of Rutland’s Ceremonial County status, with the continuation of Lord Lieutenants and High Sheriffs to serve as the Monarch’s representative in Rutland exclusively, thereby protecting the identity and pride of our communities in our home.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and protect Rutland’s status as a ceremonial county regardless of the outcome of Local Government Re-Organisation and Devolution.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003055] \p Jake Richards: I rise to present a petition about a £47 retrospective charge that Yorkshire Water has unfairly given residents across my constituency, due to the water company’s own mistake. That comes on top of rising bills, record profits, and excessive executive pay. I urge Yorkshire Water to think again, to be reasonable, and for once to put my constituents first. The petition has now received more than 1,000 signatures in little over a week, and the petitioners therefore request

“that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take immediate action to stop Yorkshire Water retrospectively charging residents £46.65.”

Following is the full text of the petition

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Rother Valley

Declares that Yorkshire Water should cancel their retrospective charge to residents of £46.65 which was not included in their last Annual Bill for April 2024 – March 2025; further that in mistakenly not including this charge, Yorkshire Water has put residents under further stress during a cost-of-living crisis; further that such a mistake is particularly frustrating for residents given Yorkshire Water’s failure to properly invest in upgrading infrastructure.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take immediate action to stop Yorkshire Water retrospectively charging residents £46.65.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003058] \p Steve Darling: I rise to present a petition from the residents of Torbay in respect of protecting and saving Paignton post office, which is a vital part of Paignton town centre. Residents across the whole of Torbay value this resource, and it has a massive impact on community engagement and through the simple face-to-face engagement that many people get when they use the services, but also as a financial hub in the busy small town of Paignton. The petitioners call on the House of Commons to reach out to the Government and the Post Office to do the right thing and withdraw the threatened closure.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of Torbay,

Declares that Paignton Post Office has been threatened with closure, and further declares that Post Offices, and the services they provide, are vital parts of our community.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government and the Post Office to reverse their decision to put Paignton Post Office at risk of closure.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003062] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.) \p David Davis: May I start by thanking the Secretary of State? The public will not necessarily know that it is very unusual for the Secretary of State to respond to an Adjournment debate, and his presence here demonstrates how important this is and how seriously he takes the task. It also brings back fond memories for me, but that is another matter.

I hope that every Member of Parliament elected to this House believes that upholding justice should be our first priority as a Parliament. The right to life is the first among the rights we should uphold. That justice, and that right, should be even handed, and there should be no exception for agents of the state. I believe that, and accordingly I was a fierce critic of the state in, for example, the unlawful killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, the torture of Binyam Mohamed, and the failure to protect and provide justice for the six Catholics who were murdered at Loughinisland in 1994. There is no general exception when the state gets it wrong. Justice must, by definition, be fair and practical, and I am afraid the findings of the Northern Ireland coroner on the Clonoe incident were neither.

To understand the significance of this inquest ruling, we must consider the context. Operation Banner was the British Army’s longest deployment, spanning from 1969 to 2007. More than 300,000 soldiers served sequentially in Northern Ireland, and despite immense challenges, the British Army performed admirably. They were not beyond reproach—Bloody Sunday is a striking example, I fear—but the massive majority of our soldiers acted with professionalism and restraint in the face of danger.

The troubles led to 3,500 deaths and 50,000 injuries. More than 90% of them were caused or brought about by paramilitaries. The British Army’s rules of engagement were clear—governed by the yellow card, which soldiers carry at all times. Soldiers were required to issue a challenge before using force, unless doing so would put them or others in immediate danger. The intent was clear: to protect innocent lives, while allowing the use of lethal force when it was necessary and reasonable. Some 1,400 members of the security forces died in those troubles. They killed approximately 300 terrorists. Those figures, and that ratio reveal the discipline and restraint of our soldiers and our policemen acting under yellow card rules. They also reflect the personal risk to the soldiers and policemen of observing those rules.

Unsurprisingly, the IRA members never carried a yellow card. They targeted civilians and committed murder without warning. Their methods ranged from torture, followed by a bullet in the back of the head, through to the mass murder of innocent civilians in atrocities such as the Omagh, Claudy and Ballykelly bombings and the utterly cold-blooded Kingsmill executions. Incidentally, the IRA was responsible for more Catholic deaths during the troubles than any other group.

The IRA members were terrorists, but we should not forget that they were also criminals specialising in organised crime. They made £5 million or £6 million a year from protection rackets, smuggling, extortion, drugs, tax fraud, state benefit fraud, fraudulent front companies,  illegal gambling, theft and other crimes throughout the island of Ireland. If colleagues want evidence of that criminality, in 1990 I carried out an investigation of those activities, which was written up on 6 November of that year in the Financial Times. The point is that the IRA was both a criminal gang and a terrorist organisation. Now it is trying to rewrite history. \p Jim Shannon: First, I commend the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He has been a stalwart supporter of the armed forces on every occasion in the time that I have been in this House. He has been a supporter of what is right and of justice, and he sets a standard for us all to follow. I commend him for that, and I thank him. I also thank him for working alongside my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on these issues and for moving things forward with this Adjournment debate.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the message sent through this coroner’s report is a massive overstepping of power? It will have security implications for every branch of policing and the armed forces in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it must be struck down as not only ultra vires but factually incorrect. Those who carried out the attack on the Royal Ulster Constabulary station did so with the intent to take life, and they were rightly assessed as doing that and dealt with in an appropriate manner. This republican rewriting of the truth must end now in this Chamber. \p David Davis: The hon. Member is exactly right, and he prefaces what I intend to say. He repeats the point that his party leader made in the urgent question, when he said that the judgment was ultra vires. I believe the right hon. Gentleman was right in that, although I leave that to the lawyers.

To answer the rest of the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we have to return to the actual facts of the Clonoe incident. The self-styled East Tyrone brigade was one of the most active Provisional IRA units. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it undertook a surge of activity, pursuing a Maoist-style murder strategy. I think it was called Lynagh’s strategy at the time.

In August 1988, eight soldiers were killed by a Provisional IRA bomb at Ballygawley. On 7 March 1989, two Protestants were shot dead at a garage in Coagh. A former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, Derek Ferguson, was murdered in 1991, also at Coagh. An attack against Glenanne barracks on 31 May 1991 left three soldiers dead. It is also thought that some of their members were involved in the Derryard attack in 1989, notably using a heavy machine gun, probably the DShK we will see later in this story, to kill two British soldiers.

In February 1992, the RUC special branch found out that the IRA was planning a number of attacks on 15 and 16 February. It had information that an IRA team, armed with a 12.7 mm Soviet DShK heavy machine gun and three Kalashnikov rifles, would attack the Coalisland police station. The intelligence indicated that the attack would be mounted from the Clonoe chapel car park, so the SAS commander’s plan was to arrest the terrorists as they formed up at the car park, preventing the attack on the police station altogether and seizing the heavy machine gun.

The commander did not know how many terrorists, vehicles or weapons would be involved, but it was thought that as many as 20 IRA members could be involved. The troop sergeant assessed the rather straggly hedge line adjacent to the car park to be the only suitable position where partial concealment was possible, but it notably did not provide cover from gunfire. The SAS team carried the standard Heckler & Koch G3K rifle and one soldier had a general purpose machine gun. Perhaps more notably in this context, some had shotguns loaded with alternate rounds designed to smash windscreens and deliver tear gas to immobilise the drivers and stop the vehicles. The soldiers also carried caltrops to wreck the tyres of vehicles attempting to escape. The armour-piercing rounds that the judge referred to could penetrate body armour, but their primary purpose in this context was to penetrate the engine blocks of the vehicles and stop them.

The equipment was all designed to stop escape and allow arrest—that is the key point. The plan was to close in on the IRA operatives and to arrest them as they assembled and mounted the heavy machine gun on to the vehicle in the chapel car park. At 7.40 pm on that dark February night, 12 members of the SAS were in position on the boundary of the Clonoe chapel car park, behind the hedgerow. The soldiers observed the movements of five cars in and out of the car park. They were assumed to be reconnaissance vehicles scouting out the car park for the lorry to which the DShK was to be attached.

However, the intelligence briefing was wrong—an error that ended up creating chaos and extreme danger. Instead, at around 22:40 hours, the lorry-mounted DShK was used to attack the Coalisland police station. Sixty rounds were fired at close range from the DShK and from the Kalashnikovs. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the attackers’ intent was clear: to kill police officers. They were all would-be murderers; of that, there can be no doubt. The gunfire could clearly be heard and the tracer bullets were observed by the SAS patrol in the car park at Clonoe.

After a minute or two, the soldiers heard another burst of gunfire. The soldiers, of course, did not know that that was simply bravado. For all they and their commander knew, hiding behind their hedge, the murder gang were engaging other soldiers or other policemen. Within a minute, the lorry appeared out of the darkness, driven at breakneck speed, lurching around corners and with its engine screaming in too low a gear. As it drove into the car park, the IRA truck’s headlights illuminated the SAS position behind the hedgerow. At that point, the soldiers did not know whether they had been spotted. The soldiers then stood up, advanced on the occupants of the lorry and three other vehicles in the car park with the lorry, and opened fire. Four IRA members were shot dead, four were wounded, one of whom was arrested at the scene and, notably, given first aid by the soldiers, and others fled in cars.

Now we come forward to February 2025, when Mr Justice Michael Humphreys ruled that the use of lethal force by the SAS in this incident was unlawful. The ruling is demonstrably wrong and ignores the plain facts of the case. The SAS soldiers operated under the control of the police force, and the operation was carried out  with police officers in close proximity. They faced heavily armed terrorists who had just carried out an attack on a police station—lethally, for all they knew. They did not know how many terrorists there were, but they assumed that there could be up to 20. They did not know how many vehicles there were or how many weapons were in the other cars. That creates a number of problems for issuing a challenge, which is the first option under the yellow card system. While it may be reasonable to stand up and issue a challenge to either one terrorist or a small number of terrorists who could be seen and covered while they respond, the circumstance is completely different when there is an unknown number of antagonists in an unknown number of cars with an unknown number of weapons.

The probability of one of 20, let us say, deciding to fire on the soldiers is much higher, particularly when that individual may be out of sight of the patrol. That is doubly so when one remembers that this band of killers had just attempted to murder many policemen and had returned in a high state of excitement, pumped up with adrenalin and firing their weapons in the air. Secondly, the fact that the SAS commander did not know where they all were meant that his issuing a challenge could expose his entire troop to a lethal crossfire. Remember: this was happening on a dark February night at about 10.45 pm. Issuing a challenge under those circumstances could have amounted to collective suicide. Circumstances such as that are precisely why the yellow card rules allow a soldier to fire without challenge when the danger is too great.

I find it hard to imagine a more clearcut case that allows firing without challenge, but in his ruling the judge ignored several significant facts and appears to have been naive in his view of others. His selection of facts appears to be extremely partial. For example, the judge made much of the SAS’s use of armour-piercing bullets, but he made no mention of the fact that the anti-aircraft gun the IRA was using fired armour-piercing incendiary rounds five times the size of any rifle bullets, or the fact that they could be fired at a rate of 600 to 1,200 rounds a minute. Those bullets can pierce concrete walls or shoot down aircraft at a mile range. The machine gun had just been deployed and could have eliminated the entire SAS patrol in a matter of seconds. It was a terrible weapon, and capturing it before it could be used to kill more people was an important part of the SAS tasking.

The judge accepted assertions that the IRA weapons all had their safety catches engaged. Frankly, if that were true, there was no way at all for the SAS commander or the troops to know that at the beginning of the fight. In fact, how likely was that? Let us take the DShK, which the forensic examiner said had its working parts forward, with no round in the chamber. The gun was mounted on a lorry that had just been driven back at breakneck speed from Coalisland in a few minutes. During the few minutes of that journey back, getting the gun into the state described would have required nine actions, some of which require two hands, while hanging on to the side of a lurching truck. I am afraid it all sounds just a bit improbable. The forensics specialist did not actually arrive until two hours and 45 minutes after the action, at a scene contaminated by firemen, police, soldiers and other staff—indeed, she complained about that very contamination.

Against the forensic specialist’s views, we must take the observations of soldiers on the ground and other evidence. Four soldiers reported seeing flashes from the back of the lorry, which they interpreted as muzzle flashes. We are not talking about inexperienced soldiers: they would know what they were looking at. Two soldiers heard rounds striking the ground to their right, near the hedgerow where the SAS was hiding. The forensic examiner documented bullet strike marks on the hedgerow. One soldier received a bullet wound to the face that knocked him to the ground. Without any forensic evidence, it was attributed to a ricochet, which implausibly would have required the round to go through a 180° change of direction.

Soldier G heard the exchange of gunfire and saw a soldier go down, which

“confirmed my belief that the terrorists were shooting at us”.

There was also an interview taken by the Garda, in the Republic of Ireland, of one of the IRA drivers, who said he could not understand why his colleagues had opened fire. He had been in a position in which he was able to judge where the fire was coming from and obviously believed that it was from his own side. He refused to sign the interview notes, presumably when he considered the consequences for him back home of giving away such critical data.

All of this was countered by the claim that no bullet casings were found on the ground in the car park, but a number were found in the lorry, and one of the cars present appeared to have had a general-purpose machine gun and an AKM on board. If those weapons were fired from inside a car, there would of course have been no casings on the ground in the car park. Instead, GPMG live ammunition and disintegrating links were found in that car, as well as an AKM casing from a rifle other than those recovered, implying that a fourth AKM had been fired from the car. The car had all its seats other than the driver’s laid flat, which was standard practice for the IRA when using a hatchback as a weapons platform. The car escaped and was then set on fire, and the fire services were kept away from it while it burned out—another standard IRA tactic to destroy forensic evidence. I am afraid that this ruling exposes the double standards that have plagued the legacy of the troubles. \p Jesse Norman: My right hon. Friend is giving an important and telling speech on a very important topic. As he rightly says, these soldiers were subject to well-defined rules of engagement. He has described the IRA as a terrorist organisation, but what he has not said is that at the time, it was the most sophisticated terrorist organisation in the world. The soldiers he talks about were operating under orders, in a chain of command and on the Queen’s business, and could not respond. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a grotesque double standard here, and that not only is this an injustice, but the Government’s position is potentially deeply corrosive of morale, as well as deeply unjust to the veterans? \p David Davis: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course, he is the Member for Hereford, so many of the people who have retired and will face these threats will be his constituents. He and I are long-standing supporters of human rights in this country, and have both defended article 2, for example, but this case is a misuse of article 2. The people who wrote the European  convention on human rights were recently out of the second world war—they did not write it to be interpreted in this way. He has made a double point.

Returning to my right hon. Friend’s point about the IRA, since the events in question, the Good Friday agreement has allowed for the release of convicted terrorists in order to achieve an end to the bloodshed. I guess we all agree with that, yet we continue to persecute those who fought against the terrorists. These persecutions are conducted decades after the fact, without any new evidence being presented to give reason for the reopening of cases. After the action, everybody involved was questioned thoroughly to establish the facts—what the intelligence was, what the arrest plans were, and what happened. On the basis of that questioning, on 15 October 1992—with the evidence close to hand and the events fresh in the witnesses’ minds, and when investigation of everything was possible—the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland concluded that there should be no prosecution of the soldiers. There was no case to answer. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for bringing this debate before the House, and for the quality of his exposition. Does he agree that this case highlights the single biggest problem that we face, which is that the IRA kept no records at all, and if it did have any, it destroyed them? Many IRA members got letters of comfort from the then Government, quietly and secretly, which ended up killing any chance of prosecution. Soldiers who served have none of that; they are left out in the open, and can be prosecuted, while many IRA members have disappeared and can live a life without further charge. \p David Davis: My right hon. and gallant Friend makes the central point of the argument perfectly. Here we are, 33 years later, with a Northern Ireland coroner judging events in retrospect, without any new evidence, and finding that soldiers acted unlawfully. That is entirely at odds with the result of the legal investigation immediately after the operation in 1992. I believe in a process of peace and reconciliation that allows closure for all the relatives of the dead, but he makes a good point: there are no records, and that goes for the vast majority of the people who died in the troubles. That makes this a process not of peace and reconciliation, but of vindictiveness and vengeance. It is an attempt to rewrite history, not find the truth.

There have been countless attempts to take British soldiers to court for their actions during the troubles, but how many ex-IRA combatants have faced the same thing? Not one. Not a single IRA member has been pursued over the 2,000 deaths—all murders—for which the IRA were responsible. Our veterans are being punished in their retirement years for decisions they made when serving their country. The psychological impact on them, and on soldiers serving today, is enormous. The ruling also undermines the integrity of present and future operations. We cannot send soldiers into high-risk environments, ask them to undertake brutal training, and expect them to operate with confidence if they fear being condemned decades later.

The ruling on the Clonoe incident risks further persecution of the British soldiers who served during the troubles. The Government must ensure that those who serve our country today are protected from such partisan  distortions of justice. Our soldiers deserve better. What we are seeing with the Clonoe ruling is historical revisionism that seeks to punish those who served our country in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances. The law must be applied fairly, and we must not allow politics to undermine the legacy of those who fought to protect our freedoms.

The Government—I say this directly to the Secretary of State—gave notice at the time of the election that they intended to remove the element of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that protects soldiers and police who served during the troubles from prosecution. The judgment from the Northern Ireland coroner on the Clonoe incident exposes a number of soldiers to potential prosecution. The Ministry of Defence is quite properly seeking a judicial review of this inquiry, but even if it wins, we must put in place statutory protections for our soldiers, now and in the future, from this persecution. These are men who served their country with honour, heroism and skill, sometimes in the face of the most incredible danger. They are now no doubt hoping for a well-earned peaceful retirement, not a future of endless stress and psychological torture. If the Government leave them open to persecution it will be shameful, and will serve only to further the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland.

Many Members may have received letters on this issue from retired Special Air Service soldiers. Most of them say in those letters that they support human rights, but they do more than that; they guarantee those rights for the rest of us. Let me end by quoting the words of Charles Province, the American soldier and poet:

“It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the peace camp organiser, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag.

It is the soldier, not the politician…who has given these freedoms.”

These soldiers are the guarantors of our security, our freedom and our justice. I say to the Secretary of State, surely we owe them no less than security, freedom and justice in return. \p Iain Duncan Smith: As we have a little more time than expected, I want to say a few words in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). I served in Northern Ireland, as many others did, during the troubles. We did not ask to go there; we were sent there, and we were given real restrictions through the yellow card on how we were allowed to behave. In fact, all the soldiers with whom I served were so fearful of loosing off their rifles at any stage that they would probably have erred on the side of bringing themselves into danger, because they were so certain that they must not make a mistake.

Not a single soldier I ever met thought that this was some kind of game to be played. It was a life-and-death issue, and all those whom my right hon. Friend has described were fully aware of what was required of  them under the yellow card provisions. They would not have loosed off their weapons had they not genuinely feared for their life, given the cases that had gone before, and the deaths that happened—the IRA did not give any warnings before they fired. Those issues are critical in all this, and when we sit in judgment over what happened then, all these years later, it is not justice. It becomes a pursuit by those who, as my right hon. Friend said, want to change the history.

We gave away a lot in the Good Friday agreement, and many of those who lost family members—we will all remember various individuals—had to put up with this requirement so that we could get peace. It takes a lot to get peace, and it takes a lot of suffering thereafter to find out what happened. In many cases in which soldiers served bravely and died, there are questions to be answered about the manner of their death.

I think of Robert Nairac, and I make no apology for raising his name again. He was captured by the IRA, tortured, beaten and killed. No one knows where his body lies. His parents died not knowing what happened to him. We do not know whether he had a proper burial. We certainly know that his parents are dead, but we will never find out what happened to him, and many others like him. They served their country because they believed, as my right hon. Friend said, in upholding justice and freedom.

I put it to the Secretary of State that the key to this whole debate is our duty to protect those who put their life on the line to protect our freedoms and our justice, and our duty to make sure that things are fair. If we forget about them for just one moment, we are not worthy of being here, for they do not have a voice and cannot say no when they are ordered into situations where they could die.

Only the British Army could have done what we did in Northern Ireland. We put up with so much and restrained ourselves with such dignity. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to my right hon. Friend, and to ensure justice for those who fear pursuit for only one reason: political purposes. It is time to end this. \p Hilary Benn: I really welcome the opportunity that the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) has given me and the House to listen to this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. I congratulate him on securing it. I listened very carefully to everything that he said. As he will know, on 11 February he asked me an urgent question about the findings of the coroner in the Clonoe inquest. In answer to that question, I told him and the House that the Ministry of Defence was considering the coroner’s findings carefully. Before turning to the outcome of those considerations, it is worth reminding the House of the facts of the case, which we have heard a lot about already.

On 16 February 1992, there was an attack on Coalisland police station by a unit of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, armed with a lot of weaponry, including a heavy machine gun. Approximately 60 rounds were fired, but thankfully no one was injured. Following its departure, and subsequent arrival at the Clonoe church car park, the unit was engaged by members of the Army’s specialist military unit, resulting in four PIRA gunmen being shot and killed. As we know, the inquest into their deaths  began in 2023. On 6 February this year, the coroner found that the use of lethal force by the soldiers was unjustified, and that the operation

“was not planned and controlled in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible the need for recourse to lethal force.”

I listened very carefully to what the House said when I answered the urgent question. Following careful consideration, the Ministry of Defence has written to the coroner to outline its intention of applying for a judicial review. In its view, the findings of the coroner do not properly reflect the context of the incident—I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said about what happened—or the challenging circumstances in which members of the armed forces served in Northern Ireland. The Ministry of Defence has also confirmed that it is funding the veterans in question to seek a judicial review, and it is continuing to provide them with welfare support.

The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental democratic principle, and it is crucial to upholding the rule of law in the United Kingdom. One important element of that principle is the right to legally challenge the findings of judicial decision makers where it is believed that an error has been made, and the Government have determined on this occasion that that is indeed the most appropriate course of action. It is now important, as I think the House will recognise, given the confirmation by the Ministry of Defence that it intends to seek a judicial review of the findings of the inquest, that these proceedings are allowed to run their course.

This Government have a long-standing commitment to repeal and replace the almost universally opposed Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I think it is fair to say that, among the political parties in Northern Ireland, it is universally opposed. The Act has been found by the domestic courts to be unlawful in a number of respects, and we should not forget that the legislation in question made provision to grant those responsible for terrible terrorist crimes immunity from prosecution. That is what the Act did.

As part of our commitment to repeal and replace the Act, the Government are committed to proposing measures to allow inquests previously halted by that legislation to proceed. I set out this position in my written ministerial statements of 29 July and 7 October 2024 and in my oral statement to the House on 4 December 2024.

The Government recognise that the Clonoe findings have caused great concern among many of those who served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner, and we have heard tonight from some who have given distinguished service to the armed forces and also to this House. The veterans I have met, including a group I met this afternoon, have also expressed a strong view that the way in which we collectively address the legacy of the troubles has to be fair, balanced and proportionate. \p Jesse Norman: Could the Secretary of State not simply say now to the House that he has a deep understanding and awareness of the trauma that has been caused, and that he takes the side—not judicially, but politically, in his own mind as a matter of human sympathy—with the poor people affected by these decisions and how they are playing out in the public realm? Could he not say that now, so that veterans and their families understand that a Government Minister in a senior position gets it and is on their side in his own mind, even if not judicially? \p Hilary Benn: I expressed that view to the veterans I met this afternoon, when I thanked them for their service in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances. The right hon. Member invites me to do that this evening, and I readily do it, because they were seeking to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom, including of Northern Ireland, in the face of terrorism and terrorists.

As the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington pointed out in his speech, the terrorists were responsible for the vast majority of deaths. However, I would add that many of them were prosecuted and convicted—paramilitaries on the republican side, and also those on the loyalist side who were also guilty of the most appalling crimes. As was pointed out, part of the price—in my view, rightly paid—to enable the Good Friday agreement to succeed and to bring the extraordinary peace and prosperity Northern Ireland has seen in the almost 27 years since, was the release of prisoners, which was really, really difficult for many families to accept, to understand and to cope with. I would also point out that, in recent years, a number of republicans have indeed been prosecuted—in fact, more republicans have been. I think I am right in saying that there has been one conviction in the last 12 years of a soldier who served there, and that was a suspended sentence.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned the case of Robert Nairac. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains, which does such an important job to try to reunite the remains of loved ones who were murdered by the Provisional IRA with their families—although Robert Nairac’s parents are dead, I think he has other living relatives—has made two recent attempts to find his remains, on the basis of information it has received. I am very sad to say that so far that has not proved possible, but I hope that those who have information, and who have enabled the ICLVR to find the remains of a number of people and return them to their families, will continue to provide information to that body so that it is able to recover those remains.

As the Secretary of State, it is my job to ensure that these concerns and perspectives are heard, alongside other views expressed by a range of parties who also want to see, in their own way, a resolution to the complex troubles that happened and the issues that remain outstanding. I am thinking in particular of the many families I have met since taking up the post who have said to me, “We still do not know, decades later, what happened to our loved ones who were killed.” They carry that trauma with them to this day. Therefore, the Government are absolutely committed to trying to develop legacy mechanisms that are compliant with human rights—I stand with the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington in my support, and the Government’s support, for the European convention on human rights—and that can command a degree of public confidence across communities in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

I will just say this about the approach the previous Government took. It caused, self-evidently, immense difficulties, including numerous findings of human rights incompatibilities and therefore an erosion of trust in the Government’s ability to address these issues fairly. \p Julian Lewis: May I remind the Secretary of State that, at a hearing in 2017, the Defence Committee took evidence from four  distinguished professors of law, including Philippe Sands, with whose work he is no doubt very familiar, and they made it very clear to us that in principle there was nothing illegal about having a statute of limitation, provided that it was accompanied by a truth recovery process? That met the requirement of avoiding the otherwise illegal act of giving impunity for crimes committed. The Secretary of State says that there were technical problems with the previous legislation that rendered it in some respects illegal, but will he not accept that the persecution of elderly veterans—which cannot, in the end, lead to anyone spending more than two years in prison anyway, given the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—will continue unless and until some form of legislation is put back in place to draw a line under prosecutions and to fulfil the other part of the requirement by a truth recovery process? Whatever he thinks about the specific legislation they are repealing, will he not accept the principle that that is the only way to protect people against this form of legalistic persecution? \p Hilary Benn: I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, first of all, that there were not technical problems with the legacy Act; there were many legal problems with the legacy Act. It is the Government’s position, and I think it is the position of the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington, that we uphold the European convention on human rights. I have said from the beginning that I am determined to ensure that the legacy mechanisms, in the form that they are brought before the House, are compliant with the European convention on human rights. There are plenty of examples of other people in other countries who do not abide by the European convention. In my view, it is a very important foundation of our liberties and our protection. There are legal problems with the legacy Act, not technicalities, if I may say so.

I also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the idea of immunity from prosecution was also opposed. I have met one family of a soldier who was murdered by the IRA who were outraged by the idea that his killers should get immunity under the legislation the previous Government passed. \p Julian Lewis: I am very sorry, but that answer did not address the question of principle. The fact is that, unless the Secretary of State’s chum, Professor Sands, and three other equally distinguished professors of law were mistaken, there is no reason in principle—regardless of how flawed he, and the courts, even, may think the previous legislation was—that we cannot have a statute of limitation to put an end to these prosecutions, coupled with a truth recovery process. Of course, it will always be possible to find someone who wants the other lot prosecuted but not their lot, but it is the job of Government to cut through that and do the right thing, as Nelson Mandela did so effectively in South Africa. \p Hilary Benn: I am not familiar with that particular bit of evidence. The right hon. Gentleman cites one group of lawyers who hold one view, but it will not surprise the House if I say that it would be possible to find another group of lawyers who hold a different view. The purpose of the courts is to adjudicate between the various arguments that are put and reach a decision, and we respect the judgments of the court. It is not  possible to have a legal system or a coronial system where we get all the verdicts we like and we are guaranteed to never get verdicts we do not like. The fact is— [Interruption.] We have appealed some aspects of the judgments. The Government came into office committed to removing conditional immunity because we thought it was wrong to give terrorists immunity from prosecution for the crimes they have committed.

I would also say to the right hon. Gentleman that the truth is that the prospect of prosecutions is diminishing with each passing year. Many of the families that I have met recognise that no one is going to be held to account for what happened to their loved ones—they just want to find the answers. \p David Davis: One point the Secretary of State has not yet come to is that there is an excruciating element of double jeopardy here. Every single case we are talking about was investigated carefully by the police at the time—the soldiers and the commanders involved were interrogated as to the intelligence, the plans and the outcome at the time, with all the information available. What we are seeing here is that soldiers were effectively found innocent 33 years ago, only for us to come back and do it all over again to get another answer that we want. He must understand that the soldiers see this as terrible double jeopardy.

May I bring the Secretary of State to the underlying principle of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)? What we are all after is a mechanism, however that is found through the law, that will allow us to release these soldiers from a lifetime sentence of being pursued by the courts under what is, in my view, frankly, a misuse of article 2. If it is true that, as my right hon. Friend says, people like Philippe Sands—hardly a hard-line right winger—think that we can do this, will the Secretary of State give the House an undertaking that he will make every effort to deliver on that aim? \p Hilary Benn: I would like to give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that when parliamentary time allows, I plan to bring forward legislation to try to find a way forward. The House will be the judge when the legislation is published. I am consulting widely on it and will continue to do so, including with veterans and others. I am not naive about the prospect of coming up with proposals that command widespread support, but I would simply observe that the last set of proposals signally failed to command support among the political parties and many people in Northern Ireland. That is why I am having to deal with the consequence of repeated findings of incompatibility, because of that legacy legislation, with the European convention on human rights.

When I last stood at the Dispatch Box to address this question, I said that we owed a great debt of attitude to those who served in Operation Banner with such distinction. I wish to repeat that statement tonight. The true legacy of those who served during that awful period is to be found in the peace that the people of Northern Ireland now enjoy. If we are being honest, the armed forces did their job.

The Good Friday agreement was itself not able to get to grips with exactly how legacy would be dealt with—those involved had enough on their plate to secure that   extraordinary agreement on that miraculous Good Friday. We as elected representatives have to recognise that since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, we have not been able to agree and implement measures that effectively address the legacy of the past in a way that is balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable, and that have a chance of commanding a   measure of public support. That is the objective of the Government. I will do my best to achieve it, but the House will be the judge.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 4 March, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 14.

Question accordingly agreed to.