debates/debates2025-06-05c conversation_17
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-06-05)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-06-05c conversation_17

Jim Dickson:Given the extremely welcome recent news that economic growth for the first quarter of 2025 was 1.6%, indicating that the Government’s mission to kick-start economic growth in the UK is beginning to work, can the Minister set out what plans exist Government-wide to make sure that that prosperity makes a positive difference to all families in the UK, including in the most deprived neighbourhoods such as Swanscombe and Temple Hill in my constituency? \p Ellie Reeves: My hon. Friend is right to celebrate the recent figures showing that the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first quarter of this year—a sign that this Government’s focus on growth is beginning to bear fruit. We are determined to drive growth in every corner of the country. The lower Thames crossing, which my hon. Friend has long campaigned for and this Government have approved, will deliver big benefits in Dartford and beyond. \p Jamie Stone: In terms of encouraging public participation in democracy and in politics, I have found that school visits are constructive, even in the far north of Scotland, and that is on a strictly non-party political basis. What thoughts might the Government have about encouraging other MPs to engage in that way? It is informative and constructive. \p Ellie Reeves: Visiting schools in my constituency is one of my favourite parts of being a Member of Parliament, and I encourage all MPs to do the same. We will  legislate to lower the voting age to 16 for all UK elections—when parliamentary time allows, and following engagement and planning with relevant stakeholders—as a way to drive forward participation in democracy. \p Clive Efford: At yesterday’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, we heard from someone whose father was terminally ill and unlikely to survive to see the compensation to which he is entitled. It is not fair on people who have waited 40 years for justice that they are left at the starting line for compensation. Is there any way we can make a list of people who are in that situation and calculate their entitlement for their estate? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he does with the all-party parliamentary group. He will know that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has published a prioritisation list in recent months. I can also update the House that IBCA is contacting an average of 100 people every week to start their claim, and it expects in this calendar year to have brought in to claim all those who are infected and registered with a support scheme. \p Mark Pritchard: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will know that the UK has some of the best intelligence agencies in the world, and they have huge powers and huge budgets which they use to keep our country safe every single day of the week.   He also knows that in any large organisation mistakes are made and public confidence in those agencies is vital. Given that the Intelligence Services Act 1994 is more than 30 years old—there have been some other Acts—is it not time for the Intelligence and Security Committee to have new powers of oversight and even new powers of sanction, so that the public can have confidence that our intelligence agencies have proper scrutiny and oversight? \p Pat McFadden: Let me echo the right hon. Member’s words in paying tribute to the work that our intelligence and security agencies do in keeping us all safe every day. We discussed the Committee earlier in these questions. The Government have approved an uplift in resources for the Committee, and we are working closely with it on the best operating model for doing its job as effectively as possible. \p Lincoln Jopp: Mr Speaker,

“The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP”—

so said the controversial Ulster rap band who remain on the bill at Glastonbury. Given that is the case, can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reassure the House that no Cabinet Office Ministers will be attending Glastonbury this year? \p Pat McFadden: I will not be going to Glastonbury, but I am very much looking forward to seeing Bruce Springsteen at Anfield stadium on Saturday night. \p Jesse Norman: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week? \p Lucy Powell: I shall. The business for the week commencing 9 June includes:

Monday 9 June—Remaining stages of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (day one).

Tuesday 10 June—Consideration of a Lords message to the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (day two).

Wednesday 11 June—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will present the spending review 2025, followed by Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill.

Thursday 12 June—General debate on the distribution of SEND funding, followed by general debate on the fifth anniversary of the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 13 June—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 16 June will include:

Monday 16 June—Motion relating to the House of Commons independent complaints and grievance scheme, followed by a general debate on Windrush Day 2025. The subject for that debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 17 June—Remaining stages of the Crime and Policing Bill (day one).

Wednesday 18 June—Remaining stages of the Crime and Policing Bill (day two).

Thursday 19 June—Motion to approve the draft Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA Women’s European Football Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2025, followed by a general debate on incontinence, followed by general debate on water safety education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 20 June—Private Members’ Bills.

Colleagues may also wish to be aware that on Tuesday 24 June and Wednesday 25 June the House is expected to debate estimates. \p Jesse Norman: Today has a great double significance. As the House may know, it is World Environment Day, when we celebrate the natural world and recommit ourselves as a Parliament to seek to protect it; and it is also the putative date of birth of Adam Smith, one of my great heroes, who did as much as anyone has ever done to explain the world in which we live. If I may move from the sublime to the sublimely incompetent, this week has otherwise been one disaster after another for the Government.

On Monday, we had to drag the Leader of the House to the Dispatch Box yet again, and she had to apologise—yet again—for the Government’s flagrant disregard for this House of Commons in briefing out the strategic  defence review over the weekend. There is no more important issue than the defence of the realm. It is a UK-wide, long-term, all-party matter and has always been treated as such, yet the Government chose to share the document not only with their friends in the media, but with the industry, at least six hours before it came to this Chamber or to Opposition parties. It is a matter of deep embarrassment for the Government and raises serious questions about the private sharing of financially sensitive information. The Leader of the House and the Defence Secretary are both honourable people, and I have no doubt that she has made the case every week in Cabinet for doing such communications properly. It is just extraordinary that these two members of the Cabinet are being hung out to dry every week by the 12-year-olds in 10 Downing Street.

You could have granted an urgent question every single day this week, Mr Speaker, such has been the deluge of important announcements prematurely made outside this House. Today, it is free school meals. Yesterday, it was the reannouncement of Northern Rail spending. The only mitigating factor is that the Government have been so incompetent in handling their slow-motion U-turn on the winter fuel allowance that no one has noticed anything else—though we still await a statement to the House on that issue as well.

What about the strategic defence review itself? We should start by thanking the reviewers for their hard work over many months. I know everyone in this House will want to do that, but if we look at the hard substance of the review, matters become more difficult. First of all, many of the announcements largely repeat the decisions of previous Governments—for example, on submarines, on AUKUS and on warheads. Secondly, and most crucially, where is the funding? Government Ministers have tied themselves in knots over the last few days as to whether the 3% of GDP target is “an ambition”, an aim, or simply to be undertaken “when fiscal circumstances allow” or “in the next Parliament”.

Luckily, General Richard Barrons, one of the SDR reviewers, was more honest, saying that the SDR’s financial profile—the assumptions against which the reviewers were working—assumed that defence will get 2.5% of GDP in financial year 2027-28 and 3% of GDP by no later than 2034. The great irony is that, not three weeks from now, we will have the NATO summit, which will call not for 3%, but for 3.5% plus 1.5%. We are light years away from that commitment. The awful truth is that real money will not begin to flow into the armed forces until the defence industrial strategy and the defence investment plan are announced later this year, hopefully in the proper way to this House. That will be 15 months after the Government took office. It is lucky that we do not have a war in Europe.

Thirdly, where is the threat to our adversaries? No extra cash means no extra commitment, no commitment means no credibility and no credibility means no increased sense of threat to those we face. What do we know? We know that there is a war in Europe in which Russia is moving men and matériel not merely to push on in Ukraine, but to threaten the Baltic states. Ukraine had a glorious victory in the past few days, but we cannot rely on such victories, and we must support it in its struggle against Russia.

What do we know? We know that Xi Jinping has directed the People’s Liberation Army to develop the capability to invade Taiwan by 2027, and we know that  NATO allies, who have a collective responsibility to each other, in some cases have a long way to go before they are even at 2% of GDP, let alone 3.5%. Instead of giving real leadership, and putting cash on the table, our own Government are talking about readying the country for war while in reality they continue to dither and delay. \p Lucy Powell: Mr Speaker, I understand that today is Press Association parliamentary editor Richard Wheeler’s last day in the Gallery. He has covered our proceedings for 12 years, and I am sure we can all agree that that is quite a shift, with Brexit, covid, six Prime Ministers and many interventions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), all having been covered by him.

As I have announced, on Monday 6 June we will debate a motion in my name to implement the recommendations of last year’s independent Kernaghan review of Parliament’s Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. The ICGS was set up in 2018 in response to many serious incidents of bullying, sexual harassment, unacceptable behaviour and poor culture. Through its work and its existence, strides have been made in addressing our reputation and improving working culture. However, we must continue to do better and to respond. That is why I have tabled proposals from the independent review to strengthen and improve the processes of the ICGS. I have asked its director for a fuller briefing, which, upon receipt, I will place in the Library ahead of the debate so that Members can consider these issues more fully.

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for wanting a replay of the urgent question on Monday. Following some of the questions that were put to me then, I did say that, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I would come back to the House on some of the issues that were raised. Without going through the whole thing again, I want to be clear about some of the things that did and did not happen. The Government were endeavouring to act in good faith and to follow the procedure and practice for many previous SDRs—and I have looked at all of the procedures and practices for previous SDRs.

We recognise that there is room for improvement—there always is—but I want to let the House know that advance briefings were offered to all Opposition spokespeople, the Chair of the Defence Committee and a select few from the defence community. An embargoed copy of the full SDR was provided to the Select Committee Clerk shortly after 10 am, and hard copies were provided to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespeople 90 minutes before the statement. As I reiterated on Monday, the full document was laid first in the House in the afternoon. I have spoken with you, Mr Speaker, and the Defence Secretary, who I am sure the whole House will agree takes his responsibilities to this House incredibly seriously. He wants to draw up a clear process for this Government and future Governments to follow, so that the expectations of all concerned are clear.

I really will not be taking advice from the right hon. Gentleman about respecting Parliament. He was a Minister and a Member of Parliament under the previous Government, whom the Supreme Court said had acted illegally by proroguing Parliament. There could be no greater disrespect to this House than that. He also  served under the former Prime Minister who was found to have misled Parliament. Again, no worse crime than that could be committed.

The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about defence spending, but the Conservatives had 14 years in government to get to the 2.5% target. Did they get to 2.5% in any one of those 14 years? No, they did not. When was the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence? Oh yes, it was the last time Labour was in government. That is what we are doing again now, so he might want to look at his own record on that.

I see that today we have had a big move on the economy from the Conservatives—yes, a big move. They want to draw a line under Liz Truss. But where is the apology, because I did not hear one? They finally seem to recognise that crashing the economy was “a big error”, but they do not seem to understand that it is the ordinary working people of this country who are still paying the price for their actions. The Conservatives should be apologising for that, yet the right hon. Gentleman wants to go around spending more money. He does not seem to have got the memo on that.

Let us just be clear. It is really important that we are clear about why we took the decisions we did at the start of this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman’s Government left no fiscal responsibility—something they now want to try to retain—and they left huge, gaping black holes in the public finances. Borrowing costs were at record highs and there was a cost of living crisis crushing ordinary people. When markets lose confidence, which is what they did under his Government and what they were potentially doing at the start of this Parliament, and the economy crashes, it is those on low, fixed incomes, such as pensioners and families living in poverty, who see the cost of living going up. It is they who pay the heaviest price when the economy crashes. That is why this Labour Government put economic stability first. That was our first priority, because we recognise who pays the heaviest price when that goes wrong.

I welcome the recognition from the shadow Chancellor today, but it does not seem like everybody got the memo. The right hon. Gentleman seems to want to spend even more money from the Dispatch Box, without saying where it will come from. The shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), seems to want to get rid of some of the tax increases from the Budget, again without saying where the money will come from.

Now that we have stabilised the economy, we are putting our values into practice further. We are seeing huge investment in the north and in the midlands on key transport infrastructure, investment in the jobs of the future, bringing down waiting lists month after month after month, and 3 million more NHS appointments. The right hon. Gentleman did not want to mention this, but today we are announcing the biggest expansion of free school meals in years, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. That is the difference a Labour Government make: securing the real incomes of ordinary working people, putting our public services back on their feet and lifting children out of poverty. \p Satvir Kaur: As it is World Environment Day, does the Leader of the House agree that while the UK has beautiful national parks, local parks and green spaces in urban cities such as Southampton  are just as treasured and as valuable in bringing communities together and improving health and wellbeing, making such cities the great places that they are? Communities in my constituency enjoyed a week-long Urban Wild festival during the half-term holiday, as part of Southampton’s journey in becoming the UK’s first national park city outside London. Will she join me in congratulating Christelle Blunden in particular, but also the army of volunteers, friends of groups, charities and many more who champion our local nature every day and who are behind Southampton’s national park city campaign? Finally— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Please sit down. This is a very important subject and I congratulate the hon. Lady—she did ask me at the beginning and it is fantastic news—but I have to get a lot of Members in today. So, please, I am sure the Leader of the House has grasped the message. \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for Southampton’s national park city status, and indeed for the fantastic contribution that green spaces, nature and wild places make to our cities, making places such as Southampton a great place to live. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Marie Goldman: The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome reports that eligibility for free school meals is being extended to all children in England whose parents receive universal credit. This is a Lib Dem policy on which we have campaigned for a long time, and it is a positive first step to help to lift children out of poverty. Of course, there is much more to do. Among other much needed changes, we would point to the importance of fully funding the policy for schools and auto-enrolling eligible children to ensure that they get the support they need.

I will also highlight, once again, something that is raised in business questions nearly every week: special educational needs. In March it was reported in the media that the Government will produce a White Paper on special educational needs to address the crisis in schools for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We are hearing rumours that this White Paper may be delayed until the autumn, or possibly until next year. Children with special educational needs are still without support, parents are still battling with local authorities, schools are still struggling to cope, and councils are still left staring at the prospect of a £5 billion deficit next year from SEND being added to their budgets. Will the Leader of the House implore the Government to, at the very least, provide a timescale for publishing the White Paper? \p Lucy Powell: First, I thank the hon. Lady for what she said about free school meals. I know it is a policy the Liberal Democrats have also campaigned on, but it is this Government who have a proud record of advancing free school meals and lifting children out of poverty, which is exactly what we are doing today, and will continue to do over the coming weeks.

The hon. Lady raises the matter of special educational needs, which—she is absolutely right—is raised very often in these questions. I know that it is an issue of great importance to our constituents and to many Members  across the House, as I am sure she will accept. I will ensure that any developments in this regard are brought to the House, and that Members have ample opportunity to contribute to them. I am sure she will agree with me that in recent years our special educational needs system has not delivered the outcomes for those who need it most, and that the process is not good for parents and families either. We need to make changes to the system to deliver good outcomes in both mainstream and specialist settings. I will ensure that the House is kept fully up to date. \p Samantha Niblett: The Just the Tonic comedy festival is coming to South Derbyshire in July, the festival having chosen Elvaston castle as its venue—a place I am helping the local parish council to save as publicly owned. Who does not love comedy? Yet despite being nationally loved and generating billions across live digital streaming and more, comedy remains an economically under-leveraged sector, excluded from arts funding, Government reports and the Creative Industries Council itself. Using comedy in social prescribing could help us save billions on mental healthcare, and I am working with Lou Jackson of Craic House—that is C-R-A-I-C—on a tech platform to help comedians. Will the Leader of the House dedicate time for a debate on our comedy industry? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes a compelling case. Of course, comedy is no joke when it comes to the economy. [Interruption.] I try my best, Mr Speaker, but I am obviously not as good as those at Craic House in my hon. Friend’s constituency. She makes a great point, and I am sure that Ministers will have heard her call today that the comedy sector is a vital part of our cultural and creative industries, and we will do everything to support it. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. \p Bob Blackman: I thank the Leader of the House for making time this week for the debate on dementia, which was well attended, with a time limit imposed on Back-Bench speeches. However, I think she owes an apology to the proposers of the debate on the Thursday before we rose for recess, when the debate was curtailed at the Government’s response so that they could make a statement, after which you, Mr Speaker, had to adjourn the House for an hour, after individuals who wanted to speak were unable to do so, before the Government finally made a statement.

In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, next Thursday there will be a statement from the Business and Trade Committee. I am glad that the right hon. Lady has continued the experiment of having Backbench Business debates after Government business, with the Windrush Day debate, which I am sure will be well attended, and indeed the estimates days that have been announced. Applications are now open, and we will consider them at our meeting on 17 June. We will give priority to the Departments that were not chosen for the estimate day debates earlier this year.

In addition, the business in Westminster Hall  next week is as follows: on Tuesday there will be the  debate on the United States Agency for International  Development’s pause on funding and its impact on UK international development; on Thursday there will be a debate on legal recognition of humanist marriages, followed by a debate on long-term conditions; on Tuesday 17 June there will be a debate on hydrogen-powered aviation; and on Thursday 19 June there will be a debate on the role of careers education in improving social mobility, followed by a debate on Down’s syndrome regression disorder.

Over the weekend and earlier this week, we had our first cross-party delegation from India for many years. It included parliamentarians from all religions, and I know that many MPs and Members of the House of Lords had the opportunity to meet them. Two things came out of that delegation loudly and clearly: first, that the uneasy truce that exists between India and Pakistan could at any time be violated if further terrorist actions emanate from Pakistan; and secondly, that India is reaching out for support from the west on security and defence measures, and we must assist it. May we have a statement next week, probably from the Foreign Secretary, on what we in this Parliament will do to support India in its need to quash terrorism? \p Lucy Powell: As ever, I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for announcing the forthcoming business and arranging for the estimates day applications to be opened up. I am sorry that he missed our last session before the recess. Perhaps he was not aware that I congratulated him and said that I hoped he had not had much sleep—I know that he had been out celebrating Tottenham winning some silverware for the first time in quite some time. That was a very good excuse not to be here. I was asked at that session about the Backbench Business Committee debate the previous week, and I made it clear that what happened was not of our own making. It was a challenging situation: we were having to deal with a press conference that was being hosted by the President of the United States and, of course, he was not that interested in the goings-on in Parliament that day, but we were keen to make sure that a statement was brought to the House at the earliest opportunity. That is definitely not an experience that any of us wants to repeat, if at all possible.

I thank the hon. Member for mentioning the delegation of Indian parliamentarians. I was hoping to meet them myself, but I was unable to do so on this occasion, but I hope to do so in future. He is right that our relationship with India is important, which is why this Government are so pleased that we have agreed an unprecedented trade deal with India. There are also, as he says, security and other issues between India and Pakistan, and this House has been kept updated on those matters and I shall make sure that continues to be the case. \p Lindsay Hoyle: To help Members, we will run business questions to around 11.45. We can help each other by moving quickly, so I call Leigh Ingham to provide a good example. \p Leigh Ingham: Two amazing young women in my constituency, Liz and Grace, are part of the team from Newport high school for girls who this week competed in the Young Enterprise finals. Liz, Grace and the rest of the team set up a company from  scratch, designed and manufactured a unique product and have made more than £2,400 in profits, all while doing their A-levels. As co-chair of the women and enterprise APPG, I am proud to see this home-grown talent. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them, and may we have a debate on supporting the next generation of women to become involved in enterprise? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Liz and Grace on their enterprising endeavours and making such a good profit while also studying for their A-levels. My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, who is sitting next to me, will have heard that question. Getting more young women into enterprise and business is obviously very important. \p Oliver Dowden: Many constituents in Potters Bar have contacted me with concerns about increases in applications for houses of multiple occupation. Streets such as Strafford Gate are quiet residential roads with semi-detached bungalows. They are really not suitable for being converted into units with five or six bedrooms. Will the Leader of the House find time for us to debate whether planning rules in respect of houses of multiple occupation are fit for purpose? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about what is happening in Potters Bar. The right hon. Member is right that the proliferation of HMOs can have a devastating effect on communities. Local authorities have some regulations and powers , but they are often not sufficient. That is why we have the Renters’ Rights Bill coming through to strengthen the powers of local authorities in the private rented sector, including in relation to HMOs. I look forward to the right hon. Member supporting the Bill as it progresses. \p Sally Jameson: I want to pay tribute to Doncaster boxing legend Terri Harper, who is a three-weight world champion and the first British woman to win titles in three weight divisions. She defended and retained her lightweight boxing title last month in Doncaster. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Terri on her incredible success, and will she make time in the Chamber to discuss how we can encourage girls to become the next generation of leaders in women’s sport, just like Terri? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Terri. We want to see more women getting involved in sport, not only competing at the highest level like Terri but taking part, because it is really good for their life, wellbeing, health and education. \p Wendy Chamberlain: My constituent was due to have her radio teleswitch meter replaced on Thursday after three years of wrangling with her supplier, but it did not happen. We know that the RTS switch-off is happening at the end of June, and at the current rate in Scotland it will take 380 days for all the meters to be replaced. Can we get a statement from the Government on an issue that is fast becoming a crisis? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. It has been raised with me on a number of occasions by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire,  Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) as well. No one should be left without a signal, and that is what should be happening, but I will ensure that the hon. Lady and other Members are kept updated, because this is an urgent matter. \p Warinder Juss: I was in the House during business questions on 9 January when my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), Chair of the Defence Committee, referred to the storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar in June 1984, ordered by the then Indian Government. Documents revealed in 2014 showed that the Thatcher Government had helped their Indian counterpart by providing advice for Operation Blue Star. Since 2014 there have been many calls to establish the extent of the British Government’s involvement, and many assurances have been given. Will the Leader of the House give a statement to the House announcing an independent, judge-led public inquiry to, in her own words, get to the bottom of what happened? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. As he says, it was raised with me a few months ago, and I made it clear on that occasion what I hoped would happen. I understand the concerns of Members across the House and of members of the Sikh community, many of whom he represents. When I was asked about this issue previously, I did follow up, and I am sorry to say that I am still waiting. When I do hear from the Foreign Office, I will ensure that my hon. Friend and other Members are made fully aware and that the House is updated. \p Gavin Williamson: The Landywood voluntary help centre in Great Wyrley, which is completely staffed by volunteers, has been supporting people of all ages for 50 years. May we have a debate in Government time to thank such organisations for the work they do, in all our constituencies across the country, to support the most vulnerable? \p Lucy Powell: I join the right hon. Member in thanking the volunteers at that help centre and all the other volunteers in all our constituencies. Voluntary work is a common theme of business questions week after week, and I am sure that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), will have heard that we would all like the opportunity to pay tribute to and thank all volunteers for the tremendous work they do in our constituencies. \p Neil Coyle: It is almost 30 years since the iconic replica of Sir Francis Drake’s Golden Hinde arrived at the historic St Mary Overie dock on the Thames in Southwark. Will the Leader of the House provide time to debate what Government at every level can do to ensure that we continue celebrating our maritime history and educating future generations through amazing interactive experiences like those that the Golden Hinde provides to children from my constituency in Southwark and across the globe? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I am sure we are all familiar with the Golden Hinde from walking along the south bank. Restoring our heritage assets is really important to this Government,   and we announced additional funding to the heritage at risk programme in February. I hope that my hon. Friend and Southwark council can work together to do their bit to restore and bring back to life that great asset. \p Kirsty Blackman: Tackling child poverty is incredibly important. On Monday, the Leader of the House told me:

“I will ensure that she and the House are updated on the timings for the child poverty taskforce”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 33.]

I would appreciate an update on the timings. When will we know when the announcements will be made? \p Lucy Powell: The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), will shortly give a statement to the House about progress with free school meals. As part of that statement, I am assured that he will let the House know where we are with the timings of the taskforce and when we can expect the report. \p Amanda Martin: Many of my constituents have been deeply distressed by the story of Beth Martin, a mum of two from my constituency who tragically died in unclear circumstances on holiday in Turkey last month. My thoughts and sympathies go out to her husband Luke and her two children, and indeed to all who love her. I thank the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for his sensitive and swift work. Will the Leader of the House please make time for him to update me on his work internationally regarding this devastating death? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear about that distressing case. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts to Beth’s husband Luke and her two young children at this awful time. I am pleased to hear that the Minister has been working with her. I will ensure that that continues and that she is kept constantly updated. \p Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Leader of the House for the Government’s assurance that the Chagos islands treaty will be debated in the House. May I draw her attention to the prayer of early-day motion 1398, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others?

[That the Agreement, done at London and Port Louis on 22 May 2025, between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, should not be ratified.]

Compliant with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, a debate is required within 21 sitting days of laying a treaty before the House. The treaty was laid on 22 May. Will the Government give an assurance that the motion will be debated in Government time before the expiry of those 21 days so that the House gets a proper opportunity to decide whether the treaty should be ratified? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. As he knows, the agreement was laid before both Houses on 22 May, and under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act both Houses have 21 sitting days—running to 3 July—to scrutinise and lay, as he said, anything they want to on that. We will ensure that the full CRaG process is followed at all times. He will be aware that, in addition, we will introduce legislation to implement the agreement, and there will be ample time for the House to consider the Bill to ratify the treaty. \p Sureena Brackenridge: I am delighted to have championed additional funding of more than £10 million for the Royal Wolverhampton NHS trust and over £1 million for Walsall Manor hospital for essential work and upgrades. Let us contrast that to the Tories, who oversaw a backlog of maintenance and crumbling hospitals. Will the Leader of the House meet me to continue championing safe, modern, future-fit facilities for patients and hard-working staff in Wolverhampton North East? \p Lucy Powell: I am really pleased that the Government have ensured that the funding is there to provide the vital upgrades needed for the Royal Wolverhampton NHS trust. My hon. Friend is right that we inherited a hospital capital programme that was a work of fiction; there was not a penny allocated to many of the promises that had been made. We have now set out a clear timetable with allocated funding so that her hospital and many others can get the improvements they desperately need. \p Roz Savage: The Leader of the House will be well aware that the global ocean treaty has still not had its passage through the House. With the first ever ocean conference of the parties coming up quickly, next year, will she confirm when the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement will be brought forward for ratification? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. Along with other parliamentarians, I was pleased, but also moved, to watch the “Ocean with David Attenborough” documentary with David Attenborough in the House of Lords. I can assure her that I and this Government were already resolved to ensure that that treaty was ratified and the Bill brought forward. Having watched the documentary, I will ensure that we do that in a timely fashion. \p Jessica Toale: This week, my office has had to respond to several concerning incidents of misinformation regarding police investigations in my constituency. In one case, a national newspaper sought to sensationalise a very serious incident in which an officer was investigated for gross misconduct. In another, a false claim that a mugging was carried out by an asylum seeker, when in fact it was a British national known to police, was spread on social media. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is irresponsible to cast judgment on such serious issues without full knowledge of the facts, and will she consider granting parliamentary time for a debate on how we can tackle misinformation in our communities and ensure police can carry out their duties without such interference? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear of the cases that my hon. Friend describes. She is right that the quick spreading of misinformation and disinformation on social media and elsewhere in such cases can be of great concern in relation to safety on our streets and protection of our public servants and others. Indeed, it can cause real problems, as we saw last summer. We are taking action in that regard. The Online Safety Act 2023 was not as strong in this area as it could have been, but we will work to strengthen the laws where necessary. \p Mark Francois: May we have a debate in Government time on the three flagrant breaches of the ministerial code committed by the Defence Secretary on Monday? For the record, the Opposition received their copy of the strategic defence review mid-afternoon, the media received it at 10.30 am, and defence companies received it at 8 o’clock in the morning. Within minutes, there were share price spikes in a number of defence stocks.

Section 8.11 of the “Ministerial Code” clearly states:

“where commercially sensitive material is involved, no copies should be made available to the media before publication.” \p Lindsay Hoyle: I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that I understand he wants clarification, but a business question from a Front-Bench spokesperson on his own subject is not normally accepted. \p Lucy Powell: Thank you for that, Mr Speaker, but I am happy to address some of the issues in that question, albeit from the right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Back Benches.

I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the process that was followed by the Ministry of Defence, which included making available in advance security briefings for Opposition Members and others, as well as a reading room, was exactly the same process that was followed in previous SDRs. [Interruption.] He may want to look at that. I understand that his Front-Bench boss, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), was offered that briefing and to go into the reading room—a briefing that he declined to take up. That is what was followed, as on every other occasion. That is why I said earlier that the Defence Secretary, who takes his commitments to this House incredibly seriously, wants to ensure that, for this and all future Governments, there is a process to agree so that on future occasions everybody can be clear about the expectations of timings and how things can be followed. \p Ian Lavery: Harry, a constituent of mine, is suffering from cancer. He has just finished gruelling chemotherapy and he now needs radiotherapy. He has been offered radiotherapy 170 miles away from where he lives. He has been told that he needs to pay for his transport and the accommodation for himself and his family during the treatment that has been offered. That is at the same time as the Rutherford centre, a state-of-the-art cancer treatment centre that is a stone’s throw away from where Harry lives, has been closed for a number of years. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how the NHS and the Government can come together to ensure that that fantastic facility can be used in the best interests of people in the region? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about what is happening to Harry, and I am sure we all want to wish him well in the treatment he needs to get. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that although state-of-the-art cancer treatments are available, they are not as widely available as they should be, and we have a lot further to go in ensuring that people are quickly treated near where they live. We will publish a dedicated national cancer plan this year, and I will ensure that the House is updated on that. We have already relaunched the children and young people cancer taskforce. I will absolutely look at the case he raises and see what further can be done. \p Victoria Collins: My constituent Katie from Tring, during her exemption period for access to free NHS dental care as a new mother, looked at every dental surgery for 50 miles and was unable to get an appointment. Not only do we need to deal with the dental crisis, but Katie is calling for an extension to that exemption period. Please can we have a debate in the House on the growing crisis in dental care access? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue. It is something that we and all our constituents can relate to. Access to NHS dentistry falls far short of what any of us would want it to be. The previous Conservative Government left a huge number of NHS dentistry deserts around the country, and it sounds like her constituent is living in one of them. We are taking this seriously. We are committed to rolling out 700,000 more NHS dental appointments, and I will ensure that the hon. Lady and everybody else is kept updated. \p Barry Gardiner: Paragraph 7.36 of “Erskine May” states the process for setting out the ratification of international treaties. The Government’s treaty tracker says the global oceans treaty that the Leader of the House referred to earlier has not been ratified, and yet the BBNJ treaty—the global oceans treaty—was laid before this House on 16 October 2023. It appears the Government are misleading themselves in believing that they have to introduce legislation implementing the treaty before they can ratify it. Would she meet me to discuss the conundrum that appears to be stopping us going to the UN oceans conference next week and laying the instrument of ratification so that the treaty can come into force? \p Lucy Powell: We are absolutely committed to ratifying that treaty and agreement. The Environment Secretary is at the summit this weekend to discuss the leading role that this country is taking to protect our oceans for generations to come. We will introduce a Bill to ratify that treaty and will do so in time for when we need to do so next year. I assure my hon. Friend that the House will be updated shortly on the matter. \p Matt Vickers: Yarm is being battered by Stockton’s Labour council’s rush to build far too many houses far too fast in all the wrong places. It is placing unbearable pressure on our roads, schools and GP surgery. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on how we tackle such irresponsible over- development? \p Lucy Powell: We make no apology for wanting to build more homes—more affordable homes, more social homes—for people to live in, which, frankly, the hon. Member’s Government failed to do in all their time in office. But that is not to say that it is a developer free-for-all. Communities should have a say in where those homes, and what type of homes, are built, but we need to go further and faster to ensure that the affordable homes that everybody needs to live in are built. \p James Naish: I am regularly contacted by park home residents in my constituency, of which there are more than 500, about the unique challenges they face. Residents of Radcliffe Park and Tollerton Park, in particular, raise issues such as energy costs, their relationship with site owners and, most importantly, the 10% sales commission that traps residents in their homes. Does the Leader of the House agree that park homes should be an area of focus for this Government, and will she find time for Members to discuss this formally? \p Lucy Powell: Park homes, and particularly the site owners’ commission on sales, are regularly raised with me at business questions. I am sure a debate would be very popular were my hon. Friend to apply for one. This Government will set out actions on this in due course, and I encourage him to speak to the relevant Minister, which I am happy to facilitate. \p Helen Morgan: This week the Government announced an enormous investment in transport projects in metropolitan areas, but nothing for rural areas. Given that almost a fifth of the population live in rural and coastal areas, and that many of them, like North Shropshire, have very poor public transport, can we have a debate in Government time to consider how we might invest in really good public transport projects, such as the Oswestry to Gobowen railway line, to unleash growth in rural areas? \p Lucy Powell: I reassure the hon. Lady that the big announcement on the £15 billion transport infrastructure projects for metro mayoral areas was just a start, and that there is more to come. I am sure she will recognise that this Government are absolutely committed to rural transport. That is why we have the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill going through Parliament, and it is why we have capped bus fares at £3, which is particularly relevant to rural communities where fares have gone through the roof in recent years. I can assure the hon. Lady that there is more to come. \p Sojan Joseph: I welcome this Government’s progress on reducing NHS waiting lists in physical health, but there are currently 1.6 million people on mental health waiting lists. People are eight times more likely to have to wait 18 months for treatment if their condition is mental rather than physical. Research by the charity Rethink Mental Illness shows that long waiting lists can lead to deterioration of symptoms, suicide attempts and people dropping out of the workforce. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on mental health waiting times so that we can address this crisis in our NHS? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He is right that mental health services are in crisis and, frankly, are just not fit for purpose. That is what we  inherited, which is why we are taking immediate steps to improve early intervention and prevention and to shift care into communities. We are recruiting 8,500 mental health workers, and we are currently taking the Mental Health Bill through Parliament to boost mental health in this country. \p Martin Vickers: Greenergy operates a biodiesel facility at Immingham in my constituency, but it has had to go into a cold shutdown and review the future of its operations. This is in part due to subsidised imports from the US and the need to review the renewable transport fuel obligation, which affects not just the Immingham plant but businesses up and down the country. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate or an urgent statement on the renewable transport fuel obligation? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about the incident in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and the impact that the renewable transport fuel obligation is having on the renewable sector there. We have Energy Security and Net Zero questions coming up next week, and he may want to raise this.

I will say that this situation is why this Government are working so hard to ensure that we have trade deals with America, and we secured one ahead of many other countries. It is also why we are absolutely committed to our clean energy mission, which is driving us forward. \p Josh MacAlister: I am working with local business and political leaders across Cumbria to make the case for much-needed investment in upgrading the Cumbria coast, or energy coast, rail line. This line is essential for two national endeavours: the Barrow shipyard and the nuclear decommissioning work at Sellafield. We need to improve both freight and passenger capacity on the line, so will the Leader of the House assist me in securing a meeting with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport to help make this case? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes a strong case for how important nuclear energy is to his constituency and the whole country, and linking up the assets that exist in Barrow and Cumbria is vital to our clean energy mission. I will assist him in facilitating a meeting, because we need to join up these issues and ensure that transport and connectivity are a key part of our industrial strategy and clean energy mission. \p Robin Swann: The right of an elected representative to challenge the Executive is a core tenet of our democracy and something we are fortunate to have defended here by Mr Speaker. However, on Tuesday night in Fermanagh and Omagh district council, the Sinn Féin group moved a motion to silence an Ulster Unionist councillor—one of my party colleagues, Mark Ovens—for questioning one of their decisions. He was not just gagged; he was silenced for the entirety of that meeting. Does the Leader of the House agree that such an action was undemocratic and that, despite Labour’s majority and how tempting it may be, she would never contemplate such an action in this place nor think it was appropriate in a democratically elected Chamber? \p Lucy Powell: I do not know about the case the hon. Member refers to, but I can assure him that, much as I might like to silence some of my colleagues in this place, I know that my job as Leader of the House and everyone’s job in this House is to ensure that every single Member has the opportunity to make their voice heard loud and clear. We will be taking steps to ensure that in local government, too, we have high standards and high levels of accountability and transparency, and that is something this Government uphold as well. \p Ben Goldsborough: Biosecurity is national security, and farmers in South Norfolk are on the frontline in that battle, whether they are in Morningthorpe or Norton Subcourse. We saw at first hand the effects of bluetongue and avian influenza. This week’s report from the National Audit Office on animal diseases is a wake-up call for the whole House. Can we have a statement from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what action the Minister will take in response to those concerns? \p Lucy Powell: I know that my hon. Friend has been pressing this issue strongly. We will protect against animal diseases and ensure that the livelihoods of our farmers and rural communities are protected. I know that DEFRA is working with the NAO on a plan for its recommendations, and I will ensure that he and the rest of the House are updated. \p Bradley Thomas: Mobile phone signal across Bromsgrove and the villages is wholly inadequate. It regularly drops out, and that is if we are lucky enough to get a signal. Things are getting worse, particularly following the rolling switch-off of 3G signals across the country. A recent real-world study in Worcestershire demonstrated that signal is actually 1,000 times worse than operators claim it to be. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is unacceptable and that my constituents deserve better? Will she support my efforts to secure a debate on the Floor of the House and a meeting with the Minister to discuss improvements?[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 8WC.] (Correction) \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Member is right to raise the issue of poor mobile phone signal, and I am sorry to hear that it seems to be so bad in his constituency in Worcestershire. He is right: these days, this is the fourth utility. Many of our constituents cannot conduct their everyday lives or access services, banking, benefits or pensions without a good mobile phone signal and data. I will happily help him secure a response from the Minister and a meeting. \p Emma Foody: Since being elected last year, my postbag has been inundated with correspondence from social housing residents who struggle to get repairs done by their landlord, in some cases waiting for months with issues such as rat infestations, missing windows and holes in the ceiling. It is absolutely unacceptable. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on social housing repairs and how we hold social landlords to account for the accommodation they provide? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. She is right that social housing landlords do have legal duties to carry out high-standard repairs and maintenance  but, all too often, tenants do not have the recourse they need to hold their housing providers to account. We are strengthening that in the Renters’ Rights Bill, which is reaching its closing stages in the House of Lords, but we have to ensure that tenants, whether in the social or private sector, have that recourse and ability to hold their landlords to account. \p Wera Hobhouse: No one who has watched David Attenborough’s film “Ocean”, to which the Leader of the House has already referred, will fail to have been moved and terrified by the senseless destruction of our oceans, the lifeblood of our planet. In order to save our sick oceans, we need to safeguard about 30% of them; only about 3% are currently marine protected. Next week, the UN will hold an ocean conference in Nice. Will she ensure that we receive a statement from the Government on the outcome of the conference and what the Government will do to protect our very sick oceans? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Member highlights just a few of the very moving and powerful impacts of that documentary, which I am sure many people have watched. It is hard to not be moved by the scale of the challenge, and the destruction in recent years, but also by the hope in that documentary that the oceans can quickly recover if we are all willing to take the steps necessary to protect it. That is why I am delighted that the Environment Secretary is going to the UN summit later this week, and it is why the Government are committed to ratifying the ocean treaty in good time. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Let us see if we can speed things up and get everybody in. If not, people will miss out. \p Clive Efford: My constituent, who has lived here for 10 years and is from Ukraine, was joined by her parents, who were fleeing the conflict. They set up a bank account when they arrived here and tried to transfer some of their money. The bank immediately shut down their bank account, which also resulted in my constituent’s bank account being shut down. There must be a number of people in this situation; it is no way to treat people who are fleeing conflict. Can we have a statement from the banking Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), so that we can find out exactly what is going on here, and force the banks to treat people with a bit more respect? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend identifies. I think the banking Minister will shortly be in the House for a debate this afternoon, but I will ensure that he gets a full update. \p David Mundell: Will the Leader of the House bring forward a specific debate that focuses on the 80th anniversary of VJ Day and the end of the war in the far east, so that the horrific conditions in which those, for example, in the King’s Own Scottish Borderers had to fight and the conditions that people faced as prisoners of war can be properly recognised? We had a debate on the 80th anniversary of VE Day, but—as in 1945—the end of the war in Europe overshadowed those events in the far east. \p Lucy Powell: The right hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the particular lessons that we should learn from the end of the war in the far east, and the importance of recognising VJ Day in its own right.  The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the  hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), is in his place; I will speak to him, and look myself at whether we can allocate some time to do just as the right hon. Member asks. \p Mike Reader: I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating Nicky Wright, who was last week named consultant of the year in the Women in Construction and Engineering Awards. Nicky’s career started with work in Iraq and Angola, and now she is part of the leadership team delivering the fantastic transformation of Gatwick airport. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Nicky’s achievements, and help me to make sure that great voices like Nicky’s are featured in the Government’s work on construction, skills and growth in the future? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Nicky Wright on what sounds like a tremendous career that we should applaud. He is right that getting more young women and girls attracted to science, technology, engineering and maths is critical, and I hope that Nicky and others will play a role in that. \p Claire Young: My constituent Olivia is fighting for Archie’s law—new legislation to improve the quality of care for critically ill infants and children—after tragically losing her baby boy Archie. I have raised the matter with the Secretary of State, but the responses so far have failed to specifically address Archie’s law, and I have waited for the latest since February. Will the Leader of the House raise the matter with the Health Secretary, and ensure that Archie’s law gets a fair hearing? \p Lucy Powell: I will raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I am sorry that I do not know more detail about the proposal, but there are other devices, such as the presentation of Bills and ten-minute rule Bills, and other opportunities that the hon. Member might wish to use to raise such a new law on the Floor of the House. \p Sonia Kumar: Kirstie Bavington is a two-time European female welterweight boxing champion from my constituency, yet even with those achievements she is still working as a PE teacher while pursuing her dream of making boxing a full-time career. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate in Government time on increasing funding for female athletes, so that champions like Kirstie can pursue sport as a full-time career and achieve true parity in opportunity and support? \p Lucy Powell: Women’s sport has been raised a few times this morning. It will always make a popular topic for a debate, but I join my hon. Friend in congratulating her constituent and encouraging others. \p Lindsay Hoyle: And it is the rugby league women’s cup final on Saturday. \p Richard Holden: I know that you, Mr Speaker, are an animal lover, like me and my Basildon and Billericay constituents, although sadly some people are not. After some horrific cases, will the Leader of the House push the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to get on with its consultation on licensing animal welfare centres? If not, will she allow a debate in Government time on this issue on the Floor of the House? \p Lucy Powell: Last night, I attended Jo Coburn’s “Daily Politics” leaving do, and the spats that the right hon. Gentleman and I had on her show on a few occasions were featured in her leaving video. I think I probably came out better than him, but we will leave that for another day!

The right hon. Gentleman raises the important matter of animal welfare, to which this Government are committed. I will ensure that DEFRA continues to keep the House updated on the very many areas where we are making progress in this regard. \p Steve Race: Next week, we have the second day of debate on Report for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which is important to many of my Exeter constituents. Does the Leader of the House agree with me and with Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society that consideration of the Bill should continue to be thorough and with significant time allocated to the process? \p Lucy Powell: We will be debating the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill further next Friday, and probably soon thereafter. We all have different views about the issue itself, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the process has been incredibly thorough—in part thanks to your support, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that there is ample time for debate on the Floor of the House. We had a full day of debate on Second Reading, there were over 90 hours of debate in Committee and there has already been one day of debate on remaining stages, and there are likely to be a further two. That means more time will probably have been given to the Bill than to most substantial pieces of Government legislation. \p Tessa Munt: My constituent Anthony’s husband’s emergency and urgent care was compromised because hospital staff could not access his medical records, even though he had been treated by specialists in the same hospital. Can we have a debate on ensuring that patient records can be accessed swiftly by clinicians across hospital trusts within regions, so that patients are not endangered by the inability of software systems to communicate within the NHS? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. I am sure that many people would be surprised to realise that data sharing does not happen in the way that we all imagine it does between different parts of the NHS. We are committed to ensuring that can happen in order to unlock much improved services, and to provide us with a great deal of data and information to help us continue to improve those services. \p Chris Webb: Tomorrow marks the start of Pride weekend in Blackpool—a town that has always been a little louder and prouder than most.  Blackpool has long been a sanctuary for the LGBTQ+ community and a place where queer joy has always found a home. I am looking forward to marching in the parade on Saturday and joining locals at the Lord Street party on Sunday. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Blackpool Pride and sending everyone our best wishes for a joyful weekend? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in recognising that Blackpool is louder and prouder when it comes to Pride and celebrating our LGBT community. I hope he has a fantastic day there; I have seen him at Manchester Pride many times before. \p Jim Shannon: I wish to draw to attention to the increasing vulnerability of religious minorities in Syria, particularly the Alawite community. Recent reports have highlighted renewed sectarian violence, placing Alawites at heightened risk amid broader instability and government failures to foster inclusivity. In addition, Syria’s 2025 interim constitution enshrined Islamic jurisprudence as the primary source of law, effectively restricting legal protections for religious minorities. Will the Leader of the House contact the Foreign Secretary to ask what assessment the Foreign Office has made of those development and what representations he has made to press international partners? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for once again raising important issues of freedom of religion or belief—in this case, regarding the Alawite community in Syria. I will absolutely ensure that he gets a full response. \p Anneliese Midgley: In Kirkby, 160 households in Willow Rise and Beech Rise face eviction because their tower block has been condemned. The private owners have failed to carry out essential fire safety work, and residents would already have been forced out if it were not for Knowsley council temporarily funding a waking watch. We need urgent Government support. Will the Leader of the House pass on my thanks to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), for meeting me and use her good offices to press the urgency of a support package to help to rehome my constituents? \p Lucy Powell: That is a shocking case in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which I know has rightly attracted a great deal of attention. I congratulate her on continuing to press the matter. This Government expect landlords and freeholders to cover the costs of decanting residents, including providing suitable alternative accommodation, and the loss of income that may come from that. I will absolutely ensure that the Minister continues to work with my hon. Friend to make sure that happens in this case. \p Dave Robertson: My constituent Caitlin was coerced into signing a joint lease with her abuser just four days before he was arrested on charges relating to domestic violence. He was convicted, but she is still trapped in the lease for a property that she has never lived in and she is liable for rent that he refuses to pay. The estate agents tell us that they have a legal responsibility to chase rent arrears. Survivors in Caitlin’s position are unable to fully move on from their abuse,  even after justice has been done in the courts. Will the Leader of the House help me to arrange a meeting with the Minister for Safeguarding to discuss a legislative solution to this problem and better support for survivors of domestic violence? \p Lucy Powell: I am sure we all recognise these cases from our own constituencies. Such circumstances are absolutely shocking. I assure my hon. Friend that our Renters’ Rights Bill, which has nearly reached its concluding stages in the House of Lords, will remove fixed-term assured tenancies and prevent anyone in the future from being locked into exactly the situation that he describes. I will ensure that a Minister meets with him to discuss that. \p Jas Athwal: Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), let me say that this week marks a tragic week: the 41st anniversary of the raid on the Golden Temple in Amritsar. Some 41 years later, questions about British involvement in the desecration of the holiest Sikh site in Amritsar remain unanswered. Labour promised in its 2017 and 2019 manifestos to hold an inquiry, and the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister pledged to do so before the last election. Will the Leader of the House allow time for an update from the Foreign Secretary on the progress of implementing that inquiry and ensure that promises made in opposition are fulfilled in government? \p Lucy Powell: I really do understand how important it is for the Sikh community to see progress on this issue —that is the second time that it has been raised with me this morning. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary is aware of the concerns being raised again on the Floor of the House and that the update I previously asked for is made available to Members and this House. \p Markus Campbell-Savours: Penrith and Solway, like constituencies across the country, is littered with empty listed buildings. Many are rotting, with neglectful owners who are often not even required to pay rates. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time to discuss how we stop this disgraceful trashing of our heritage? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend raises the really important issue of empty listed buildings and how they could be brought back into use and made better use of. I will absolutely ensure that a Minister gives him a full reply. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call Perran Moon. \p Perran Moon: Meur ras bras, Mr Speaker. New data from the Office for National Statistics on sickness absence rates was published yesterday. As a Cornish MP, I am particularly concerned that the south-west has the highest sickness absence across the whole of the UK. Sickness absence follows poverty, and Cornwall’s poverty figures have been masked by wealthier pensioners moving there, meaning less support per capita from central Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that remote coastal areas, like Cornwall, need fairer funding settlements than those that we have had in recent years to lift people out of sickness and get them back to work? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely agree that we have to get people out of sickness and back into work. That is why this Government are bringing forward reforms to the universal credit health element to ensure that people are not consigned to sickness for a long period, but encouraged back to work. \p Paul Waugh: Rochdale’s award-winning trading standards team has led the country in exposing the spread of ghost car number plates, which allow child sex offenders, speeding motorists and drug dealers to avoid police detection cameras. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Darren Hughen and Dennis Chalmers, who visited Parliament this week, and will she support my campaign and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) to outlaw ghost car number plates? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), my Parliamentary Private Secretary, is not in her place today, but I know she has been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) and others on the campaign to get rid of ghost plates. Their campaigning has been fantastic at highlighting this issue and the problems it causes, and I know that Transport Ministers are looking at it. \p John Whitby: Tough Enough To Care is a men’s mental health charity that works to remove the toxic stigma around mental health. I had the privilege of attending one of its meetings in Wirksworth, where I witnessed the incredible work that that charity is doing to ensure more men get the support they need. Will the Leader of the House join me in acknowledging the great work being done by Tough Enough To Care, and acknowledge the important role that men’s mental health charities play in ensuring that fewer men take their own lives? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those who work with Tough Enough To Care, and thank him for highlighting the important work that it does. It is still absolutely shocking that the biggest cause of death for men under the age of 50 is suicide, and the work of Tough Enough To Care and others is vital in addressing that. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Let us help each other. I call Jayne Kirkham. \p Jayne Kirkham: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on a more robust range of censure and sanction options for serious breaches of the local government members’ code of conduct, including suspension and removal of councillors? I know of recent incidents in which, despite egregious behaviour by councillors elected unopposed, those councillors remain in post, regardless of the wishes of their community and their council. \p Lucy Powell: We want to see high standards in public life, including in local government and among councillors. We are looking at how we can take steps and bring forward legislation to continue to raise standards in local government. \p Josh Dean: I recently visited the fantastic repair café in Sawbridgeworth, which renews our everyday products and stops them going into landfill. As we mark Volunteers’ Week, will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the volunteers at that repair café and all the volunteers across Hertford and Stortford for their hard work? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those volunteers for their really hard work. \p Paul Davies: On 12 April, a man required hospital treatment after being attacked by at least five men, who had earlier made homophobic remarks outside the Old Bridge hotel in Holmfirth in my constituency. In response, local residents have united to organise Holmfirth’s first ever Pride, which will take place this Saturday. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing attendees at Pride a great time, but can we also have a debate in Government time on what further action we can take to tackle hate crime? \p Lucy Powell: This Government stand absolutely against homophobic hate crimes of that kind. My hon. Friend might want to take up these issues when we consider the Crime and Policing Bill, not next week but the week after. I wish all those taking part in Holmfirth’s first Pride the best of luck. \p Christopher Bloore: Redditch United football club is showcasing the importance of the UK’s leading gambling harm charity, Gordon Moody, by displaying its logo on next year’s shirts. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising Redditch United and Gordon Moody for this innovative collaboration, which demonstrates how local sport can be a force for good in tackling addiction? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in thanking Gordon Moody and Redditch United football club for all the work they are doing to support people. \p Lindsay Hoyle: And it is the Challenge cup final on Saturday. \p Stephen Morgan: With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on free school meals for children.

This is a Government who put children first—they are at the centre of the change that we want to see, because what we do for our children, we do for our country. If we want to break the unfair link between background and success, deliver opportunity to every home and shape a fairer society, that has to start with our children. It has to start with the fundamentals: making sure that every family has a stable, loving home where no child lacks food or warmth. That simple dignity should be the uncontroversial birthright of every child as they grow up in a civilised society, but after 14 long years, that dignity was not universal, nor that birthright uncontroversial.

When this Government won the trust of the British people, which Conservative Members forfeited last July, the legacy of the Conservatives’ shameful record in power was a record number of children growing up in poverty. Some 4.5 million children were robbed of opportunity and hope, of life chances and of possibilities. Child poverty is a scar on our society. It is a mark of the failure of Conservative Members to grow the economy, to spread success to working people and to deliver for the next generation the ordinary hope that tomorrow will be better than today.

The last Government did not see the growing number of families in deep poverty as a failure to be addressed, but let me be clear that the growing number of children on free school meals under the last Government was an index of failure, not a story of success. This Government are determined to turn the picture around, tackling child poverty and spreading growth and opportunity to every family in every part of our country. That is why today I am announcing the biggest expansion of free school meal eligibility in England in a generation, because we can and must end the scourge of child poverty.

Today, we are setting out that we will give every child whose family is in receipt of universal credit the entitlement to free school meals. That means not simply meals in mouths but, crucially, money back in the pockets of parents and families on an unprecedented scale. This is a historic change for children and for families, with 100,000 children lifted out of poverty. That is the mark of a Government who are serious about backing parents and tackling child poverty, the mark of a Government with a plan for change and the mark of a Government with the ideas, investment and determination to see it through.

On that note, this Government’s child poverty taskforce, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education co-chairs with the Work and Pensions Secretary, is forging ahead. We have listened to parents, to charities and to people with lived experience, and now we are acting, bringing the change that children and families deserve. In the months and years to come, that change will be shaped by the child poverty strategy, which we will publish later this year.

This is an intervention that backs parents as well as children. Our free school meals expansion will put up to £495 back in parents’ pockets every year. For them, that  means more freedom in how they support their families, more choice in how they care for their children and more opportunities to get on and live a good life. Our expansion of free school meals is not just about the here and now; it is an investment in our children’s futures. It sets them free from the worries and strains of growing up in poverty, leaving them free to learn and play and to do their very best in school. Today’s announcement is not only anti-poverty, but pro-learning. I know that Members across the House will agree with me when I say that those two causes shine brightest when they shine together. That is what the evidence tells us.

These meals need to be healthy. School food standards have not been revised since 2014, but this Government are acting quickly to put that right. That is why I am pleased to announce today that we are working with experts from across the sector to revise those standards. We are supporting schools with the latest nutritional guidance, because the benefits for children of getting a decent, healthy meal at school are huge, with their attendance higher, their focus sharper, their behaviour better, their grades stronger and their futures brighter. That chance to succeed should be open to all. That is the sort of society I want to live in and that this Government want to build, but the kind of change that our children need is not the work of a single day or a single policy, even one as important as this. That is why today’s announcement is part of our wider approach and moral mission with the child poverty strategy, the opportunity mission and this Government’s plan for change.

We have already begun rolling out school-based nurseries and 30 hours of Government-funded childcare, saving parents up to £7,500 a year. Children are already eating, playing and learning together as our free breakfast clubs reach 750 early adopter schools, saving parents another £450 a year. We are cutting the cost of school uniforms for 4.2 million children, saving some parents £50 in their back-to-school shop. On top of that, we are recruiting more teachers, driving high and rising standards in our schools, reforming children’s social care, boosting the early years pupil premium and so much more.

Growing up in Fratton, I saw at first hand the devastating impact that poverty can have on children in Portsmouth. Friends came to school hungry and not ready to learn. That is why I am proud to stand here today as we offer a helping hand to ensure that every child, whatever their background and wherever they come from, achieves and thrives.

We are delivering the change that parents need and that children deserve—the change that will break the unfair link between background and success once and for all. That means doing everything in our power to end child poverty. Today, we say enough is enough. Today, we begin to turn the tide. Today, the fightback that began in July last year kicks up a gear. We are acting to secure a brighter future for our children and for our country too. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister. \p Neil O'Brien: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

The truth is that the families benefiting from today’s announcement are the same ones who are paying for it, because the same group of people are hit hardest by  Labour’s national insurance increase. Labour promised not to increase national insurance, but it broke that promise, and someone earning just £13,000 a year will now take home £500 less as a result of the tax increase. Someone on just £9,000 a year—the exact sort of person who is supposed to benefit from this policy—will lose 5% of their income.

The Government want to talk about the impact of the money they are giving today on poverty, but they do not want to talk about the impact of the much larger sum of money they are taking away. Disgracefully, they have not done any distributional analysis of the £25 billion that they are taking away, which is particularly targeted at low-income households. Will the Minister say how many households that will push into poverty? Will he finally admit what the figure is?

While free school meals are obviously welcome, the things that are being cut to pay for them are much less welcome. For example, the Government broke their promise to fully fund the national insurance increase for schools, and some have been short-changed by 35%. They also broke their promise to fully fund the pay award. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that leaves a £400 million funding hole for our schools. Under the last Government, although there was an increase in achievement across the board, the biggest increase was in the lower half of the income distribution. That is much harder to achieve when the Government have taken £400 million out of our schools.

What else is being done to balance the costs? We already know that the Government have cut support for maths, science, physics, Latin, computing and cadets in schools, and got rid of the successful behaviour hubs. We know that nurseries, which the Minister talked about, are saying they are on the brink because of the national insurance increase. In fact, the Early Years Alliance says the situation is “catastrophic”. We know that the Department for Education recently announced a real-terms cut of 10% to university teaching grants, and it has abolished 90% of higher apprenticeships—funnily enough, they announced that during the recess. Now the education press are saying that the next cost-saving measure to pay for announcements like this will be to abolish education, health and care plans for everything other than special schools. Will the Minister rule that out today? If he does not rule it out, the whole House will hear, and we will know exactly what is going to happen next.

Turning to the numbers, what is the real net effect of all this? Transitional protections were established in 2018 to ensure that pupils who gained FSM would not lose them while universal credit was being rolled out. That has roughly doubled the proportion of pupils who are eligible from 13.6% to 25.7%. However, the Department for Education has announced that those protections will now end in September 2026, when the new policy comes in. By how much will the end of those transitional protections reduce the number of children who are eligible for FSM? Am I right in thinking that it is  by 1.2 million? Will the Minister agree—he is looking away—to finally publish a figure? How many children who have been on transitional protection will lose their free school meals when they change phase of education? Will the Minister finally admit to the figure?

There is another sting in the tail today, because school budgets are going to be hit—that is how this policy is being paid for. That is because FSM is the  gateway to pupil premium funding. The pupil premium is a great achievement of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government, and it is worth £1,480 per pupil in primary schools and a bit over £1,000 in secondary schools. As a result of today’s decision, schools are going to lose that funding. With 1.2 million pupils on transitional protection, bringing with them about £1,200 each, schools are going to lose the £1.5 billion currently going to them in pupil premium funding.

Will that funding be replaced by this announcement? No, because today the Government have for the first time broken the link between FSM eligibility and pupil premium funding. On one side of the ledger, £1.5 billion has been lost, and on the other side of the ledger, schools are not getting it back. I had wondered where all the money was coming from, and now of course we know. I ask the Minister to spit it out: how much will this decision cost schools, and how much is it saving the DFE?

On a similar point, will the Minister confirm that the Government will apply the same approach to holiday activities and food, which would also not trigger an increase in that funding? Is the same also true of home-school transport, and how is this all being paid for? I think we need a little more detail.

Opposition Members have become rather cautious about positive-sounding announcements from this Government. For example, the other day Ministers were here to announce that they would continue the adoption and special guardianship support fund, but it must just have slipped their mind to mention that it was being cut by 40%. That is why we like to know the detail when we get positive announcements.

I will end by asking some questions about the facts. Will the Minister agree to publish information on how many children are currently on transitional protection and how much the end of that protection will reduce entitlement to free school meals? Will he agree to publish how much pupil premium funding schools will lose overall as a result of breaking the link between FSM and the pupil premium? Just to ask again, so that the whole House hears the answer, will he rule out abolishing EHCPs outside special schools—yes or no? \p Stephen Morgan: I cannot believe that I did not hear the Opposition spokesperson welcome our announcement. It is a shame that when the Conservatives were in government tackling child poverty was not considered a priority. I feel a little sorry for the spokesperson, who claims to care about education, given that his only policy is to give private schools a tax break. Indeed, on the Conservatives’ watch, child poverty grew to record highs and they wore the increasing numbers in child poverty as a badge of honour. Frankly, that is shameful.

This increase in free school meals is fully funded, and that is possible thanks to the difficult decisions that this Government and the Chancellor have had to take to get the economy growing and put the public finances back on a stable footing. I am excited to hear the Chancellor set out more details next week. That is despite the  mess we inherited from the Conservatives. Why has the spokesperson not taken the opportunity today to say   sorry for his Government’s shameful record on child poverty? He has nothing to say on education for our country. Unlike them, we will not sit by and watch more children fall into poverty. Unlike them, we are not offering a tax break for private schools. We are delivering positive change for our country. We are giving children back the opportunity to achieve and thrive. With this announcement, we are ensuring that every child, no matter what their background, gets the best start in life. [Interruption.] \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I call the Chair of the Education Committee. \p Helen Hayes: I warmly welcome the expansion of the free school meals entitlement. It is an evidence-based approach for which many of us have campaigned for a long time. It will help to close the disadvantage gap in our schools, tackling child poverty, benefiting children’s health and supporting children to learn.

I hope the Government will agree that every child who is eligible for this expanded entitlement should be able to receive that entitlement. Whether or not children get a free school meal to which they are entitled should not depend on somebody else making an application for them through a complicated process. The Government know which families are in receipt of universal credit, so is the Minister considering auto-enrolment for this expanded entitlement? That would be easier to achieve than auto-enrolment under the previous entitlement, and every child really should be able to benefit.

Can I seek the Minister’s assurance that this very positive announcement is not an indication that other measures to reduce child poverty, such as scrapping the two-child cap, have been taken off the table?

Finally, as a London MP and a former Southwark councillor who was very proud to be part of a council that introduced universal free school meals in 2010—we have seen the benefit of that policy, and I am proud we have a Mayor who is funding universal free school meals for all primary schoolchildren in London—can I ask for confirmation that London will also receive the funding for this expanded entitlement, so it can be put to the benefit of further reducing child poverty in London? \p Stephen Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend, the Select Committee Chair, for her constructive comments and for welcoming today’s announcement. Making all children in households claiming universal credit eligible for free school meals makes it straightforward for parents to know whether they are eligible. We are supporting that by taking forward a programme of work, including improvements to our own systems, which will make applying for free schools meals easier than it ever has been. As I mentioned in my statement, our proposals are fully funded. More broadly, we will set out more details in the forthcoming child poverty strategy around a number of the other measures she describes. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Munira Wilson: I, too, thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement.

I warmly welcome this announcement, which will make such a difference to the lives of children up and down the country. We know the impact that free school meals can have. A hot, healthy meal in the middle of the day helps children to learn, concentrate and thrive. Making sure a child does not go hungry in school can truly change their life. That is why Liberal Democrats have for so long championed free school meals. That is why we have long called on successive Governments to take this step. That is why this policy was in our election manifesto last year. I am delighted that, even though it was not in Labour’s manifesto, they are taking our idea today. The Liberal Democrats introduced universal infant free school meals when we were in government, and we are today sharing in the joy of the tireless campaigners and struggling families for whom this announcement is such as victory. For far too long, far too many children in this country have gone hungry through the school day. The previous Conservative Government ignored the advice of their own food tsar, Henry Dimbleby, and even Michael Gove, to leave children in poverty without the meals they deserve and need.

This announcement can only be the start. We need to see the policy fully funded and properly implemented. We need to see auto-enrolment, as the Chair of the Select Committee said, so that every child receives the meals they are entitled to, because thousands of eligible children currently miss out. Now we know that the Government are finally looking to the Liberal Democrats for policy ideas on tackling the cost of learning, may I urge them to look again at capping the cost of branded uniform items, not the number of branded uniform items? Lastly, if the Government are serious about tackling the scourge of child poverty, will they finally scrap the two-child benefit cap? \p Stephen Morgan: I thank the hon. Member for welcoming so positively the announcement today. She has been, like so many others in her party, a real champion on these matters. She has made clear in this place how important the policy will be to children’s wellbeing, attainment and attendance, and I of course wholeheartedly agree with her. I note her call for auto-enrolment. She made those points at various intervals during the Committee stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and I look forward to working with her to hear her views going forward. We will, of course, continue to improve ways of registering children for free school meals, as I set out earlier, and today’s announcement makes that easier for families and schools. I also pay tribute to school food campaigners, who I meet on a regular basis, for helping to get us to today’s announcement. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Lady through the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and to work constructively to improve the life chances of children and young people across our country. \p Sureena Brackenridge: In July, I came from the classroom to this Chamber. I have seen the harm that poverty does to children, particularly those from families on universal credit who were not able to claim free school meals, probably because their parents were grafting in low-paid jobs or in insecure work. Does the Minister agree that having 500,000 more children fully entitled to a nutritious school dinner will boost school attendance and help narrow the education gap that widened under the Tories? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend is a real champion for children and young people in her constituency and in this place. As she rightly says, this announcement represents a significant expansion of food support for disadvantaged pupils in schools, reaching more than half a million pupils and lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. It really demonstrates that we are a mission-driven Government. The anti-poverty and pro-learning measure that we have set out today is a downpayment on the child poverty strategy. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend as we deliver this positive change for her constituency. \p Bob Blackman: Many of the schools in my constituency have been unable to take up the offer of breakfast clubs because, frankly, they do not have the facilities—either to provide breakfast in the first place or for the children to eat in, which is a real challenge. I want to ask the Minister about one specific issue, because I am concerned that it may create a cliff edge for parents. If the parents of a child attending school qualify for universal credit but then later get jobs, or better-paid jobs, and therefore no longer qualify for universal credit, would that child then lose their eligibility for free school meals? That could create a real problem for many parents and present us with a cliff edge. I am sure that is not the Government’s intention, but we need to make the position clear. \p Stephen Morgan: The hon. Gentleman sets out the current position and what has happened in the past. What we are announcing today will lift more children out of poverty, because more children will be eligible for free school meals. He makes a number of points on breakfast clubs; obviously, we are committed to rolling out the clubs to every primary school in the country. I would be delighted to meet him to hear his particular thoughts and views on how that can make the biggest difference in his constituency. \p Emma Lewell: Hungry children do not learn, so I thank the Government for listening to those of us who have long campaigned for this announcement. This Government’s reforms are starting to put more money into people’s pockets, tackling the root causes of poverty, but they will take time to bed in—time that hungry children simply do not have. The Minister knows that poverty is all-encompassing and extends well beyond the school day. Will he give the 470,000 children affected by the cruel two-child benefit cap some hope today that the Government are seriously considering scrapping the cap, and considering scrapping it very soon? \p Stephen Morgan: As my hon. Friend knows, this Government are determined to bring down child poverty. This is a complex area that we need to get right, and it is not for me to comment on particular speculation at the moment. Extensive work is ongoing on the child poverty strategy, which will be published later this year, and an update in the House will be provided in due course. \p Lisa Smart: As a Liberal Democrat, I warmly welcome the announcement today. I stood on a manifesto that mentioned this policy at the previous four general elections, and it is good news. However, it would be the best news if the Minister could explain  more about what he means by fully funded. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where I proudly report that I am in my 19th year as a primary school governor, so I know that school budgets are stretched to the limit. Will the Minister explain what he means when he says fully funded—does that mean fully funded from existing school budgets? \p Stephen Morgan: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her time as a school governor, especially as we mark Volunteers’ Week. The work of school governors up and down the country is invaluable, and they play a particular role in supporting schools’ compliance with school food standards. We currently spend more than £1.5 billion on school food annually, delivering free school meals to around 3.5 million children. We will set out further details on the funding as part of our wider child poverty strategy in due course. \p Rachel Hopkins: I welcome this Labour Government’s announcement on expanding eligibility for free school meals to any child with a parent in receipt of universal credit. This expanded entitlement means that nearly 8,500 children in years 3 to 11 in Luton South and South Bedfordshire will be eligible for free school meals. Can the Minister confirm that this expansion will not only support children’s behaviour and attainment, but save their families up to £500 per child per year? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend is a real champion for children and young people in her constituency. She is absolutely right to set out the differences in the cost of living that this policy will make for parents; as she suggests, it will also have real benefits in behaviour, attendance and attainment, as I set out in my statement. \p Kirsty Blackman: The Minister has today made a big thing about every family in every corner of our country, and he has talked about how widespread this change will be. A small number of additional people in England will be able to get additional free school meals. I am glad that the Government have extended eligibility, but it does not have the geographical reach that he is trying to make out. Were he to remove the two-child benefit cap, that would have an effect in every part of these islands, reducing poverty in every constituency. Why is this issue being kicked into the long grass? He is making an announcement on free school meals, but the Government are refusing to make announcements on the child poverty strategy that was promised in the spring. \p Stephen Morgan: Wasn’t that a nice try, Madam Deputy Speaker? Let us be clear: we are taking urgent action in the light of the scar of poverty on our society. We have the spending review next week, and the child poverty strategy will conclude in due course. \p Kirsty Blackman: When? \p Stephen Morgan: If the hon. Lady had listened carefully to my statement, she would know that I said we will be announcing further details on the strategy later this year. \p Sharon Hodgson: I have chaired the all-party parliamentary group on school food since setting it up in 2010, so I know all too well the many benefits of free school meals, from the economic to health benefits—it is why I have campaigned for more than 18 years to extend free school meal provision. Providing more children than ever with free, healthy, hot and nutritious meals can be truly life changing. In my constituency, the provision will extend to a further 5,460 children, which is very welcome indeed, so I thank the Minister and our Government. Does the Minister agree that this down payment on the child poverty strategy is only the start of this Government’s mission to lift as many children out of poverty as possible, just as the previous Labour Government did? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend has been a real champion on school food issues ever since she was elected to this place. I had the pleasure of meeting her recently, along with campaigners she suggested I meet on these very points, so I know that her lobbying has directly influenced our outcomes today. We are making this announcement because of tough and necessary decisions that the Chancellor has had to make. It is a step in the right direction, and we will set out more detail on the child poverty strategy in due course. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I am delighted that more children will have school meals at lunch time. It is great for pupils to be well fed—as a paediatrician, I see the value of that. However, I want to ask about transitional protection and money. The transitional protection will take 1.2 million children out of this category; some may go back into it with UC. However, the robbing of the money from pupil premiums will leave schools £1.5 billion short. How does the Minister intend to replace that £1.5 billion for schools so that children can get a good education as well as school meals? \p Stephen Morgan: I thank the hon. Lady for her question—I think I have finally heard from someone who is actually delighted by today’s announcement. On transitional protections, it is worth saying that the Department will expand free school meal eligibility from September 2026 so that all children in households in receipt of universal credit can benefit from a free nutritious lunch. As a temporary measure, we will extend transitional protections, meaning that households that are on universal credit and meet the current earned income threshold of £7,400 will keep their free school meals, regardless of any change in circumstances. Following an expansion of eligibility from September next year, our intention is to end all protections. \p Adam Jogee: Tackling poverty and inequality is in our DNA, and it is why many Members on the Government Benches are in this place. I welcome this announcement, as I know the more than 3,000 children and their families who will benefit in Newcastle-under-Lyme will welcome it, too. It is good for health, good for educational attainment and, importantly, good for the futures of our young people. I very much agree with the point on auto-enrolment made by the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood  (Helen Hayes). With that in mind, I ask the Minister to speak to his officials and find some time to come and see the benefits of our commitment to tackling child poverty in Newcastle-under-Lyme for himself when this announcement is rolled out next year. \p Stephen Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am keen to ensure that we learn from the best in local government, as we have been on auto-enrolment activity especially. As I mentioned earlier, today’s announcement will make the whole process of applying for free school meals much simpler and easier for parents, but we will certainly take on board my hon. Friend’s comments. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss these issues further. \p Nusrat Ghani: After this, we have two Select Committee statements and two Backbench Business debates. If colleagues do not keep their questions short, they are just denying others the opportunity to speak. \p Claire Young: Vulnerable children spend many weeks each year—during the holidays—not at school. My own Liberal Democrat-Labour partnership local authority provides funding in the form of vouchers during the school holidays. Will the Government take this opportunity to end holiday hunger and provide funding for food during the holidays? \p Stephen Morgan: We have invested more than £200 million in the holiday activities and food programme, which supports children, offers enrichment opportunities and provides good-quality food during the Christmas, Easter and summer provision. That is a fantastic programme that I know Members across this House welcome, and a key part of our plan to ensure that every child can succeed and thrive. \p Ian Lavery: I warmly welcome this fantastic news this morning. I think the Minister mentioned that child poverty is a scourge of society, and of course it is. It is a blight on the UK that we have so many kids who do not have a full belly when they go to school. Some 6,000 children in my constituency will now benefit from this announcement. However, can the Minister confirm that this is only the first step on a long road to universal free school meals for all children in the UK? \p Stephen Morgan: Extensive work is ongoing on child poverty, and we will publish our strategy later this year. As part of that, we are considering all available levers to give every child the best start in life—whether that is on affordable housing, the cost of energy bills or supporting more parents to work. That, I think, is the change that our country needs. \p Ellie Chowns: I welcome today’s announcement. It is a small step in the right direction, but what we need is a giant leap to end child poverty. If the Minister were serious about that, he knows what he needs to do: scrap the two-child benefit cap. That would lift 400,000 children out of poverty. The Green party has long campaigned for universal free school meals. We know that the health, education and productivity benefits would more than pay for that  policy. The benefits would be £1.71 for every pound invested, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Will the Minister consider the moral and economic case for free school meals to be made universal? And, while he is at it, will he scrap the cruel two-child benefit cap? \p Stephen Morgan: As the hon. Member will have heard earlier, I will not comment on speculation. Extensive work is under way on the child poverty strategy, which will conclude later this year. I describe this not as a small step today, but as an historic moment, as we lift 100,000 children out of poverty and make sure that more children across the country can access free school meals. I am delighted that so many are welcoming our announcement today. \p Meg Hillier: With one in two children in my constituency living in poverty, we now have a downpayment with a breakfast club funded by the Government at Thomas Fairchild community school and thousands of children are benefiting. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has agreed with Henry Dimbleby, who opened the “chefs in schools” programme in Hackney, that we need to keep nutrition at the top of the list. My hon. Friend the Chair of the Education Committee highlighted that this is evidence-based policy. We know that the evidence on child poverty shows that removing the two-child limit will lift most children out of poverty. Can the Minister reassure us that he is really looking at that evidence, working with the Department for Work and Pensions, to make sure that this announcement is just the down- payment on tackling child poverty? \p Stephen Morgan: As always, my hon. Friend comes at this from a very informed position. It was a real pleasure to visit a school in Hackney recently to see at first hand the brilliant work of the “chefs in schools” programme. That is why I am so delighted to say that we will be announcing further details on our school food standard work to update that guidance in due course. She mentions breakfast clubs. We have obviously tripled funding into breakfast clubs to over £30 million in this financial year, and we are making huge progress in delivering that through our early adopter scheme. \p Victoria Collins: I welcome this announcement from the Government and celebrate the success of the Liberal Democrats, who for many years have campaigned on this policy, including my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has been so passionate about this issue. Indeed, this is a step in the right direction. My constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted is often seen as an affluent area, but there are pockets of poverty. Charities often say that it is harder in those areas, because not only are costs higher, but deprivation is hidden. Currently, the two-child benefit cap restricts universal support to two children, pushing thousands of families into poverty. Therefore, do these restrictions mean that the third and any subsequent children would not have access to free school meals, or would simply being in a household that receives universal credit be sufficient to qualify? \p Stephen Morgan: I can assure the hon. Member that it will be for all children in that household. More broadly, we are introducing breakfast clubs, which is a  universal offer in every primary school across the country. Other measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will cap the number of branded items on school uniform, which I think will make a real difference to the money going into parents’ pockets. \p Sonia Kumar: I warmly welcome this statement. In my constituency, more than a quarter of all children are living in poverty, so I know that more than 6,000 children in Dudley will now be eligible for free school meals. The extra support will go a long way towards ensuring that our children are eating healthy and nutritious meals to aid their education. Will my hon. Friend assure me that these free school meals will be low in fat, sugar and salt, in order also to help tackle rising childhood obesity? \p Stephen Morgan: If we are to get the benefits right on free school meals, we must ensure that the quality of the food is nutritious for all children. As I mentioned in my statement, this is good for attendance, good for behaviour and good for life chances. I hope my hon. Friend will contribute to the work that we will do in revising the school food standards. \p Shockat Adam: Sadly, a local survey recently found that close to 20% of children in Leicester are worried about not having enough to eat. But, paradoxically, a quarter of the population of 10 to 11-year-olds in my city are clinically obese, and close to 40% have visual signs of dental decay. I warmly welcome this announcement, but why are the Government waiting till September 2026 to make these changes? Will the Minister reassure us that this policy will be properly funded so that schools can provide nutritious and balanced meals, and not just ultra-processed food like turkey twizzlers, which have been shown, among many other things, to reduce life expectancy? \p Stephen Morgan: I can assure the hon. Member that this scheme will be fully funded. More broadly, I have set out plans for the child poverty strategy to be published later this year. The key to a mission-driven Government is to make sure that Government Departments are working together to improve life chances for children. I am delighted that we are working closely with colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care to make that happen. \p Sean Woodcock: I am absolutely delighted that this announcement will see more than 2,000 extra children qualify for free school meals in my Banbury constituency. Can the Minister explain how this announcement will improve the educational attainment and behaviour of children in my constituency? \p Stephen Morgan: I know that my hon. Friend is a real champion for children and young people from the time that I spent with him in his constituency. As he rightly says, this policy makes a real difference on attainment, behaviour and attendance. I look forward to working with him as we deliver this positive change for our country. \p Ian Sollom: I, too, welcome the adoption of a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy and the Minister’s encouragement of other Lib Dem policies in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). There has been some discussion about the pupil premium. This policy seems to break the link between free school meals and the pupil premium, so can the Minister explain to those 2.2 million pupils currently in receipt of the pupil premium what safeguards will be put in place to protect it? \p Stephen Morgan: The hon. Member will know that the pupil premium is additional funding to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils in state-funded schools in England. Pupil premium funding will rise to over £3 billion in 2025-26, an increase of almost 5% from 2024-25. We are reviewing how we allocate pupil premium and the national funding formula deprivation funding in the longer term and, while maintaining the overall amount we spend on tackling challenges faced by children with additional needs, we will provide more information on those matters in due course. \p Lauren Sullivan: Does the Minister agree that, with today’s announcement, alongside the proactive Gravesham borough council’s low-income family tracker programme, which has reached out and helped hundreds, if not thousands, of people who need it most in Gravesham, the Labour Government will lift a further 5,800 children who are eligible in Gravesham. Is this not the great, nutritious start in life that we need? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend really cares about these issues, and I thank her for raising these matters today. This is a significant first step in our ambitious strategy to tackle child poverty and its root causes and to give every child the best start in life. I commend the work that she describes; I know that it makes a real difference to areas such as her own. \p Marie Goldman: I warmly welcome this today’s announcement, which has been a Liberal Democrat policy for a very long time. It is so important to have proper nutrition for children so that they get the best possible start in life. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) about funding, the Minister said that this will come out in due course, but that it will be fully funded. Fully funded can mean that those funds come from various different places. Will the Minister rule out those funds coming from existing school budgets, and will he also rule out placing any other financial burden on to already overstretched school budgets? \p Stephen Morgan: The new entitlement is fully funded and will support schools to deliver nutritious, high-quality meals that meet school food standards to over half a million additional pupils. As I said, we will set out further details on funding as part of the child poverty strategy to be published later this year. \p Clive Efford: I notice that not one Reform MP has turned up to hear an announcement that benefits so many working-class kids. I first joined a governing body of a primary school in  my constituency in 1986 and served for 37 years. From Thatcher to Sunak, I saw what was going on in our schools, and I never saw need like that under the last Conservative Government, so this is a very welcome statement indeed. But even this measure and all the other measures that I understand the Government are considering will not result in fewer children being in poverty in 2029 than are in poverty now unless we remove the two-child benefit cap. I want to add my voice to those who have already asked the Minister to assure us that the cap is being looked at. \p Stephen Morgan: We know that too many life chances are scarred by poverty, which affects children up and down our country. Levels of poverty have increased by 900,000 since 2010. It is worth saying that this initiative is extra money above and beyond what already goes into schools. As I mentioned, the child poverty strategy will be published later this year and may conclude on the issues that my hon. Friend describes. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement. It would be churlish of anybody in this Chamber not to welcome it and say well done. It just so happens that it is this Minister and this Government who have done it so well, so I give a special thanks. I very much welcome the increase to free school meals. I read the Government’s press release this morning with some interest. My question is quite specific. In Northern Ireland, one in four children experience relative poverty, with one in five in absolute poverty and two thirds of those with only one single parent working. Our children in Northern Ireland need this help. I know that it is not this Minister’s responsibility, but do the announcement and these moneys mean that the Barnett consequentials will ensure that some of the benefit can come to Northern Ireland directly? \p Stephen Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is a real champion on these issues. He will appreciate that education is a devolved matter. The spending review next week will set out details on the Barnett consequentials. The child poverty strategy is a UK-wide document, and I know that colleagues from Northern Ireland have been feeding into that review. As he knows, I meet regularly with my counterpart in Northern Ireland on issues of importance to the UK. \p Jon Trickett: As others have, I very much welcome the announcement. For the thousands of families in my constituency with children in poverty, this is a great announcement. However, I remember the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government need to go further and faster, so I encourage the Minister when he goes back to his Department to ensure that the child poverty strategy is as radical as it can be and is adequately resourced. I ask him to return to the question of people on universal credit with children in poverty. Can we ensure that every child benefits from this announcement, because some families lack the capacity—for all sorts of reasons—to make the appropriate applications? \p Stephen Morgan: We of course want to ensure that all families that are eligible for this roll-out benefit from it. Working with other Government Departments, we want to make the process as simple as possible. We are  determined to bring down child poverty. We appreciate that the issues are complex, and we want to get this right. We will set out more details in due course. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. There are 15 colleagues remaining. If you want me to get you all in, work with me and keep your questions short please. I call Yasmin Qureshi. \p Yasmin Qureshi: This is really welcome news for families in my constituency, with up to 11,450 children now set to benefit from free school meals. I know from speaking with parents that this will make a real difference both in easing pressure at home and in helping children to focus and do well in school. Does the Minister agree that this is the kind of support that families have needed for years, and it is a clear sign that the Government are serious about tackling child poverty and giving every child a fair chance? \p Stephen Morgan: As I set out earlier, this is an intervention that is at once pro-learning and anti-poverty. We want to see high and rising standards in all our schools. Excellence should be for everyone. In complete contrast, the Opposition—their Members are not here now; I do not know where they have gone—want to see tax breaks for some schools for some children. The contrast has never been starker. \p Paul Waugh: As someone who grew up on free school meals in Rochdale, I know what a massive difference today’s announcement will make to more than 8,000 of my constituents. One of my constituents, Laura Popham, is a single mum who is in work and was previously ineligible for the free school meals benefit. Today she sent me an email saying,

“This is exactly what I was hoping for. I am over the moon. I want to shout from the rooftops how happy I am. Only Labour would have done this.”

Does the Minister agree that this is exactly the kind of change that people voted for last year? \p Stephen Morgan: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is the difference that a Labour MP and a Labour Government can make. I pay tribute to Laura for raising these issues with us. Through constituents’ lobbying and by hearing their concerns, we are delivering positive change for our country. \p Chris Webb: I applaud the Government’s decision to extend free school meals to children across the country. This initiative is a vital step in supporting families in need and will undoubtedly benefit many children across Blackpool, which the Minister will know, as he joined me in visiting primary schools last year. Many, including the Jamie Oliver Food Foundation, have called for accelerated efforts to ensure that every child has access to nutritious meals irrespective of their background. Does the Minister agree that it is imperative that we unite in our efforts to guarantee that every child in Blackpool and across the country has the best possible start in life, with access to healthy food, quality education and opportunities for success? \p Stephen Morgan: It was a pleasure to visit primary schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I know that he cares deeply about tackling child poverty. That  is why I am delighted that we are taking this intervention to lift over 100,000 children out of poverty. He makes a number of points regarding good-quality nutritious food, and I hope he will work with us as we set out plans to make changes in this area in due course. \p Jacob Collier: In my constituency 5,730 children will benefit from this announcement. It means a hot meal every day and real, practical support for families who are struggling with the cost of living crisis. Does the Minister agree that while we expect the Conservative party to block this support, as they have for many years, Reform MPs could not even be bothered to turn up today? They talk about supporting families, but they are nowhere to be seen when it matters. \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this is the stark choice that people voted for at the last election, and I am really proud that we are getting on with delivering the change that our country so desperately needs. \p Leigh Ingham: I welcome this announcement from the Government. In Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, it means a massive 47% increase in eligibility for free school meals, but the work will not be done until all children who are eligible for free school meals are able to access them, and I have asked my local council leader to do everything they can to ensure that. I know that the Government are considering this, but does the Minister agree that councils need to be doing everything they can to ensure that all children who are eligible are able to access their free school meals? \p Stephen Morgan: I know from my hon. Friend’s previous contributions in the House that she is a real champion on these issues. Making all children in households claiming universal credit eligible for free school meals makes it straightforward for parents to know whether they are eligible. We are supporting this by taking forward a programme of work, including improvements to our own systems, and we are working across Government to make that happen. \p Christopher Bloore: As a Member of Parliament, I am always delighted to come to work to talk about policies such as this, which will lift 100,000 children out of poverty and give 4,500 children in my constituency access to free school meals. As a parent, I know how much of a difference this will make to the lives of parents in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that policies that give any child, wherever they are born and whatever their background, the chance to fulfil their potential are exactly what a Labour Government should be doing? \p Stephen Morgan: I agree with my hon. Friend; we want to ensure that every child—whatever their background, wherever they are from—can succeed and thrive. This policy is an important step in making that happen by lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. \p Ben Goldsborough: Up to 3,130 children in South Norfolk will benefit from this measure, and two of my primary schools are among the 750 in  the forerunner programme for breakfast clubs. As the Minister is on such a roll in South Norfolk, will he help me fix the two schools—Brooke primary and Wreningham —that are currently in portacabins? \p Stephen Morgan: I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those matters further. \p Lola McEvoy: In Darlington, I met a lovely mother who had recently gone back to work as a school dinner support worker. She was taking part-time, low-paid work, and her children consequently lost eligibility for free school meals, so she was worse off. I promised her that only Labour would be on the side of low-paid working families. Will the Minister join me in saying to that lady, “Promise made, promise delivered”? \p Stephen Morgan: That is absolutely right: promise made, promise delivered. I am so delighted that my hon. Friend has been raising these issues with us and that we are now getting on and delivering on them. \p Jessica Toale: Almost one in three children in my constituency live in poverty, and I know that going to school hungry is one of the biggest barriers to thriving not only in childhood but into adulthood, so I welcome the statement. Will the Minister confirm that this measure, along with free breakfast clubs and cutting the cost of school uniforms, will not only benefit family finances but improve school attainment, behaviour and learning outcomes? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend is right to raise the benefits that this measure will bring on attendance, attainment and behaviour. I know that she is a real champion on these issues and that she will be really excited about ensuring that this happens across her constituency as quickly as possible. \p Pam Cox: In Colchester, this measure will benefit over 5,000 children, so it is wonderful news from a Government who are indeed determined to tackle child poverty. Would the Minister like to make a return visit to Colchester, this time to visit not a pioneering pre-school but a pioneering primary school—Unity primary academy in Greenstead—which has just opened a community kitchen that creates an amazing food culture for local families? \p Nusrat Ghani: As the Minister is on a tour, I assume that he will be coming to Sussex Weald shortly. \p Stephen Morgan: I am not sure whether my office will be happy about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am sure we can make it happen. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I also want to pay tribute to school support staff and teachers who do so much to ensure that children across our country can achieve and thrive. They will know that this Labour Government have their back. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: In one fell swoop, this measure will take 100,000 children out of poverty. In my constituency, 2,500 children will benefit. Fighting poverty is in the Labour party’s DNA, but with over 4.5 million children left in poverty by the  Conservative party, which has not turned up for the statement, will the Minister please assure me that we will not stop there and that there will be meaningful change through the child poverty strategy this autumn? \p Stephen Morgan: I assure my hon. Friend that we will publish an ambitious child poverty strategy later this year to ensure that we deliver fully funded measures that make a big difference to children’s lives. \p Andrew Cooper: This announcement to extend free school meals will be hugely welcome news to the families of the 4,300 children in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich that are in receipt of universal credit. There is a wealth of evidence that good nutrition at school has a significant impact on educational attainment, health and wellbeing and long-term earnings potential. If we are serious about bearing down on the rising levels of child poverty, which are now just short of 30% in my constituency, that starts with measures such as this, which I am sure will be the first of many. Does the Minister agree that this change in eligibility presents an opportunity at a national level to improve data sharing with local authorities so that we can finally facilitate auto-enrolment and ensure that the maximum number of families benefit from this policy? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend is right to raise the difference that a Labour Government make and the scar of child poverty on our society. I assure him that we are working across the Department to deliver what he described. \p Mark Ferguson: This change will make a difference to the lives of thousands of children in my Gateshead constituency, and may I say it would have been hugely welcomed by my grandmother who was a Gateshead dinner lady? Does the Minister agree that through 30 hours of free childcare, a limit on the number of branded school items, free breakfast clubs and lifting 100,000 children out of poverty, Labour is the party for children and families? \p Stephen Morgan: We said that we would be a child-centred Government, and that is what we are delivering. The announcement is testament to that. \p Jo Platt: I whole- heartedly thank the Minister for this much-needed announcement. Up to 5,600 children in my constituency will no doubt be grateful for the relief it brings to their families in easing the financial pressures that many face. Will the Minister confirm that this is just the first step in a wider strategy to tackle child poverty and that areas like Leigh and Atherton will be central to that effort? \p Stephen Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that one reason she is in the House is to tackle deprivation and poverty across the country and in her own constituency. I assure her that we are determined to break down barriers to opportunity and to start to bring down child poverty levels in our society. \p Andrew Pakes: As the proud son of a dinner lady, I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Employment  at his side, who is a tribune in the Government and the House against child poverty. With nearly one in two children in my constituency in poverty—a stain left by the last Government—this will be a welcome policy. Up to 16,000 pupils will be eligible for free school meals across Peterborough because of this policy, but that is just the start. What more can the Minister do to keep a razor-sharp focus on driving down poverty and driving up opportunities for young people in my city? \p Stephen Morgan: This, of course, is the latest step in our plan for change to put extra pounds in parents’ pockets. It is a down payment on the child poverty strategy, as I mentioned earlier, building on our expansion of free breakfast clubs, our national minimum wage boost and our cap on universal credit deductions through the fair repayment rate. Those are real measures that will make a real difference to people’s lives. \p Samantha Niblett: I welcome wholeheartedly the announcement, not least because it means that almost 4,000 children in my constituency will benefit from free, healthy school meals, saving parents almost £500 a year. That is in addition to the breakfast clubs, of which we have two on the early adopter scheme. Does the Minister agree that as grateful as we are to wonderful people including the bean man, who can often be seen in Willington, Repton and surrounding areas collecting food for food banks, this is a step towards lifting people out of poverty so that we will no longer need food banks? \p Stephen Morgan: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I know that she will want to feed into the child poverty strategy to ensure that it is ambitious, but I assure her that that is our intention. \p Nusrat Ghani: I see that two Joshes remain. \p Josh Dean: Today, I am thinking of the teacher from my constituency who told me that they had to keep cereal bars in their office for children who came to school hungry. That is the legacy of the Conservative party, and I am not surprised that Conservative Members have not turned up to face the music. Research shows that people living with mental health conditions are twice as likely to be living in food-insecure households. Does the Minister agree that this announcement will make a huge change to our young people’s mental health, and that that is exactly what people voted for when they voted Labour? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend is right to set out that mental health can be a barrier to every child having the opportunity to succeed and thrive. He will know that we are investing in mental health support teams in every school across the country as well as recruiting 8,500 mental health professionals and introducing young futures hubs in communities. I know that he will welcome those wider plans for our country and will ensure that they are rolled out effectively in his constituency. \p Josh Newbury: I welcome the announcement, which will help more than 4,000 working-class children in my community. The Minister rightly emphasised that the expansion of free school meals is  both pro-learning and anti-poverty, and we know that the appalling cost of living crisis, which the previous Government left behind, means that so many children are coming into school hungry and not in the best position to learn. Will he set out what else the Government are doing to tackle the poverty that is holding back so many children? \p Stephen Morgan: My hon. Friend will know that we are already committed to rolling out breakfast clubs in every primary school. We want to ensure that there is more money in parents’ pockets through our childcare entitlement roll-out. More broadly, the child poverty strategy will be ambitious on improving outcomes and life chances for every young person. \p Nusrat Ghani: I am personally delighted and looking forward to hosting the Minister in my constituency. \p UNKNOWN: Select Committee statement \p Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Justice Committee. Andy Slaughter will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions and not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in the questioning. \p Andrew Slaughter: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this statement.

I rise to make a statement on the third report of the Justice Committee, which is titled “Leadership of the Criminal Cases Review Commission”. I first want to place on the record my thanks to the Committee secretariat for their work in preparing the report and to the members of the Committee. Even though I thank all my colleagues, I will particularly mention the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for her thorough questioning of witnesses at our evidence session.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission is an independent body with statutory responsibility for investigating alleged miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has the power to refer a case back to an appeal court if it considers that there is a real possibility that the court will quash the conviction or reduce the sentence in that case. The CCRC is a hugely important organisation, and it is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system that it works effectively. Our report found that that was not currently the case.

On 14 January 2025, the chair of the CCRC, Helen Pitcher, resigned following the decision of an independent panel convened by the Lord Chancellor, which concluded by a majority that she should no longer head the organisation. The panel found that the chair had failed to restore confidence in the CCRC in the aftermath of Andrew Malkinson’s acquittal by the Court of Appeal in July 2023. The panel also found that she had not sufficiently challenged the performance of the chief executive of the CCRC, Karen Kneller.

On 29 April 2025, the Committee held an evidence session with Karen Kneller and Amanda Pearce, casework operations director at the CCRC. Both are very long-serving senior managers. The Committee asked the witnesses about Chris Henley KC’s independent review of their handling of the Andrew Malkinson case, their leadership of the CCRC and the CCRC’s remote working policies. Before and after the session on 29 April, the Committee received a significant amount of information from individuals who have worked with and for the CCRC, from casework managers to commissioners. The evidence presented to the Committee indicated that, in an echo  of Mr Malkinson’s own words, a root-and-branch review of how the CCRC operates is urgently needed. We intend our findings to inform that work.

Since our report was published on 23 May, Dame Vera Baird KC has been appointed as interim chair of the CCRC. I welcome the appointment of such an experienced and respected figure who has the skills and robustness to reform an organisation that has lost its way so fundamentally. I also welcome that, at the Committee’s request, the chair of the CCRC has been added to the list of roles for which the Justice Committee conducts pre-appointment scrutiny.

The cases of Andrew Malkinson, who was imprisoned for almost 20 years for a crime he did not commit, and Peter Sullivan, who spent 38 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, underline the importance of the CCRC’s role. Both Mr Malkinson and Mr Sullivan made applications to the CCRC, which were rejected. The failings in the Malkinson case have been made abundantly clear by Chris Henley KC’s review. Our report does not rehearse the facts of that case; rather, it addresses the way the CCRC conducted itself in response.

I want to highlight two key points in relation to the Henley report: the insufficiency of the CCRC’s apology to Mr Malkinson and the delays in the publication of the report. It should not have taken an independent review for the CCRC to apologise to Andrew Malkinson. The public statements of the then chair, Helen Pitcher, after Andrew Malkinson’s acquittal were woefully inadequate and showed a worrying lack of understanding of the potential damage to the CCRC’s reputation and public confidence that would almost inevitably arise from a failure to admit its mistakes and apologise. By failing to offer a timely apology, the leadership of the CCRC caused significant damage to the organisation’s reputation. The CCRC’s statements gave the impression that the organisation and its leadership were more concerned with defending their own reputation than offering an honest assessment of how they had failed Andrew Malkinson.

The Committee was unpersuaded by the justifications given by Karen Kneller for the delays in the publication of the Henley report. The report was provided to the CCRC in January 2024, but not published until July 2024. Among the reasons for the delay in publication given to us by Ms Kneller on 29 April was that the report was a draft that contained typographical errors that needed correcting. In an exchange of letters with the Committee, Chris Henley KC told us that his report had not contained typographical errors, but that the CCRC had instead asked him to make substantive changes to its wording, and he provided us with evidence of that.

We also found it was inappropriate for the CCRC to suggest to Chris Henley KC that his report should not draw broader conclusions on the CCRC as an organisation based on his analysis of their handling of Andrew Malkinson’s case. The CCRC’s leadership should have accepted the gravity of the failings in the handling of the case and their wider implications. We were further unpersuaded by Karen Kneller and Amanda Pearce’s explanation that publication of the Henley report was not possible because of the proximity of the general election.

When Karen Kneller and Amanda Pearce appeared before us on 29 April, we provided them with an opportunity to respond to public criticisms of the  leadership’s recent performance. The answers provided to the Committee did not inspire confidence; on the contrary, the partial nature of their answers led Chris Henley KC and Chris Webb—a crisis communications consultant employed by the CCRC to advise on the Henley report and the response to it—to write to us to correct points made by Karen Kneller on 29 April. Both Chris Henley and Chris Webb made allegations that Ms Kneller had misled the Committee. In the spirit of fairness, the Committee offered Karen Kneller the opportunity to respond directly in writing to those allegations and incorporated her responses into our report.

The allegations made by Chris Henley and Chris Webb served to reinforce the sense that the leadership of the CCRC had continually failed to learn from its mistakes and confront its failings with the seriousness required. As a result of our concerns regarding the performance of the CCRC and the unpersuasive evidence Karen Kneller provided to the Committee, the Committee concluded it was no longer tenable for her to continue as chief executive of the CCRC.

The conclusions the Committee reached were far broader than just those relating to the chief executive and to the organisation as a whole. Commissioners form the body corporate of the organisation and make the key decisions with regard to the CCRC’s work, and we were alarmed that the CCRC had operated without a full quota of commissioners since 2023. We were also disappointed that the terms of commissioner recruitment only require commissioners to work 52 days per year. The responsibility for the lack of commissioner recruitment in recent years is an issue for both the Ministry of Justice and the CCRC. We made recommendations that the incoming interim chair’s review of the organisation should consider whether the terms of appointment for commissioners, the corporate structure of the CCRC and the commission’s relationship with the MOJ are currently appropriate to ensure that the CCRC has the resources it needs to operate effectively. I understand that the terms of reference of that review will be published shortly.

During the pandemic, the CCRC moved to remote-first as a means of operation, which it has retained. That is out of step with the rest of the public sector and seems unsuited to the nature of the commission’s work. We were particularly shocked that both Ms Kneller and Ms Pearce, the senior leadership of the organisation, only attend the office once or twice every few months. We recommended that senior leadership should have a regular presence in the office, particularly in the light of recent events and the high-profile criticism directed at the commission.

Exclusively remote working is not suited to a body that relies on investigation and challenge to correct miscarriages of justice. The CCRC is a hugely important organisation and the senior leadership could have done much more in their evidence to reassure us that they understood the seriousness of the criticisms it has faced, and the need for an overhaul of the organisation to rebuild public trust and provide applicants to the CCRC with the justice they deserve.

For an organisation that is designed to identify failures within the criminal justice system, the CCRC’s leadership has shown a remarkable inability to learn from its own  mistakes. The new interim chair, Dame Vera Baird KC, will now conduct a review of the CCRC, and it is already clear from her public statements that she is across the scale and complexity of the task that she has been set, including the issues raised in our report. There is a real prospect of changes being made at CCRC, and I am hopeful that that will lead to better outcomes for those who have been victims of miscarriages of justice. \p Clive Efford: I very much welcome the appointment of Dame Vera Baird. However, the culture that has built up at the CCRC around the remote-first policy seems to have led to very lax working practices. After she has finished in the role of interim chair, what is the future for scrutinising the CCRC so that it does not fall back into that sort of lax behaviour? \p Andrew Slaughter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because although that is a management point, it is a substantive one because the work done by caseworkers within the CCRC requires investigation and is sensitive, and they have to be robust and thorough in what they do. The collegiate experience that people get from working in an office together is essential to that. Similar bodies would expend at least 60% of their time in the office. Those are the sort of criteria I would expect to be addressed in Dame Vera Baird’s review so we can go forward with an organisation that is fit for purpose. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his presentation. In his introduction, he referred to the input from Northern Ireland. Did that involve the policing and justice Minister and all the major political parties to ensure that we have a collective point of view on the delivery of the recommendations? \p Andrew Slaughter: I am grateful, as always, to the hon. Gentleman for his question. All I can say today is that the CCRC covers Northern Ireland and that any recommendations that come from Dame Vera Baird’s review must also affect the other jurisdictions in which the CCRC has a role. Clearly, most of the points that we dealt with in what was a relatively short inquiry related to England and Wales, but I will ensure that Northern Ireland is not forgotten going forward. \p Barry Gardiner: I welcome the statement from the Chair of the Select Committee and the appointment of Dame Vera Baird as the interim chair. Does my hon. Friend share a certain incredulity that the Ministry of Justice took three years to resolve the fee that would be paid to commissioners, and that the recruitment exercise appears to be taking 18 months to resolve? What is going on there? Does he believe that the terms of appointment for commissioners should be reviewed to ensure that they can play a greater role in the day-to-day running of the CCRC? \p Andrew Slaughter: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I see that the Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), is in her place and she was no doubt listening, because there are some quite trenchant criticisms of the Ministry of Justice, as well as of the CCRC itself, in the report—in particular, the feeling that both organisations have taken their eye off the ball on overall governance. When the CCRC was set up, commissioners were in full-time, salaried positions and had a substantial role in the running of the organisation. They now work remotely part time and on a fee-paid basis.

My hon. Friend praised Dame Vera Baird, and I would like to add that this is a difficult job, which may be why the review is taking so long and why it took so long to appoint her. The role needs someone with both an eye for detail and the gravitas to do it. I am confident that she has that, but to leave the organisation in a fit state, she will need to do something fundamental about its governance, and the commissioners will be central to that. \p Pam Cox: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his remarks. As a member of the Committee, I can attest to our dismay at what we heard in those hearings. I ask the Chair to encourage Dame Vera Baird to take a robust approach to her review of the leadership of such an important public body. \p Andrew Slaughter: I thank my hon. Friend, who is an assiduous and very qualified member of the Committee, and often puts me to shame in relation to my knowledge of matters. Anybody who listened to Dame Vera’s interview on the “Today” programme this week, in which she addressed several times the report and these findings, as well as three other reports that there have been over the past 10 years, will be under no illusion about whether she understands the scale of the task she faces and has the skills to tackle it. \p UNKNOWN: Select Committee statement \p Nusrat Ghani: We now come to the second Select Committee statement on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee. Mr Toby Perkins will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions and not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning. \p Toby Perkins: I am pleased to present to the House the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on “Governing the marine environment”. Ahead of World Ocean Day and the United Nations ocean conference next week, there is an opportunity for the Government to send a clear signal that the UK is serious about protecting our marine environment. That is why the Committee worked hard to publish our report in a timely manner to advance that effort.

I am grateful to all members of the Committee for their contributions. This is the first inquiry that has been initiated and completed by this Committee, and it has been a pleasure to conduct the inquiry together. I wish to record my, and the whole Committee’s, huge gratitude to the staff of the Environmental Audit Committee, in particular Dr Misha Patel, who worked tirelessly and swiftly to produce the report.

The Committee initiated the inquiry due to the critical importance of, and risks to, our marine environment. Oceans regulate the Earth’s temperature, absorb carbon dioxide, produce oxygen, support biodiversity, underpin diverse industries and offer significant cultural, heritage and recreational value. At the same time, they are under immense pressure from a variety of activities, and those activities are governed by a complex and fragmented regime of regulation and policy. The Committee heard that this lack of joined-up governance and effective stakeholder engagement risks the unsustainable management and potential depletion of critical marine resources. In fact, UK waters are already failing assessments of their environmental health, leading the Office for Environmental Protection to investigate a suspected failure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take the necessary measures to achieve “good environmental status” of marine waters.

It was a great pleasure and honour for many Members of Parliament to watch the film “Ocean” in the company of Sir David Attenborough yesterday. We heard the Prime Minister, in his warm embrace of Sir David, assert that his Government would take nature seriously, echoing the importance of action on oceans ahead of next week’s conference. The Committee is in excited anticipation of the announcements that the Government will make ahead of next week’s conference.

Turning to the report’s findings in more detail, I wish to highlight four topics on which the Committee heard detailed evidence and has made recommendations to the Government. The first is on bottom trawling. While  marine protected areas cover nearly 900,000 square kilometres of English waters, activities that harm marine life are still allowed in lots of those areas. The film “Ocean” I referred to clearly showed the devastation of the seabed caused by bottom trawling. Extractive and damaging practices undermine the very objectives that MPAs were established to address. While the Government have indicated that they are committed to not having bottom trawling in areas that damage MPAs, they have not yet set out a timeline for implementing the change. Every day we wait, further damage is done to the seabed and crucial ocean ecosystems. The Committee concluded that damaging practices, such as bottom trawling, dredging and mining aggregates, should be banned in offshore protected areas.

Beyond protected areas at sea, the Committee heard that the overarching vision for how our oceans are used and managed is outdated and does not reflect the current or evolving pressures on the marine environment. The current marine policy statement published in 2011, for example, seeks to maximise the production of oil and gas. That is clearly not the current Government’s policy, but it is according to the MPS. The Committee recommends that the Government bring forward a long overdue review of the marine policy statement to update it to ensure that it reflects current Government policy and sets out how decisions will be made to balance marine exploitation and marine protection.

On marine spatial planning, the Committee heard that the marine spatial prioritisation programme should be key in guiding marine governance and spatial planning of activities at sea, such as protected areas, renewables development and fishing. However, it remains unclear what outcomes are expected and what has been delivered by the programme to date. We urge the Government to clarify the scope, objectives and outputs of the marine spatial prioritisation programme to ensure that it effectively implements the Government’s vision for the sustainable use of the marine environment. Changes in marine spatial planning will have real impacts on those who rely on the sea for their livelihoods. The Government must ensure that traditional marine sectors are supported through these changes to retain their expertise and support sustainable practices.

Finally, the Committee heard that despite signing the UN high seas treaty in September 2023, the UK has so far failed to ratify it. This crucial treaty would protect marine life in the high seas by establishing protected areas in international waters. Until the treaty is ratified by 60 nations, it will not come into force. We urge the Government to set a clear timeline for introducing the required legislation for ratifying the treaty before September 2025, which will mark two years since the UK signed it. This would send a clear signal that global marine protection is a priority for the Government, and it would take the UK and the world one step closer to real protection for marine life in the high seas.

In our hearings, Ministers confirmed that it remains Government policy to ratify the treaty but explained that not enough time had been found in the parliamentary schedule for legislation. It is crucial, both for the UK’s contribution and for the treaty to come into force, that it is ratified. We call on the Government to bring that forward now.

While the urgency of the situation for the marine environment is clear, there is an opportunity to turn things around. The evidence is indisputable, and the  Government have a number of policy tools and options at their disposal. It is time to act to protect the marine environment. Ahead of the UN ocean conference next week, I look forward to hearing from the Minister the Government’s plans to safeguard our oceans for the future. \p Neil Hudson: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement, and I congratulate the Environmental Audit Committee for its excellent and thoughtful report on governing the marine environment. A key component in that is marine conservation and protection, including the myriad species living in that environment, such as cetaceans.

There is no humane way to kill a whale, and sadly the barbaric practice of hunting and killing whales and dolphins still continues. Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that the United Kingdom can play a pivotal role in ending this practice with its global soft power, and in treaty negotiations, trade deals and fisheries negotiations, by putting pressure on countries like Japan, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands to stop this horrific practice in our seas and oceans once and for all? \p Toby Perkins: The shadow Minister makes an important point. I know that the previous Government wrestled with this, and the current Government will too. It was not featured in our report, but I know my Front-Bench colleagues will listen and take it seriously. I thank him for raising that point. \p Olivia Blake: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement. It has been a privilege to be involved in the Committee’s work on this report. Does he agree that next week’s UN ocean conference offers the Government a unique opportunity to take a global lead on banning destructive practices such as bottom trawling in marine protected areas, as our report recommends? \p Toby Perkins: I thank my hon. Friend and Committee colleague for her contribution. I absolutely agree. The warm words we heard from the Prime Minister yesterday were incredibly encouraging, but we need to see them backed up with real action. I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say at the conference.

It is important that we negotiate strongly overseas, but we must also get our own act in order in this country. It would be a valuable signal ahead of the ocean conference if the Government committed to what we signed up to in opposition, and in our manifesto, and banned bottom trawling in marine protected areas. \p Ellie Chowns: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement. It is a privilege to serve on the Environmental Audit Committee.

While the UK Government have committed to not allowing any new oil and gas licences—I would like to see them go further—the marine spatial plan still says that we should maximise production of oil and gas. Is that not outrageously out of date, and is it not urgent that the Government update the strategy so that we have joined-up policy to tackle the climate crisis? \p Toby Perkins: I absolutely agree. We know that that is not the Government’s policy, but according to the MPS it is. That demonstrates the urgency of updating the plan, which goes back to 2011. It was updated after Brexit, but it clearly bears no relationship to the Government’s current policies. We expect those who use the sea in different ways to listen to the plan, so it is important that the plan reflects current policy. That is an important recommendation we made in our report, and I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. \p Barry Gardiner: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for how he has conducted this inquiry and presented the report to the House. I also thank the Clerks and officials who prepared the report under considerable stress—we are very grateful for their work.

I ask my hon. Friend to reflect further on the situation with the BBNJ treaty. I spoke this morning to the Journal Office, the House of Commons Library specialist and the Clerk of the House, and it has become clear that the BBNJ treaty was in fact laid on the Table of the House on 16 October 2023, and its 21-day sitting period has therefore long since passed without objection.

It appears that the Government are misleading themselves by saying that they have to pass the implementing primary legislation before they can ratify it and table the instrument of ratification at the United Nations ocean conference next week. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that ratification by 60 states is vital—we are two short at the moment, as I understand it—it is important that there is no statutory objection to our tabling the instrument next week, and that we should get on and do it? \p Toby Perkins: I certainly think we should get on and do it. My hon. Friend raises an important point about whether primary legislation is needed. It is clear that the Government believe it is, and the evidence our Committee heard is that the Government are trying to find time for that. My hon. Friend makes an innovative suggestion, and I am sure the Government will listen. I think there is agreement across the House that this is important. It was the policy of the previous Government, but it was never brought forward; it is the policy of this Government, and it has never been brought forward. I think we would all agree that it is tremendously important for ratification to take place. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee for introducing the report and for mentioning bottom trawling. My understanding from speaking to the fish producers’ organisations in my constituency and across Northern Ireland is that they are committed to the vision of stopping bottom trawling, and I think the feeling is the same across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If our fishermen and fisherwomen have the vision to stop bottom trawling, what is being done to ensure that other European countries have the same vision? \p Toby Perkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point and for his attention to these matters. The Committee looked in detail at bottom trawling, and we heard from a number of experts. It is also important to say that there is a devolved element. We considered the  question of whether the Government’s plan should impose highly protected marine areas on devolved jurisdictions. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need consistency on this across the UK, and that we must insist on the same from nations across Europe and the rest of the world. \p Clive Efford: David Attenborough has said that we know more about the surface of the moon than we know about the bottom of our oceans and the ecosystems that exist down there. It is disturbing that Donald Trump—who else?—has signed a directive allowing deep-sea mining. Can this issue be taken up at next week’s conference to try to secure co-operation on studying the bottom of our oceans and understanding the ecosystems before we do permanent damage that we might regret? \p Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend characteristically makes an important point. I am sure the Minister heard and will consider it. We commented on deep-sea mining in marine protected areas in our report. The film “Ocean” demonstrated how much we are already starting to learn, and the vastness of our knowledge gap in this area. My hon. Friend is right that we must continue to invest. The report talks about making sure that we have better data and information, and making sure that, on a global basis, we do not allow further degradation of this crucial ecosystem. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Liz Kendall, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary John Healy, Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Secretary Peter Kyle, Jim McMahon, Ellie Reeves, Georgia Gould, Al Carns and Mary Creagh presented a Bill to make provision about pension schemes; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 9 June, and to be printed (Bill 255), with explanatory notes (Bill 255-EN). \p Ian Lavery: I beg to move,

That this House recognises the importance of banking facilities to local communities and expresses concern over the precipitous decline over the past 40 years; notes the change to banking habits through online services; further recognises that, for vulnerable people, face-to-face banking is a vital service and a reduction of branches risks significant financial exclusion; further notes the impact of a loss of physical banking on small businesses through lost productivity and lost footfall; also notes the innovative nature of banking hubs as a solution to a loss of high street banking, but recognises that Financial Conduct Authority rules for their recommendation are too inflexible; and calls on the Government to instigate a review into the impact on communities of bank branch loss and a change to the regulations to ensure communities have appropriate access to banking facilities.

On 26 February, I held a debate in Westminster Hall on high street banking and bank closures. Despite the fact that it was only a 30-minute debate, it was incredibly well attended. Such was the demand for a debate on the issues facing almost every community and constituency that, at its conclusion, I was urged to apply for a Backbench Business debate—so here we are this afternoon. I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee for granting such an important debate and to all the Members across the House who co-signed my application, in particular the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who co-sponsored it.

This debate, like the previous one, is timely. There has been a precipitous decline in banking provision in the UK over a period of four decades. It has been partially driven by the rapid advances in technology, which have seen a huge uptake of internet banking, but we should not kid ourselves—it has also been driven by a desire from banks still raking in enormous profits to centralise and cut costs, with no regard for the communities they purport to serve.

Communities are being sacrificed at the altar of greed, at the behest of banks that no longer see the services they provide as profitable, and as is so often the case, the elderly, the disabled and the poor, who either cannot cope with computers or cannot afford expensive broadband, are the ones who have been hit the hardest. Moreover, the closures have further eroded local economies, with fewer visits to the high street being made and local businesses having additional costs linked to such practicalities as making cash deposits. \p David Burton-Sampson: My hon. Friend mentioned the issues caused for businesses. There are also significant issues for charities. In my constituency, many local charities and community groups receive cash donations and struggle to find a place to bank them. Does he agree that this is an issue for charities, just as much as it is for local businesses? \p Ian Lavery: That is a very valid point. My hon. Friend is right: when we look at who suffers as a consequence of these decisions, charities are way up there.

The regulatory framework in place to protect communities has found itself totally lacking, and that has been the case for some time. That is the reason for this debate. My predecessor for the old Wansbeck seat, Denis Murphy, campaigned vigorously alongside local people against the closure of bank branches in both Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and Guide Post, but despite overwhelming public support, the banks closed regardless. Both those communities have been without their own banks for more than 25 years. Since 2013, the Financial Conduct Authority has been tasked with regulating banking services, including branch closures. \p Andrew Slaughter: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. Last month, the well-used Chiswick post office in my constituency closed without notice. I met Post Office Ltd yesterday, and it assured me that a service would be restored shortly. Does he agree that this volatility and uncertainty in the market is damaging to both local communities and the reputation of financial institutions? \p Ian Lavery: That is massively important. People are told that they can rely on post offices to replace the banks. The vast majority of post offices in our communities are now run by a single person and are not making a profit. They can easily just withdraw the services—it does happen, and it has happened lots of times in my career—leaving the communities without anything whatsoever. That is a really important point, which I will probably touch on later.

In my experience of dealing with branch closures in my constituency, the FCA’s powers to force the banking industry to rectify the consequential difficulties are totally and utterly inadequate. \p Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. The fact that there are so many Members in the House this afternoon underlines that this is a very big problem that crosses party political boundaries and all kinds of constituencies. Harwich, Brightlingsea, Manningtree and other places in my constituency are losing their banking facilities. The Government are spending money on trying to revive Harwich high street, but neither the previous Government nor this Government have done anything to secure the banking facilities that are the lifeblood of a high street. I really welcome this debate. I am not sure that post offices are the answer. I think we need to make sure there is a proper bank on every high street. \p Ian Lavery: I do agree with that. These problems are happening across communities, regardless of whether we are red, blue, green or yellow—it is happening on every high street. Many of them have lost their banks—they are gone—and it cannot be allowed to continue.

Under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the FCA can require banks to consult interested parties to consider the effects of closures and can ask the private sector cash machine operator Link to assess the consequences of closures and to recommend where alternatives such as shared banking hub facilities should be created to fill the gaps. \p Helen Hayes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He mentioned that this problem is happening in every high street across the country, and that is certainly the case in my constituency, where we have seen the almost wholesale withdrawal of banks in West Norwood, Dulwich and Brixton—across the piece, they are closing. Where they close, the banks often say, “We’ll make our services available in a banking hub in the local library,” for example. The service is then poorly advertised and publicised and is not particularly convenient. The banks come along a few months later and say, “We’re closing it because of a lack of demand.” Does he agree that the banks are taking a cynical approach and are failing to provide an adequate service to our constituents? \p Ian Lavery: Of course it is a cynical approach. The banks do not want to be on the high street. They do not want to be supporting local communities—the very same communities that have supported the banks through the darkest of times. That is the reality, and that is why this debate is so important. We need more regulation to support people in their communities. \p Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. When the last bank in town closes in communities such as Tenbury Wells and Pershore, it is a cumbersome process for them to qualify for a banking hub. He mentioned the role of the regulator. Does he agree that when the last bank in town closes, a banking hub ought to be provided automatically? \p Ian Lavery: There is definitely room for discussion in that respect. We have got to make sure that people have financial services on the high street. It is pretty simple.

Link assesses the consequences of bank closures, but its objectives are directed by the FCA requirements, and basically, it can only assess a community based on access to cash—nothing else. No other social discussions take place; it is just based on access to cash. \p Clive Efford: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In Eltham, our last bank has closed, but because we still have a Nationwide in the town centre, the banks will not consider the option of a banking hub. That needs to change. Does he agree that we need a review of the criteria, so that we can have a chance of getting the banks at least to co-operate in a banking hub? They should not rely on Nationwide. \p Ian Lavery: I of course agree: the criteria laid down by the Government, the banks, the FCA and Link need to be utterly overhauled to represent people in our communities. I will come on to some of the points that my hon. Friend raises. \p Alison Griffiths: All of us in this House share the concern that the disabled and the vulnerable are losing access not just to cash, but to services. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is high time we asked the Government to ensure that the FCA reviews its guidelines on this? \p Ian Lavery: My ask will be a bit stronger than that. I might get my backside kicked, but hey, it will not be the first time. I will ask the Government to insist on legislation that changes the structures to what we are all crying out for. It will not cost the Government a ha’penny to provide services to the people who actually need them. \p Greg Smith: The number of banks that have left my constituency has driven me mad: in the 336 square miles of Mid Buckinghamshire, only one high street bank is left standing. One of the most absurd things that I have heard multiple banks say over the years is: “Oh, but there’s a bank just a few miles away.” That might be technically true on Google Maps, but to pick somewhere close to my constituency entirely at random—I see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in her place—in High Wycombe it takes an enormous amount of time compared with how it looks on Google Maps to get into the town centre and back again. If one bit of the criteria needs to change, it is that banks should not be able just to say, “Oh, there’s a bank a few miles away.” They need to look at the time it takes in real life to get from a village to a nearby town. \p Ian Lavery: It feels really strange to agree with so many Conservative Members—it does not make me terribly comfortable, but it shows the power of the argument and, importantly, the support that it has across the House, which is relatively rare. The number of interventions that I have taken has meant that lots of the points in my speech have already been made. I will try to be as quick as possible.

Link does a decent job under the criteria that have been set, which really need to be changed. Link can pause a bank closure but cannot stop one, or set its own timetable for the establishment of banking hubs. Moreover, there is no provision for the FCA to initiate retrospective assessments of the need for banking hubs in areas where banks have left the high street, resulting in banking deserts, many years ago, prior to the 2023 Act.

The Government simply must take a fresh look at this issue and bring forward the necessary legislation to force the banking industry to fulfil its social responsibilities. The customers and communities from whom they have extracted so much profit over the years deserve nothing less. We should not forget that these are the very same banks and financial institutions that we had to bail out in 2008-09 because of their reckless pursuit of ever-increasing profits. They then made fortunes through the quantitative easing that the Bank of England initiated to save the economy after the crash that they caused. They are now abandoning the very taxpayers who bailed them out.

As I mentioned, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of banks on our high streets. In 1986 there were 21,643 bank and building society branches in the UK; by 2024, around 6,800 were left. Clearly, the switch to online banking has had an impact, but even those of us who use online banking sometimes need the certainty that a branch offers. The House of Lords April 2025 report “Closure of bank branches: Impact on rural communities” quotes Sarah Coles, a senior personal finance analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown:

“The closure of bank branches is a vicious circle. The more that close, the more people move online, so there are fewer people relying on high street branches, so more of them close. The  pandemic picked up the pace around this ever-decreasing circle, closing more branches temporarily and causing online banking to spike.”

The banks say that fewer people are using branches. If a high street branch closes, people cannot use it, as it is not there any more. Does that not result in an automatic reduction in usage? This is not rocket science. It is a vicious circle, which is why we need change from the Government.

Northumberland, my home county, has lost more than half of its bank branches since 2015. In my constituency of Blyth and Ashington, the large villages have been left without high street banks for more than a quarter of a decade. Blyth, Northumberland’s largest town, will be left without a high street bank in a few months’ time, though a building society will remain—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). \p Victoria Collins: The hon. Member has been very generous. He mentions building societies, and the Nationwide problem was mentioned. In Harpenden, the hard work of local campaigners has managed to secure a banking hub, despite our having a Nationwide. Does he agree that local communities need access to a full range of banking services that building societies do not provide, and will he join me in thanking Harpenden town council and especially Derek French, who has campaigned on this issue locally and nationally? Perhaps this could be an example that could help other towns to find out how they could get a banking hub despite having a Nationwide. \p Ian Lavery: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; I will cover some of those points.

I mentioned Blyth, the biggest town in my constituency. The third largest town in Northumberland, Bedlington, saw its last branch close just last month. From August in my constituency, only Ashington, the county’s third largest town, will have a high street bank, but many will wonder how long that will last. Who is affected by these bank closures? Like any change of this nature, is it not the most vulnerable who find it the most difficult? The FCA’s research in 2019 set out how problematic the requirement to travel bigger distances for banking services was for older people, and provided evidence for the slow uptake of online banking services by older people.

Only last week, my office was contacted by an elderly gentleman from Guide Post. His local bank closed in 2000. He moved to the branch in Bedlington, a few miles away, where he stayed for nigh on 25 years before that closed. Then he moved to the one in Blyth, a few miles further away; that branch is now to be closed, as I mentioned earlier. He is unable to access internet banking, he does not have any family, and he is unable to travel any further distances, whether by using basic transport services or otherwise. \p Wendy Chamberlain: As others have said, the hon. Member has been very generous. His speech is making me think about vulnerable customers, and access to responsible credit for them. Just a couple of weeks ago, the all-party parliamentary group on fair banking had a roundtable. Actually, online banking services do not help those really vulnerable people, where there is a sense of shame in potentially needing  small amounts of help and support. Does he agree that that is something else that we, and the Government, need to consider? \p Ian Lavery: I fully agree with the hon. Lady’s intervention. It is up to us, in this place, to speak up for those vulnerable people.

We know that the banks profit and make savings from branch closures. In January 2020, a House of Commons Library briefing pointed to the major banks enjoying a 6% decrease in overhead costs through branch closures. In 2024, HSBC reported the highest net profit among the largest UK banks, reaching just under £20 billion; Barclays followed, with around £6.36 billion; and NatWest’s net profit was approximately £4.8 billion. The big four UK banks—Barclays, NatWest, Lloyds and HSBC—are estimated to have made a combined £44.7 billion in profit. They are not hard up, you know —they really are not hard up. That is why it is important that we, as elected representatives, press that point home to Government.

The FCA’s current powers around bank closures have been mentioned two or three times already, and they go to the heart of the issue. Unfortunately, the banks are a law unto themselves. The FCA has no statutory powers to prevent bank closures. It can only seek to influence such decisions through its guidance notes. On branch closures, the FCA guidance requires banks to assess how closures will affect customers, especially those with vulnerabilities, using data on usage trends; consider alternative solutions to customers’ needs, such as free ATMs, post offices and banking hubs; and ensure that customers are given clear information and that they are not misled. Although the FCA cannot stop closures, it can require pauses in branch closures if it is not satisfied that the important matters that I have just mentioned have been considered adequately. Given everything we are talking about, I think that approach fails. Legislative changes are needed to ensure there is much more flexibility in that guidance.

Link is a not-for-profit company that is charged with making access to cash available, largely through ATMs. It can charge for using its ATMs and is allowed to charge more in rural areas. Prior to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the major banks ran a voluntary assessment scheme using Link to carry out research into the effects of planned branch closures. The Act made the Link assessments mandatory but did not significantly widen their scope. The Link assessments analyse the impact of branch closures in terms of access to cash, and outline existing and recommended new alternatives, such as banking hubs.

In Blyth, which is Northumberland’s largest town, the banks ran out of cash over a bank holiday weekend not many weeks ago. Blyth—it is a massive place—did not have any cash. Can you imagine that? It did not have any cash whatsoever simply because the cash machines ran out and the Morrisons supermarket cash machines were inside the closed store. An hon. Member raised the point about having different cash machines in different places, but if people rely on a supermarket for access to cash, perhaps as a last resort, and it closes at 7pm or 8pm, then they do not have any access to cash. \p Alec Shelbrooke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. To expand on his comment about supermarkets, in Wetherby in my constituency, Morrisons has the only cashpoints and they are outside, but they had run out of cash by Saturday lunch time \p Ian Lavery: That sounds like the same sort of situation as the one we had in Blyth. There were cash machines outside and inside, but the cash machines outside ran out of cash. There were people knocking on the shop windows asking the people who were filling the shelves to get some money for them from the cash machines inside—how ludicrous is that? How ridiculous! \p David Mundell: I welcome the point that the hon. Gentleman is raising. There is also an issue with cash machines inside shops that may be open for longer, but they are stocked from the shop by the cash received in the premises. There can be cash machines in a shop that have no cash in them, but Link has to take them into account when assessing whether there should be a free-to-use cash machine in a community. \p Ian Lavery: I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I like bringing school kids into Parliament. Down in one of the corridors there is an ATM that says “Free cash”, and I tell all the kids, “That’s what you get if you are an MP—you can get as much cash as you want from here—it’s free, it’s free!” [Laughter.] And they all ask me if I can get them some cash before they go to their mams. Free cash? There are ATMs where people have to pay a huge percentage to get their own money. That is an issue that I will cover very shortly.

My own experience of dealing with Link saw me almost guaranteed that a banking hub would be delivered in Bedlington just before the election, but on receiving the assessment, no such facility was proposed and instead worried locals were asked to travel to nearby Cramlington to conduct their financial affairs. That is not acceptable. It is correct to say that banking hubs are an innovative solution for high streets left without banking facilities, but Link’s briefing note on banking hubs published on 2 June 2025 says:

“Banking hubs are shared services that enable customers of any of the major high street banks to access basic banking services and advice from community bankers. Hubs are delivered by a bank-owned company called Cash Access UK, and are currently operated by the Post Office.”

The Government have stated that they expect 350 banking hubs to be open by the end of this Parliament. We are well on-track to surpass that figure. Link has already identified a need for 226 banking hubs across the UK, and a similar number of other cash services, such as new deposit services. Over 150 banking hubs are already operational. There is no doubt that that is progress, but we need far more to provide the service that our constituents deserve. The figure of 350 banking hubs might sound impressive, but there are 650 constituencies represented in Parliament. In my constituency alone, banking hubs should be at the heart of the high streets in Ashington, Bedlington, Blyth, Guidepost and Newbiggin- by-the-Sea, but at the current rate, we will need 10 times the amount being talked about by the end of this Parliament. Our high streets have been hollowed out by online and out-of-town shopping. \p Deirdre Costigan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In West Ealing, in my constituency, we have seen all the banks close over the past decade or so. In fact, the town centre itself has visibly declined, in the way that he alluded to. Does he agree that the Labour Government’s decision to permanently reduce business rates for retail and hospitality businesses and to end the scourge of late payments, along with the 350 banking hubs that he mentions, will help revitalise places like West Ealing? \p Ian Lavery: I agree that that will help to revitalise high streets, but the debate this afternoon is about how we assist the people in our communities, mainly the least well off, the disabled and the elderly who simply want a bank to use.

As I mentioned, our high streets have been hollowed out, but we can share some community pride—or indeed some community shame—on this issue. We can start a move towards the former by moving much-needed services, like banking hubs, into the hearts of the communities that we all represent. To do so, we need proper regulation of the banks. It should be abundantly clear to anyone who has paid any attention that the banks cannot be allowed to police themselves.

The FCA needs proper teeth and the Financial Services and Marketing Act 2023 should be amended to ensure essential face-to-face services are protected alongside access to cash. During the debate on Lords Amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, before it was enacted, the then shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), said:

“I am disappointed that the amendments will do nothing to protect essential face-to-face services. Analysis published by consumer group Which? found that over half of the UK’s bank and building society branches have closed since January 2015—a shocking rate of about 54 closures each month—which risks excluding millions of people who rely on in-person services for help with opening new accounts, applying for loans, making or receiving payments, and standing orders.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2023; Vol. 735, c. 71.]

The Labour party is proudly in power, and I am sure that we will address these issues. We are now in government, and it is time to take action. We need to curb the power of the big banks once and for all. We need to start a review into the impact on communities that are losing bank branches. We need to change legislation to ensure that community factors and face-to-face services are considered when a closure is announced. We need to be bold with proposals for banking hubs by directing the funding, which should come from the banks themselves, to create thousands of hubs up and down the UK. It is firmly in the remit of the Government to do just that, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take the cross-party support that we have seen already today and consider the steps to deliver justice to our communities. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We have shy of 30 Members hoping to contribute, so we will have a hard speaking limit of four minutes to begin with. \p Esther McVey: I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for his persistence, for securing this debate and for the work he has done  and is doing to get banks back on the high street. Perhaps we should be grateful to the bankers, because, by their actions, they are the only group of people less popular than politicians. Unfortunately, in their endeavour to become the most unpopular people in the country, they are doing huge damage to our local communities. To put that in context, since 2010 more than 10,000 banks have closed across the country, and there are now only 3,000 bank branches left open in this country. In fact, we have more chance of finding a Labour voter on a farm than we have of seeing a bank in a rural community.

The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington rightly pointed out that the loss of banking facilities has left vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and the disabled, particularly affected and financially excluded. So too are residents in rural areas, where internet access is poor and unreliable. People struggle to get on to the internet to do transactions or for any customer assistance, yet banks continue to withdraw physical services from their customers. When we walk down most high streets, we see that banks have become cafés, bars and pubs.

I will focus my attention on Tatton and my local high streets, because the scale of the closures there is stark. In Knutsford, we have lost Santander, Barclays, NatWest, Lloyds and HSBC since 2018, and only Nationwide building society remains. Knutsford is a prosperous town with more than 1,000 businesses operating locally; there is high demand for banking services, yet they have closed their doors. In Wilmslow, the Royal Bank of Scotland and TSB have closed, with only Halifax and NatWest remaining, which are also going to close. That means that only Santander and Nationwide will remain. In Alderley Edge and Handforth, there are no branches at all, forcing residents to travel long distances. \p Neil Hudson: Like the constituencies of Members across the House, Epping Forest has seen a series of bank closures over the years. Tragically, Lloyds bank has said that later this year it will close its branch in Debden in my constituency. Like the banks in my right hon. Friend’s community, that branch is a lifeline; many people rely on it for face-to-face banking and will struggle to get to other branches. Does she agree that banks such as Lloyds need to rethink and stop those closures, and that the Government and Link need to step in and support high street banking? \p Esther McVey: I agree—the lack of banks is a disgrace. Where do people go for their banking needs? The reality is that the banks that are closing have entered into an agreement with businesses and individuals; when they opened their bank account, they opened it with the bank on the high street. The business was there because it expected a certain amount of customer service—that is why they went there in the first place. Face-to-face banking offers confidence, security and efficiency, especially for businesses handing over cash and making significant financial decisions. Without those services, it just will not work.

In 2022, the Federation of Small Businesses found that four in 10 small businesses still relied on cash as a primary payment, and six in 10 needed to make regular cash deposits. I regularly hear from businesses in Tatton that they simply cannot deposit cash or access the basic services needed. Why? Well, that is because 64% of bank branches have closed in the last decade and 65% of  cashpoints have gone. That is reducing the ability of businesses to deposit cash in the local area. The shift to online poses risks from technical failures and cyber-attacks. We have heard that through this monopoly and lack of access, there is a squeeze, and commission is being charged for the transactions of these businesses.

Our high streets are at the heart of our communities, but without access to banking services, our high streets, which are already under pressure, have become even harder places to trade, grow and thrive. If we are serious about supporting small businesses and seeing investment on our local high streets and in our town centres, we must stop the decline in banking infrastructure.

Some may argue that closures would be reasonable if banks were losing money and needed to take cost-cutting measures, but that is simply not the case. Banks are not struggling institutions. Last year, HSBC reported nearly $25 billion in post-tax profits. Barclays made $6.4 billion. Lloyds made $4.5 billion. NatWest made $4.8 billion. Those are all eye-watering profits— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. \p Richard Quigley: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate. Too often, I feel the issues that significantly affect the day-to-day lives of our constituents are pushed aside in favour of larger, headline-grabbing national concerns, but this topic of access to banking services—more specifically, access to cash—deserves far greater attention than it receives.

While colleagues here will be familiar with my No. 1 concern on the Isle of Wight—ferry connectivity—another issue came up repeatedly during the ’24 general election: high street bank closures. What struck me most was just how deeply that issue resonates with people. Many of the residents I have spoken with feel very abandoned by the institutions they once trusted with their life savings. They are expected to navigate an increasingly digital world, often without the necessary tools, skills or support. The result is a growing sense of exclusion and frustration, which is why the need for reliable, in-person banking services is not just important, but urgent. That is why I am pleased to report a positive development following a meeting with Link last month: a banking hub has opened in East Cowes, with plans for a permanent hub in West Cowes. While I do not claim that that hub alone solves the broader issue of financial inclusion on the island, it is a welcome and tangible step in the right direction.

However, we cannot ignore this trend and the anxiety that it causes our constituents. Across the country, rural and coastal communities are seeing their bank branches vanish from the high street. In many cases, residents must travel miles, sometimes without reliable transport, just to deposit a cheque. [Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was getting overexcited. According to the Financial Conduct Authority, around 1.1 million adults in the UK are unbanked. That is 1.1 million people without access to basic banking facilities—something that many of us take entirely for granted. Additionally, one in 10 adults have no cash savings whatsoever. Those figures should concern us all.

I worry especially for the older members of our communities. A 2023 report from Age UK found that three in four accountholders aged 65 and over would prefer to carry out at least one banking transaction at a branch. Those are not people resisting change for the sake of it: they are individuals who genuinely rely on physical, face-to-face interactions for their financial wellbeing. They are disproportionately concentrated in rural constituencies such as mine, where the proportion of residents over the age of 65 is nearly 10% higher than the national average. It is imperative that we do not leave those individuals behind.

This is not simply about preserving social interaction for its own sake: we are talking about people’s livelihoods—their savings, pensions and financial security. It is entirely reasonable for individuals to want the reassurance of speaking to a real person, face to face, when managing something as vital as their money. That is where banking hubs come in. These shared facilities provide a practical, community-focused solution. They combine the services of multiple banks in a single accessible location, supported by the post office network. They are staffed by real people who can help with deposits, withdrawals, and even financial guidance. Banking hubs are not just a stopgap; they are a forward-thinking solution that helps us bridge the digital divide, support more small businesses and charities that still rely heavily on cash, and maintain community cohesion in towns and villages that increasingly feel cut off.

All of this has reinforced my belief that banking hubs are not just a temporary fix; they could very well be a long-term solution, restoring vital financial services in the areas where they are needed most. Let us ensure that no community—whether rural, coastal or urban—is denied access to the essential services its people need to live with financial freedom. I thank Link and Cash Access UK for their work. \p Alec Shelbrooke: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for bringing this debate on banking before the House. I think bank closures affect every single constituency and every single person in the country, as we will hear throughout this debate.

The final two banks in the town of Wetherby closed literally last month, but we were lucky, in the sense that we knew those closures were coming. I was working with the banks to get a banking hub in for a couple of years, and it has been in place in the town hall. This has given a huge advantage to the town of Wetherby, because the banks that had closed in the past are now represented again in that banking hub. Now that those last two branches have closed, the hub is going to take up residence in one of those ex-banks. That goes to show that if we can get a banking hub, we have the ability to bring things back to the community. The banks that have closed will have a representative in there on different days of the week, and as the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington pointed out, it is vital that people are able to have that face-to-face interaction.

However, in other towns in my constituency—such as Boroughbridge and Tadcaster, which have a huge number of businesses—there is no banking, and there is no banking hub. The residents of those towns have been told that they are close enough to go to other areas, but  as has been pointed out, that is not always the easiest thing to do. Then we come to Easingwold, at the further end of my constituency. Nationwide, with its policy of not shutting banks, still has its branch open, so Easingwold does not qualify for a banking hub. People are told that they have to go to Thirsk, a major town that is not easy to get to.

As the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington outlined, there is a problem with the excuse that not enough people are using branches and therefore the banks shut them down. When branches have been shut down in the past and I ask the banks, “Can you please reconsider this?”, they say, “Well, we only had a few people come in last week—we cannot keep it open,” but they never actually do anything to encourage people to go to those branches. They never give an indication that the branch may be shut, and then they just shut it. Of course, people then miss the service, and the banks say, “There is one close by in another area.” As has been described, people are being charged to withdraw their money from a cash machine. As the hon. Gentleman said about free cash, it is their money to start with, but when banks tell people that they have to get a bus to go to the bank, they are also charging people to get their money out. Everything we are discussing passes on the cost from the banks to the consumer, just to get their money out.

I am lucky that I have a banking hub in my constituency. Other towns are going to need them—they do bring advantages—but the way that the whole high street industry of banking is operating is causing huge disadvantages to people. Ultimately, it is constantly charging them to get their own money out. \p John Whitby: Cash is still alive and well, and for some, access to it is still a necessity—indeed, last year £80 billion in cash was withdrawn from the Link network. However, with the rise and rise of internet banking and contactless payments, we have seen a near-complete withdrawal of bank branches from certain parts of the country. As has been mentioned, there were 10,000 branches 10 years ago; now, there are just 3,000. One of those closures was the NatWest bank in Bakewell, in February 2024. It was not just the last bank in Bakewell; it was the last bank in the entire Peak District national park. In a few weeks’ time, when the Lloyds bank in Ashbourne closes, there will be no banks in the entire Derbyshire Dales constituency—an area of nearly 400 square miles.

There are many reasons why people need access to cash, all of which are ably demonstrated by the magnificent market town of Bakewell. Of course, there are residents there on low incomes or benefits, who find it much easier to budget using cash and are less likely to have access to the internet. There is an ageing population there who simply will not want to change, or do not trust the technology. We have had elderly residents taking two-hour round trips on the bus simply to withdraw cash from what was their new nearest bank, rather than use the ATMs in Bakewell. There are several successful markets each week; the traders will all have electronic card readers to take payments with, but despite what the mobile networks may say, people struggle to get a signal in Bakewell and traders often have to ask shoppers to pay in cash. There are also numerous independent shops that serve Bakewell’s 6 million visitors. Those  shops need cash to run, and when they queued up for cash at the post office they found that they were being rationed, as it simply could not cope with the demand.

Despite all its attributes, Bakewell was turned down for a banking hub the first time around. When I was elected, I went back to Link, which does the assessments and makes the decisions on banking hubs. Over the course of several conversations, I tried to understand what had been missed the first time around. I have to say that Link was very responsive, and after we had submitted another application following a slight relaxation of its criteria on population size, its representatives were happy to come back to Bakewell. I took them to the agricultural business centre to see the livestock markets, where the auctioneers demonstrated to them the staggering number of transactions taking place using cheques. This, I am glad to say, seemed to be the missing part of the puzzle. Back in December, we were told that we had been given a full counter service banking hub—it was the best Christmas present ever.

The experience in Ashbourne was completely different, showing that one size does not fit all. The process there was seamless: Lloyds announced that it would close, an assessment was done, the criteria were all met, and I liaised with Cash Access UK over timeframes, locations and so on. I am very glad to say that the permanent Ashbourne banking hub will open on 27 June, and it looks like the permanent Bakewell hub will follow towards the end of July. This will continue the excellent work and growing reputation of the temporary Bakewell hub.

A national Cash Access UK report suggests that over 90% of customers believe that banking hubs are extremely important to the community, and the feedback that I get from service users is all positive. The evidence suggests that banking hubs increase footfall and boost the local economy, and I am very relieved that we will shortly have two in the Derbyshire Dales. \p Nusrat Ghani: The speaking limit is now three minutes. I call David Mundell. \p David Mundell: In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will start with my ask of the Minister, which is that the criteria for assessing whether there should be a free-to-use cash machine in a community be reassessed. For example, in my constituency, the Bank of Scotland closed its branch in the community of Moffat on the same day as it closed four other branches. At the moment, Link has to take into account every other cash machine in the vicinity, regardless of whether there is any cash in those machines—often, machines in retail outlets are not fully stocked with cash all the time; they rely on cash coming in through the till to go into the machine—or whether premises are open for 24 hours or are particularly disabled or vulnerable people-friendly. At this moment, we cannot get another cash machine because it has been assessed that the number is sufficient, without any assessment of those cash machines.

The closures I referred to mean that for 75 miles along the M74 motorway, from the border to Hamilton, you will not find a bank branch. When it comes to bank buildings being taken up by others, I have not been as lucky as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey): they are often very large buildings on  small high streets, and unless the banks are willing to do something themselves, there are not often other users. The Bank of Scotland previously said that it would allow the Peebles branch that is closing to be for community use, and the community have engaged, so I am disappointed to hear that they find today that a “For sale” sign has appeared outside that branch. I hope that the Bank of Scotland will keep that community access.

My third point is that we need to join up what is happening. The Bank of Scotland in Sanquhar in my constituency is closing. The bank is putting a bank consultant into the community to look after its customers, it says, but that person will not be in the post office that has been designated by Link as the effective banking hub in that community. That person will hold separate meetings in a council office. There just is not joined-up thinking.

My final point is that we talk about post offices when many people do not have a physical post office, but a temporary post office delivered out of the back of a van, which is not capable of providing a banking hub service. \p Jon Trickett: The banks have more or less abandoned my constituency, and it sounds like that is the case for many others. Some 6,500 branches have closed in recent years, as have more than 200 post offices. There are 23 separate settlements in my constituency with no access to banking. We do have banking hubs. It is an hour each way by bus to get to one, and it costs at least six quid to get there and back. I represent large numbers of people living in poverty, and it is hard for them to raise that kind of money just to have access to banking services.

I will make two other points about my constituency and then a general point. The bus services are very poor. As I have just said, it can take an hour each way to get to the banking hub, and the banking hub does not provide all the services that a bank should provide.

My other point about my constituency is that there are 15 zones for the internet, and 11 of those 15 zones are among the worst for internet provision in the country. How on earth is someone supposed to access banking on an internet system that is simply not working? It shows the extent to which Britain’s infrastructure is creaking, and it is not acceptable that banks should abandon the people who helped to create them in the first place.

I will just make this final point about mobility and accessibility. One in four households in my constituency has no access at all to a vehicle. That is more than 20,000 people without a van or a car to get them to a bank, even if a bank were available. It is a disgrace that the banks have turned their backs on all those people who were their loyal customers for so many years. Businesses that rely on cash and collect cash each day have nowhere to deposit it. People are driving home from their place of work or their business with cash in the boot and nowhere safe to put it. That is a dangerous thing.

It is odd, ideologically, to hear Members from the party of free enterprise and the free market saying, “We have to do something about capitalism withdrawing from communities.” That is what is happening, and that  is the nature of capitalism itself. We should just say that the financial sector in this country is worth £17 trillion, which dwarfs our GDP of £2.5 trillion. The banks are worth eight times more than the total output of the whole UK. As we have heard elsewhere, £44 billion of profit has been made by the banks in recent years. It is time we brought the banks to order to serve our communities— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I call Helen Morgan. [Interruption.] \p Helen Morgan: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was so absorbed by the debate that I did not hear you call my name. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing this debate, which is important.

In my constituency of North Shropshire, there are five market towns, but only one will have a commercial banking branch left after the closure of the NatWest in Market Drayton this year. We find ourselves in a situation of managed decline for rural constituents, with essential services slowly removed bit by bit every year.

Just two months ago, I attended the opening of the Whitchurch banking hub, which is providing a vital service to a town of around 10,000 people that had lost its final bank branch. While that is great news for Whitchurch and the best alternative to a network of commercial banks, we must consider now those market towns that do not meet the criteria set by Link. For example, the lovely, historic, but quite small town of Ellesmere in North Shropshire has a population of around 5,000 people and 90 commercial units. It is a hub for a large rural area and there is no bank and no prospect of getting one, according to Link, because it does not meet the criteria.

Ellesmere still has a post office, which is relied upon by local businesses for cash services. Having been the financial controller of a business in an area served only by a post office, I can tell the House that people need to do more than simply deposit and withdraw cash. Although I was a big fan of Prees post office and village store, if I needed to change the signatory on a bank account or set up a new one, it was a logistical nightmare; if I did not want to post valuable and sensitive documents, it required a half-day trip to a town with a physical branch.

For someone in Ellesmere, the nearest town is Oswestry. To visit an actual bank in person is a 45-minute round trip on public transport. Someone living in the surrounding villages is in a difficult situation. Those residents might also have used their post office at some point, but now those post offices are being systematically closed down. In my constituency, from Knockin to Hadnall and from Weston Rhyn to Shawbury, outreach post offices have been closed in one fell swoop with a couple of weeks’ notice. A Post Office representative sounded surprised recently when they told me that outreach services only available for one hour a week were not well used. It seemed not to have occurred to them that if the post office is only available for a single hour, that might not be terribly convenient.

I have little time left, so I will just say that for places with poor digital access, where many people cannot access online banking, it is essential that we review the  criteria that Link uses to assess the need for a banking hub. A medieval market town that has been serving the centre of its community for hundreds and hundreds of years is on its knees because there is no access to banking. It is essential that we get those services back into high streets to revitalise towns such as Ellesmere and Wem as soon as possible. \p Yasmin Qureshi: I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate.

From Farnworth and Kearsley to Walkden and beyond, people across my constituency have seen at first hand the impact of losing high street banks. In Farnworth, for example, last month we saw NatWest on Market Street close on 15 May and Lloyds on the same street close on 28 May. Those were not just buildings, but vital services that people have depended on for decades. In Walkden, we are now set to lose the Halifax branch on Bolton Road. People are telling me that they are worried about how they will manage, especially those who do not bank online. One woman in her late 70s told me:

“I never thought I’d see the day when there wasn’t a single bank left in town.”

A gentleman in his early 70s said he does not feel safe banking online, and must go all the way into Bolton just to do basic transactions. These things are a necessity, not a luxury for them.

The issue is impacting small businesses, too, especially small traders who trade in cash. Some are now forced to drive out of town just to deposit takings. That means lost time, lost footfall and more pressure on our already struggling high streets. That is why I strongly support the idea of banking hubs. They are shared spaces that allow customers from different banks to access services under one roof, with in-person staff available. Under the current rules, Farnworth, which is undergoing a major regeneration, does not qualify for a hub because it has nearby cash machines. A few ATMs do not meet the needs of a whole town; what people need is real, face-to-face advice and service, especially those who are vulnerable or less digitally confident.

The criteria set by the Financial Conduct Authority are far too rigid. They do not take account of the local picture, the age of the population, digital exclusion or public transport access. Millions of people in the UK still rely on cash to budget, and last year alone £80 billion was withdrawn through the Link network. That is £1,400 a person.

In Farnworth, a local petition has been launched calling for a banking hub that properly serves the needs of residents in Farnworth and Kearsley. Will the Minister please review the true impact of branch closures on communities such as mine? Will they reform the criteria for banking hubs so that they reflect real-life need, not just cashpoint numbers, and will they ensure that face-to-face banking is protected not just in principle, but in practice? It is about managing things fairly. \p Bradley Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing this important debate. In a world dominated  by contactless payments and banking apps, it is very easy for some people to live cash-free and seldom visit a bank, but we must not overlook the 3 million to 5 million people who still rely on cash on a daily basis. These consumers are far more likely to be digitally excluded and financially vulnerable.

I recently conducted a cash access survey in my constituency. Some 55% of respondents said that they use cash on a daily basis, and 91% believe the Government should safeguard the acceptance of cash as a valid form of payment. It is vital that access to cash and banking services is protected. It is important for those who use cash, but we must consider the resilience of the wider banking and financial system too. We have recently witnessed a major power outage at Heathrow, as well as large-scale power cuts in Iberia. We are increasingly aware of threats posed by hostile states that want to conduct cyber-attacks to disrupt our national infrastructure, so cash and local banking services must remain accessible to allow society to function in the event of any major disruption. This is a matter of national security.

In Bromsgrove and the villages, we are experiencing the effects of changes in the way that people bank. With the closure of Lloyds and Halifax, Bromsgrove high street will have lost four banks in just three years. Such banks are a lifeline for so many small businesses—particularly those run by independent entrepreneurs—as well as for local residents, who rely on banking services every single day. If we are not careful, Bromsgrove risks becoming a banking desert with an increasingly empty high street. I know that Bromsgrove is not eligible for a formal banking hub, so I call on the Minister to review the true impact of the closure of banks across the country, and to review the criteria that a community has to meet in order for a banking hub to be provided.

In the limited time I have left I want to draw attention to the further decline of high streets and the important role that banks provide in drawing people into their communities. Banks often occupy some of the most prominent, most beautiful and most significant historic buildings. Once they are vacant, they are often left empty, and they become eyesores and further symbols of the deterioration of high streets, which affects so many of the communities that we represent.

I ask the Government to review the criteria for banking hubs, and to focus on serious, long-term business rates reform that will enable high streets to thrive into the future. Collectively, as a House of Commons, we must put pressure on the banking system to ensure that cash access remains a part of our functioning economy, and that as many of our constituents as possible have access to day-to-day retail banking services. \p Ben Goldsborough: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing the debate.

South Norfolk is no stranger to the creeping erosion of our local banking infrastructure. In January this year, Lloyds bank announced that it will close its branch in Wymondham, which is the last high street bank in the town. That leaves only a single branch of the Nationwide building society to serve a growing population of over 17,000. The day after the closure was announced, on 30 January, I secured an emergency meeting with Lloyds bank and made it clear that, without alternative  provision, the closure would have serious consequences, especially for small businesses, and the data bears this out. Lloyds bank’s own data shows that Wymondham cashpoint use increased by 17% between 2019 and 2024. That is not a service in decline, but a service in demand. It is absolutely clear that a new banking hub must be up and running before the bank branch closes next March. I am pleased to report that this has now been arranged and that the site is currently being finalised. I will continue to do everything within my power to ensure that Wymondham is not left behind.

However, this issue is not limited to my largest town in South Norfolk. Loddon lost its Barclays bank in 2017, Long Stratton lost its Barclays bank in 2015, and if we are not careful, the story will be repeated across every rural constituency in the country. For rural communities such as mine, access to cash is not a matter of convenience; it is essential. Many of our villages still experience patchy mobile signal and poor internet connectivity, and when card machines go down or wi-fi drops out, it is cash that keeps the local economy going.

We must remember that rural Norfolk has one of the oldest populations in the country. Many residents prefer, or simply need, to manage their money in person. For them, travelling 20 or 30 miles to the nearest bank in Norwich is not going to work. That is why we need to be far more imaginative about how we can ensure that people have access to cash. One idea is to reimagine how we use our post offices and pubs. We all know that pubs are the hubs of our communities in village life, but too many are struggling to stay open. Letting them provide additional services, such as access to cash and postal services, would be a way to keep those hubs of rural village life going.

Community banking should not be something that we fight tooth and nail to preserve; it should be the backbone of a fair and functioning economy. Our rural towns and villages should not be told that their need is out of date or out of scope. I will keep fighting for that in Wymondham, Loddon, Long Stratton and all the villages of South Norfolk, and I know that many of my hon. Friends will be doing the same for their rural communities. \p Kirsty Blackman: I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for bringing this debate before us today. I want to make a few comments.

I agree with the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) that access to banking services is a major issue in rural constituencies, but it can also be an issue in urban constituencies. In parts of my constituency, which is wholly urban, some communities have been left without banks. Owing to the way public transport works and its unaffordability in some places, accessing banks can still be hard, even if people live in a community that is part of a city, so we need to make sure that we are looking at this issue as a whole in all the communities affected. Public transport can be a significant issue.

Where capitalism fails, we need market intervention—that is what should happen. We need more market intervention to ensure that there is at least a minimum, if not a  universal, banking service. A number of the banks that have closed in my constituency have said, “It’s okay, because people will be able to go to the post office.” However, the post office in Seaton has closed, and we have been fighting for years to get a new post office in the community, but nobody is willing to take it up. That community is left without either of those services, and people have to travel. In common with the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), a significant proportion of my constituents—at least a third—do not have access to a car, and getting around the city and to the bank can be pretty difficult for them.

We have universal service obligations when it comes to broadband and to Royal Mail delivery, but we do not have them when it comes to post office services and banking services, yet cash is incredibly important. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) mentioned access to cash, but that is not the only reason we need banking services. There are some things that can only be done in a bank—whether that is businesses depositing the cash that they have taken, people taking cash out of a cash machine, or individuals signing forms to approve a loan or a mortgage. Some of those things can only be done physically in the bank, including things that people need to do only once a year. Someone living in Banff, Aberdeenshire, will have to spend an hour and a half to two hours on public transport to get into the city—a significant length of time. As the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) said earlier, we are charging people for that privilege. Even though it might be free to withdraw cash, the public transport that they need to take in order to get to a bank is not free.

I urge the Government to look at the minimum services that people need in order to access cash and banking services that are close to them, and that they can access by whatever method of transport they happen to have. Could the Government please take action on this? \p Jo Platt: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for bringing this really important debate to this House, and I think we speak with one voice on this particular issue. We both represent post-industrial towns, and we can both see the decline of our high streets.

Banks have long been pillars of our high street in supporting local businesses, sustaining jobs, and driving regional growth and economic stability. In an increasingly digital age of contactless payments and banking apps, it is easy to underestimate the value of physical bank branches in our town centres. With the ongoing closure of trusted high street banks, many communities are being left isolated and underserved, so banking hubs can provide vital in-person services, particularly for older residents, those with long-term health conditions and people at risk of economic abuse. I feel that we need to speak further about this subject and I will write to the Minister, because economic abuse and financial inclusion are really big issues.

Organisations such as Link play a key role in supporting the transition to a digital economy, having committed to ensuring 98% of people have reasonable access to free cash services. However, this commitment does not  go far enough for areas such as Atherton and Golborne—two places with ageing populations, active local businesses and expanding communities. In Golborne, 18.6% of residents are over 65, the second-highest area in the Wigan borough. Atherton, with a busy train station and a thriving night-time economy, still has no remaining bank. Significant housing developments in both areas are further increasing demand for financial services, yet the infrastructure continues to shrink. Atherton residents often travel to Leigh for banking, leaving their own town centre with declining footfall and empty retail units. Although evidence-based proposals for banking hubs have been made, recent Link assessments did not recommend any new cash services in our area, leaving people excluded and unheard. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are reviewing the assessment process to ensure that such communities are properly heard and their needs fully met?

In looking to the future, I urge the Government to consider the inclusion of credit unions, a co-operative model of banking such as the Unify credit union in my constituency, as part of their wider financial inclusion strategy. \p Lisa Smart: A point that has not yet been made is the importance of credit unions and access to responsible lending. One thing that people can do at a high street bank but cannot do at a banking hub is get a loan, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning credit unions. In my area, Nationwide on the A6 in Hazel Grove has shut, which is having a massive impact on what people can do beyond access to cash. \p Jo Platt: I agree with the hon. Member, and Unify credit union in my constituency does give out loans in an ethical way to community organisations and people who are struggling.

Banking hubs are not just about financial transactions; they are also about sustaining the health, growth and regeneration of our towns. Let us ensure that we are protecting the digitally excluded, supporting the financially vulnerable and doing everything possible to keep our high streets alive. \p Gagan Mohindra: I start, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) did, with an ask of the Minister. As she will have heard, this issue is apolitical, and we are raising it very much because we care about our communities. Can we increase the flexibility for banking hubs to be rolled out throughout the country? I apologise, because I should really have started by congratulating the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing this important debate.

In South West Hertfordshire I have seen the decline of high streets, including a reduction in the number of banking branches. Nationwide, which has been mentioned, deserves credit for proactively retaining its high street presence, which does help my residents and, I am sure, others across the country. In Rickmansworth in my constituency, the local post office manager, Danny, has stepped up and is now managing a banking hub, which allows my residents access to the frontline banking services to which they would not normally have access.  I am also working alongside two of my councillors in Abbots Langley—Councillor Vicky Edwards and Councillor Ian Campbell—and I hope the Minister will encourage the powers that be to see that, where there is a real need for communities to have a banking presence, banking hubs are an obvious solution. If we want our high streets to remain viable, we need to encourage people to continue to come down to the high street. Historically, that has meant services such as banking. That will, I hope, increase footfall for our local cafés, hairdressers and all the other services associated with the high street.

We have heard about the 6,300 banks that have closed since 2015. I am a former retailer, and I understand that high streets change, but from a policy perspective, Parliament needs to create the framework that ensures high streets are as we want them to be. If we do not proactively encourage banking hubs to be in the centre of our towns—yes, ATMs are important, but they are typically in places such as out-of-town petrol stations—we are not helping small retailers and convenience stores that rely on emergency purchases of a pint of milk and the like.

I will close, because I am conscious of the time, with a pledge from me—and, I hope, those on my Front Bench—that if the Government step up and say they will increase the flexibility of banking hubs, they will have our support, because cash remains king. We have spoken before about digital exclusion, and it will have a massive impact on a minority of our population if we do not get this right. \p Naushabah Khan: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate.

Access to cash is important, but it is only one part of the story. The closure of bank branches strips communities across our country not just of access to money, but of access to advice and support services that cannot simply be replicated online. It goes further than that. For some elderly residents this is about a sense of community and purpose, such as the weekly trip with friends to interact with others, plan a food shop, go to a supermarket or even visit friends.

I remember when I was a child, when my grandfather was due to make his regular trip to the bank, he would get suited and booted, have a haircut and tell us all proudly that he was off to the bank. It was also the highlight of my week, because I always received a £5 note afterwards.

In my constituency of Gillingham and Rainham, I was pleased to announce only last week that we will be getting a banking hub, following a recent campaign. For clarity, we do have a Nationwide on site at the minute. I have heard directly from residents about how much this means to them. I have received numerous letters describing their struggles when they have not been able to access banking services. Many residents have described long journeys to neighbouring towns, often relying on friends or public transport just to withdraw cash or speak to somebody in person.

Other residents have spoken of the confusion and anxiety caused by using online banking that they neither trusted nor understood. We are talking about people who find themselves in effect locked out of the system simply because they do not use an app or a smartphone.  These are real people in our communities, not a small minority. According to Age UK, more than 2.5 million people over 65 have never used the internet, and the access to cash review found that around 10 million UK adults would struggle in a cashless society. Many of them also lack digital literacy or the infrastructure to bank online. This includes people with disabilities, carers, those for whom English is not a first language, and people living on low incomes who cannot afford broadband or mobile data. We should not expect them to adapt to a system that was not designed for them in the first place.

The reality is that high street banks have for some time been taking decisions based on commercial viability rather than community need. I understand that banks are not charities, but the Government do have a responsibility to ensure that no one is cut off from basic services because they are not digital or because they are not profitable. If we want to prevent digital exclusion from becoming a permanent feature of our society, banking hubs must be part of a national strategy. That includes ensuring they are well-promoted, well-resourced and available in all the places of greatest need.

I am pleased that my constituency will benefit from a banking hub, but we need to go further. The criteria need to change, and we must ensure this is based not just on access to cash but, importantly, on the services that banking hubs provide to a community. \p Wendy Chamberlain: It is clear that we all care about our constituencies. My constituency of North East Fife is well below the UK average in the statistics on access to cash. The new powers and obligations given to the FCA under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 have gone some way towards addressing these problems. It is important to remember that everything happening before was voluntary. We have twice gone through the review process with Link—successfully in Anstruther, but frustratingly not so in Cupar.

The Anstruther banking counter is to some extent a success story. The banks closed and the post office closed, but a review was carried out and recommendations were made for a counter providing cash deposits and withdrawals. However, there were some problems with the process that I hope can be ironed out. The review was requested by a local organisation that had hoped to provide space for the counter, if recommended, knowing that a lot of its customers use cash and there is no nearby ATM, but it was not automatically advised of the outcome of the assessment and found out only after the fact. That meant it did not get the chance to make an input to those making an assessment of possible locations. I myself was not aware of the opening of the hub until I heard incidentally from a local councillor who was involved in the running of the location where the hub opened. If elected representatives and the local media do not know about counters opening, I am very concerned that the public will not know either.

However, the main issue, which many have picked up, is that the cash counter is not a banking hub. Part of the picture, as I understand it, is that we could have more support in Anstruther if someone was willing to take on  the post office, but no one wants to, and having met the National Federation of SubPostmasters earlier this year, I can understand why. This is a problem that the Government need to address and I hope the Minister can do so in her remarks. What are the Government doing to make taking on a post office more attractive? They are vital to the success of banking hubs, but also the health of communities more generally.

The other part of the picture, as others have touched on, is that the legislation only requires maintaining access to cash, not banking services. That is a real oversight. I mentioned, in my intervention on the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery)—I congratulate him on securing the debate—that the all-party parliamentary group on fair banking gave us some quite worrying stats on the financial health of household incomes. It is incumbent on banks to help people better manage their finances so that we do not end up with situations where people are in debt. I asked the Minister whether the financial inclusion committee, which she chairs, would look at access to banking services. I hope she will be able to update us on that today.

The last point I want to make, which others have mentioned, is about the challenge around ATMs. We have had a big problem in Leven where, in just the last few weeks, the final bank has closed. We have a Nationwide, but it consistently runs out of money and customers are really showing their frustration. Whether it is more cashpoints or more replenishing of what is already there, something has to be done. The assessments need to take better consideration of what cash usage actually looks like in an area. \p Darren Paffey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing this important debate.

In just the last two years, Bitterne Precinct in my constituency has lost four high street banks and, unfortunately, Nationwide building society. Add to that NatWest in 2023, and now Halifax and Lloyds both close next Monday. These closures are leaving a community which, by Link’s own assessment, counts 32,000 people among it with no branch banking provision at all.

We all recognise that technology has changed the way we bank, and mostly for the better, but it is not always a substitute for in-person services. People still need to deposit cash, sort out complex issues, or just get advice from another human being. For too many, this is not about convenience; it ends up with them being cut off.

Let me share some words from my constituents I spoke to in the precinct. Kayley, a former bank worker in Thornhill, told me:

“Some customers are unable to access online banking…visiting the bank is their only human interaction that day. Face-to-face service is imperative.”

Mandy from Bitterne described how her elderly, blind mother broke down in tears when she learned her local branch would be closing. Mandy said:

“Banking in Bitterne gave her a lifeline. It kept her independence. She doesn’t bank online because she can’t see the screen, but she can still walk into Bitterne to manage her affairs.”

Frederick, another resident, highlighted the rising cost of exclusion, and I wonder if we have really counted that in. He said:

“A banking hub would put money in people’s pockets by saving them the cost of taking Ubers or buses just to withdraw cash.”

Link tells us that a post office can be a substitute, but our local post office has no outside cashpoint and it cannot cash certain cheques, so when Halifax and Lloyds close next week there will be no outside cash access in the entire area and no high street banks on the entire eastern side of Southampton.

I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to roll out 350 banking hubs over the next five years, but I want to be clear that Bitterne should be at the front of that queue. It would not only restore access to banking, but help—others have eloquently made the point—to secure the future of the high street, support local businesses and protect residents from financial isolation.

Hundreds of people have signed my petition to bring a banking hub to Bitterne, and many more have written to me. Like others, I met Link. I have to share my frustration with the House about how the reviews are being conducted. The Link survey suggested that my constituents could quite easily take a bus into Southampton city centre in 12 minutes. That is for the birds. If they do it in the dead of night with no traffic on the road and ignoring the speed limits, then maybe, but it can take up to 90 minutes to do that round trip.

Let us set up the banking hubs to succeed. I ask the Minister: how are we going to achieve that manifesto commitment when we are essentially outsourcing it to Link? Let us invest in solutions that do not leave anyone behind and let us bring banking back to Bitterne. \p Lewis Cocking: I commend the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate.

Like so many places across the country, bank branches have closed at an alarming rate in my constituency. Not so long ago, residents could pop down to a branch of every major high street bank in the towns of Waltham Cross, Cheshunt and Hoddesdon. Just last week, Halifax became the latest bank branch to shut its doors in Waltham Cross, while in Hoddesdon the former site of the Barclays remains empty, a scar on an otherwise vibrant town centre. In my town of Cheshunt, a town of 40,000 people, not a single bank branch remains. That simply cannot be right.

The lack of in-person banking facilities is depriving people of access to vital services. For so many older and vulnerable people, it is causing huge difficulty and frustration, as they are forced to rely on digital services such as apps and smartphones. \p John Hayes: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I particularly wish to draw his attention to the plight of blind people. Royal National Institute of Blind People research in 2023 found that 28% of blind and partially sighted people never used the internet, they struggle with ATMs, and they struggle too with travel to banks. \p Lewis Cocking: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is really important that we expand the rules to get banking hubs in more locations across the country. Not least of all, my nan does not do online banking.  Every time I go and see her, she badgers me about it. She will specifically bank with someone where she can have face-to-face services, because she will not do online banking. It is a real struggle, because some banks say, “Well, you’ve got to telephone.” But even then, one has to have a smartphone to get a code on the app for security, so it is very difficult for our older and disabled constituents to access those vital services.

When Barclays went from the high street in Hoddesdon, it did a “Barclays local”. Through the good work of my Conservative-run Broxbourne council, we managed to get it into the Spotlight, our local theatre, but it is cashless. That is nonsense! Its bread and butter business as a high street bank is to deal with cash and get people access to its cash and banking services, but it wants to run a service that is now cashless. We tried in Cheshunt—as I said, a town of 40,000 people with no banking services—to get the NatWest banking van at the car park of our Laura Trott sports centre, but again it would only offer a cashless service. This is bread and butter to the high street banks. They should accept cash and we should bring forward legislation to ensure that our constituents across the country have access to banking services. We need to look at the rules, because waiting until the last bank is in our high street does not promote consumer choice or solve people’s banking and access to cash needs.

On buses, my constituents are lucky if the bus even turns up—we get one bus once an hour—so including public transport in analysis of banking hub locations is unreliable. We need to widen the criteria to enable more banking hubs to be opened up across the country. \p Andrew Lewin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing such an important debate.

Next week, the Lloyds and Halifax branches in Welwyn Garden City will close their doors to customers for the last time. In Hatfield, we have already lost every bank branch from White Lion Square in the centre of town. As we have heard today, this is a wearily familiar story in communities across the country.

Regrettably, I must start by sharing my experience with Lloyds Banking Group. On its website, it talks of a

“commitment to putting customers first”.

I am afraid my experience, on behalf of residents in Welwyn Garden City, left me feeling that we were just another cog in the corporate wheel. Earlier this year, my office was informed of the closure of Lloyds and Halifax in Welwyn Garden City barely an hour before they hit send on the press release. The management did respond to my firmly worded letter demanding a meeting, and, in person, I made it clear that if the closure could not be overturned, I wanted to work together on a bespoke option for a community banking service. I suggested Welwyn Garden City library as an appropriate community venue, and said if that option was pursued, there should be no barriers to running a regular service, given the extremely low cost to Lloyds of hiring a room. Lloyds needed frequent chasing to respond afterwards, and eventually came back with its standardised offer: a community banking service in the library, but open just once every fortnight. That is its national policy, so Welwyn Garden City is in no worse or better a position than any of our neighbours, but I am left with the impression that Lloyds was never serious about a bespoke  solution for our town. If Lloyds Banking Group is listening or watching today and wants to think again, I will happily take a call as soon as I leave this Chamber.

As other banks and building societies close, it is the role of Government to accelerate the roll-out of banking hubs. In Hatfield, we have a temporary banking hub at the post office in White Lion Square, and I know that Cash Access and Welwyn Hatfield borough council are working towards a permanent home. Some people will always want to have face-to-face conversations about their finances. The hub model is here to stay—a service underpinned by the state, via the Post Office, which we need in communities across the country.

I am equally convinced that the way banks and building societies navigate this period of change might lead to customers being increasingly open to switching. I commend Nationwide for its national commitment to keeping branches open, and note with interest that the Current Account Switch Service found last year that nearly 1.2 million Brits switched their current account, with Nationwide the beneficiary of the most net switches.

The challenge for the retail banking industry is to show they take seriously the need to engage with customers who want and need in-person support, and those who succeed might find that doing good is good business. However, where business has a choice to make, Government have an obligation. Let us fast-track our plan for banking hubs and redouble our efforts to ensure that no community is without one. \p David Chadwick: I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this debate.

One of the most meaningful moments I have had so far as a Member of Parliament was hearing the elderly residents of a nearby care home thank me for securing a banking hub in Ystradgynlais. That hub is now open and working, providing an essential service to residents and small businesses, many of whom were previously facing long and expensive journeys just to access basic banking services. The local response has been overwhelmingly positive, with many residents saying that the bringing back of those banking services is the first time they have seen their community restoring services in many years.

The opening of this hub did not happen by chance. I put on the record my thanks to all the staff at Link and the regulator who engaged with us throughout the process. They took the time to understand the community’s cash and banking needs and sought to find a solution. Their involvement was constructive, and I commend them for it. That is how an effective regulator can make life better for ordinary people by reining in corporate greed.

If the Government are looking for ways to win back favour, surely committing to more banking hubs must be one of them. The Government have committed to 350, but in reality, as we have heard, the country needs far more. The demand is there and the model works, but the current framework is far too restrictive. I have submitted applications for new hubs in my constituency in Pontardawe, Brecon, Presteigne and Builth Wells, each of which has a clear case. We need a system that supports those applications, instead of holding them back through outdated rules and artificial limits.

In Brecon, we have one final bank branch remaining. In Hay-on-Wye—a town blessed with a bustling high street and a number of independent businesses—not a single bank remains. Elsewhere in Radnorshire, Presteigne saw its last bank close earlier this year, and Rhayader is troubled by community bankers who do not wish to visit it. In Pontardawe, in the Swansea valley, Lloyds is due to close the final remaining branch later this year citing a lack of footfall, despite queues from the door to the counter. All the while, banks continue to report billions of pounds in annual profits and rising dividends. They say they have no option but to close these branches because of the digital transformation, yet some of them cite statistics showing that up to 50% of their customers still need physical services.

The banks have fundamentally changed their service offering. Who would now deposit their life savings with someone that offers to meet them in a car park once a week? That is what Charlie Nunn, the CEO of Lloyds Banking Group, has done to his customers in Presteigne, Brecon, Ystradgynlais and now Pontardawe. He took home a staggering £5.6 million last year, having closed more than 140 bank branches to save his company some overheads, and managing to bump up the Lloyds dividend by 13%. Does he deserve that? Does he know the misery he has caused people in doing so? Will he stop the closure of the Pontardawe branch, something that more than 500 local residents have called on him to do? \p Dave Robertson: I do not intend to labour too long on rehashing points that have already been made. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling it.

It is very clear that access to a physical bank is important for many people in our communities. My constituency, like those of colleagues present, has not been spared the loss of banks. In Lichfield, we have recently lost our Barclays branch, but up the road in Burntwood we have a much more difficult situation: every single bank branch has been closed for a number of years. The community has stepped up, as it so often does in Burntwood, and the post office has filled the breach. There is some access to banking services, but that is not the same as a physical branch.

As I sit and listen to the debate today, I realise that there is one word that sums up the importance of this matter—regeneration. Burntwood has a high street that is almost ready to go. Some businesses are thriving and the footfall is massive, but there is not the investment to make it kick on and become a town centre of which the whole town can be proud.

In Lichfield, where the banks are more present, there is a thriving cafe culture. Although everything is not all sunshine and rainbows in Lichfield and it never will be, we can really see the difference in the two town centres. What we are seeing here is almost an unvirtuous circle, where high streets start to struggle, footfall drops off, banks start to struggle and withdraw, footfall drops further, shops struggle more, and so on. It is a spiral to the bottom. \p John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is becoming an hon. Friend. What happens is that the banks encourage their customers to do things online. You cannot open  an account in a branch—where branches still exist—and then say that online banking is replacing face-to-face contact. \p Dave Robertson: It is important to say that internet banking is not going away. These two ideas—face-to-face banking and internet banking—should be two sides of the same coin. All our high street banks should recognise that they have a responsibility to both ways of working. I prefer to bank online because I am busy and spend half my life on trains, but there are people who do not have that luxury, as they are technologically reluctant to engage. I hear many people ask the Government, “What can we do to get more banking hubs? What can we do to encourage more physical banks?” That is something that I would support, particularly for towns such as Burntwood, where bringing those banks back could be that spark of regeneration—the thing that starts to reverse that unvirtuous circle, so that it becomes a virtuous circle, where those banks are present and they drive footfall: it is easier to get cash, easier for businesses to bank there and easier for the high street to come back.

We all know that the high street is the physical representation of how people feel the economy is going. One reason people are so worried about the economy is that our high streets have been failing for decades. Governments have not supported high streets for far too long, and I am proud that this Government are saying that they will now do so. Getting banks back on to the high street, where they belong, can be that first step for towns such as Burntwood and the others that we have heard about in today’s debate. \p Gregory Stafford: I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this debate.

In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, the situation is stark. Although I welcome the fact that we have secured a temporary banking hub in The Shed, in Bordon, on the Hampshire side, it rapidly needs to have a permanent location. In Liphook, there is no banking hub, no agreed plan and no clear process for securing one. Across the border in Surrey, in Haslemere, we are fortunate to have one of the 100 national hubs up and running, but in nearby Farnham, Barclays has just gone and Santander goes next month. All this means that more than 100,000 people across my constituency have not a single bank and only one building society. Constituents are right to be concerned. Link, the UK’s main cash access body, has stated that Santander’s closure will have,

“no significant impact on the community”.

I strongly disagree; it absolutely will. This cannot continue to be a postcode lottery. Banks were once embedded in towns and communities but now they are being erased with little left behind. Banking hubs are a partial answer, but the system needs reforms. The process is slow, the criteria too narrow and the scope of services too limited. Hubs must be located centrally, open five or six days a week, accessible to those with limited mobility and reachable without a car. They should serve both individuals and small businesses and, crucially, offer face-to-face banking, not just cash points and machines. \p Bradley Thomas: In a society where collective trust is depleting, does my hon. Friend agree that the presence of face-to-face banking services and banking customers  being able to have a direct in-person relationship with real people is one step that we can all take to help rebuild collective trust in the institutions that underpin society? \p Gregory Stafford: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a very convincing point. When we are dealing with something as vital as personal finances, it should not be too much to demand to see a person face to face.

The legislation we rely on to manage access to banking, including the Financial Services and Markets Act, remains focused almost exclusively on access to cash, not access to banking services. That distinction matters. Depositing takings, seeking support with financial abuse and getting advice are all services that cannot be delivered by a machine.

Even when residents are confident and willing to bank online, they are often held back by something much simpler: their connection. In many parts of my constituency, mobile coverage and broadband access are so poor that digital banking is unreliable, if not impossible. The digital divide is no longer just a social challenge but a financial one too.

Older people, disabled people, rural residents and small businesses all deserve access to a banking system that works for them, not just for those who are already digitally fluent or living in better-connected areas. That means that physical services, in-person advice and real access to cash must remain part of the infrastructure of modern life.

Will the Minister work with Link, Cash Access UK and local authorities to accelerate the roll-out of banking hubs? Will she expand the remit of the Financial Services and Markets Act to protect access to full banking services, not just to cash? Finally, will she meet me to discuss how we can support the roll-out of permanent, accessible banking hubs in Liphook and Farnham? No one should be excluded from essential financial services because of their postcode, their age, or the strength of their wi-fi signal. \p Dan Aldridge: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate. For five years, I worked as a support worker for children with autism across the north-east, and I have many fond memories of his constituency, in particular Blyth beach. The communities we served there as support workers often had complex needs, and in many ways they were some of the people who were most vulnerable to the digital-by-default approach to public services like banking, which has been one of the excuses for high street bank closures and one of the reasons for public anger at the loss of services.

It was a huge privilege to spend that time working with young people with disabilities, and I learned so much about humanity and community. I also learned about the state’s role as an essential safeguard and why we need to build inclusion and safeguards into planning. Banking is no exception. I have been really encouraged by this Government’s work on banking hubs as a way to mitigate banking closures, but it is clear that far more needs to be done.

While the debate understandably focuses on more rural communities, I echo the comment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that it  is a myth that this sort of disenfranchisement is exclusive to rural areas. I have seen the barriers at first hand, whether in my experiences as a care worker or from trying to convince my younger brother to change his behaviour. He has autism, and it is not the easiest thing to try to get him to do something new.

Changes that I and many others take in our stride are profound and insurmountable for some, and I urge my colleagues in Government to be ambitious in fostering more inclusive services. We should set the bar high for inclusive services in this country. While I am a big fan of digital transformation and consider myself to be a tech evangelist, changes cannot and must not come at the expense of people who cannot or choose not to engage.

The issue of high street bank closures in my constituency is keenly felt in Worle. Despite the valiant campaign led by the formidable Jill Leahy to keep the Lloyds open on Worle high street, we could secure only a short stay of execution, and now Worle is without a bank. To compound this, the post office in north Worle closed recently. What is left is a growing sense of frustration among residents, especially older people and those with disabilities, who may not be comfortable with using or able to use online banking for digital payments. For them, face-to-face services are not a preference but a necessity.

Following the campaign by Jill, local campaigners such as Sally Heap have recently been working hard to advocate a banking hub in Worle. We are hoping to be successful in that bid, and I have written to the Minister to put my support behind Sally’s campaign. I urge the Government and financial institutions to listen carefully to constituencies and communities like mine. A new banking hub in Worle would be a lifeline not only to individuals but to the resilience and prosperity of the town. Let us make sure that our high streets have a future and that no one is left behind in the rush to become digital-first, which works for many but leaves some of our most vulnerable in an intolerable situation. \p Sarah Green: In the last five years, 11 bank branches have closed in my constituency, leaving most towns without traditional banking facilities. For example, two years ago the closure of Barclays in Chalfont St Peter triggered the assessment for a formal banking hub. While I recognise that alternative provision is now delivered by the post office or in small pop-up locations on an appointment-only basis, those alternatives do not go far enough. They are unable to meet all needs, forcing people to travel further afield to find basic banking services and advice on mortgages and debt—and, as the Minister will be all too aware, asking people to rely on a bus network that is increasingly cutting services.

Link found that Chalfont St Peter did not meet the criteria for a banking hub, yet one in five people there is over the age of 65, and Age UK found that 40% of over-65s with a bank account do not manage their money online. Some of my constituents in more rural areas also face broadband connectivity issues, restricting their access to online banking. My plea to the Minister echoes the calls already stated to review the criteria by which towns are assessed for banking hubs. Accessibility gaps must be considered, including access to broadband,  and whether residents have adequate access to not only cash—the current criterion—but in-person banking services. \p Alison Griffiths: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery). It is an honour to speak about the impact of the decline of local bank branches, which is an issue of such importance to my constituents. The closure of the Santander in Rustington is just the latest blow. The need for a robust and fair system of banking hubs is urgent.

High streets have changed beyond recognition. Once, we had Barclays, NatWest and Lloyds on every corner. Now, 6,300 branches have closed since 2015, which is a 64% fall. Cash use may have dropped to 14% of payments, but millions still depend on it, especially the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable. In places like Rustington, entire communities have been left without local banking. Some are forced online against their wishes, even when they cannot afford the technology or cannot physically use it. At the same time, they are increasing their exposure to phishing attacks. My constituent Roger Mallock has lost a life-changing sum of money to cyber-scammers.

Post offices cannot fill the gaps; the queues are longer, and they cannot handle complex banking needs or take large cash deposits. Despite my appeals to Link, Rustington was denied a banking hub. I raised the matter directly with the Prime Minister and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. As one constituent put it:

“Banks are licensed by the Government. Those licences should come with a duty to maintain local branches.”

Consider a Ukrainian couple who came to Bognor Regis under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Thanks to the Santander branch, they opened accounts, and they continue to rely on in-person support due to language barriers; without it, they would lose hours from work and face serious barriers to managing their finances. They are not alone: many elderly and less mobile customers depend on face-to-face services.

Banking hubs offer a limited solution. Only 108 hubs are operational out of the 224 planned, and they can take up to 12 months to open. Worse, the FCA’s rules are too narrow, focused only on cash rather than on broader services. The last Government introduced the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which was a start but does not go far enough. Banking is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. We must ensure that digital innovation does not leave millions behind. \p John Cooper: At the risk of disappointing the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), I rise not entirely to criticise the banks, which have done tremendous work on apps and the like, and many people—not all of them spring chickens—make great use of them. But as banks retreat from bricks and mortar locations, a problem is that even silver surfers who are comfortable with the technology may simply not be able to get the relevant app to work. In rural Dumfries and Galloway, we have too many notspots, where the mobile phone signal is sketchy at best and non-existent at worst. Similarly, there is a lack of decent broadband. The ground truth is that while it might be easy-PC for some to get online, sclerotic broadband  and thick stone walls designed to keep out the Scottish damp make too many computers and smartphones expensive placemats.

The need for access to face-to-face banking services remains high, as we have heard. As we have also heard, there are numerous issues with the current banking hub regime. Take Wigtown in my constituency: it is Scotland’s official book town, yet the current banking hub criteria fail to capture the significance of that. Wigtown is evaluated on its modest resident population, with no account taken of the huge influx of visitors when its famous book festival opens its covers. I have a stream of reports of the town centre cash machine running out of spondulicks outwith the festival and anecdotal reports of people gathering for a trip to the nearest hub in Newton Stewart to lift their pensions. That hub is 12 miles distant, and notwithstanding our positively balmy climate in Dumfries and Galloway—no, really—it is not walkable. As for the public transport system, let us just say that we need a calendar and not a stopwatch to time the buses.

When Dalbeattie, the third biggest town in my constituency with a population of more than 4,000 souls and a slew of thriving businesses, struggles to get a banking hub, surely there is a compelling case for lowering the threshold for hubs. I accept that we cannot have an ethos of “wherever two or three are gathered, there shall be a banking hub”, yet equally, we cannot expect one ATM to carry the banking needs of hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

Banking has come on in leaps and bounds since the days of little pens chained to counters and limited opening hours, but on balance, too many people are being left behind in the technological revolution. American banker Felix Rohatyn, who rescued New York from financial disaster, said:

“banking is not simply about profit, but about personal relationships.”

Even in this digital age, we need to capture some of that spirit via our banking hubs. \p Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on setting the scene and on his introduction of the issue. As an MP for an area that has been hard hit by the removal of 11 banks, first in rural villages and now increasingly in even the main towns of Strangford, the issue is incredibly important. We need the regulation of access to banking services in legislation and to stop the drain towards online and city-centre banking only.

Millions of people in the UK still rely on cash day to day; in fact, some 1.1 million people in the UK remain unbanked and rely entirely on cash, while more than 8 million adults report that they would struggle to cope in a cashless society. A YouGov survey found that nearly 28% of small businesses use cash at least weekly. The British Retail Consortium has shown a rise in the use of cash for the second year in a row to 20% of transactions in 2023, as more and more people use cash to manage their budgets in a difficult economic environment.

While closing branches, banks have managed to increase their profits by some £2.5 billion. It is clear where their focus is. However, once the banks are closed and the profits are allocated to shareholders, how will they continue to up the profits? What services will be removed next?  The percentage of branch closures is lower in larger and medium-sized towns and highest in villages and smaller communities, at 50% and 70% respectively. \p John Hayes: That is why the Link criteria need to change, is it not? The trouble is that rural areas are disproportionately damaged by the fact that the population size is not big enough. People cannot get access to banking in The Deepings, Long Sutton, Donington and elsewhere in my constituency. I am sure it is the same in the hon. Gentleman’s. \p Jim Shannon: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that is replicated not just in his constituency and mine, but probably in those of everyone here today. Those in rural areas are twice as likely as those in urban areas to depend on their local post office branch for cash and banking services. With 11 banks closing and two banking hubs opening, we depend more than ever on the post office. We have credit unions but what we can do with them is very limited, despite being very welcome.

While bank networks decline, the Post Office continues to provide free and convenient access to cash through its branch network. However, the branch in Newtownards in Strangford is set to close—there is potential for that to happen, anyway—and that is absolutely devastating because the range of services that are not available in the local garage, which has a sub-post office, will only grow. Even the Post Office must therefore rethink its obligations.

Through the banking framework that the Post Office has with 30 UK banks and building societies, postmasters support over £3 billion in withdrawals and deposits each month, providing a trusted, convenient face-to-face service at the heart of communities. However, large branches such as the one in Newtownards must be left open if we are truly to have a full service.

According to Age UK, 27% of over-65s and 58% of over-85s rely on face-to-face banking. Nearly a third—31%—of people over the age of 65 said they were “uncomfortable” with the idea of banking online. The age sector must be protected, and the way to do that is to require legislatively a better minimum service from banks and post offices that are trying to fill the gap but are pulling back.

So what do I want? I want banks to be required through legislation that they deliver for their customers. I want to ensure that the post offices, including the main post office, are in place in my constituency and to see opportunities through credit unions. I look to the Minister to outline how the Labour Government will protect access to cash, face-to-face banking and a full-service post office in each area. \p Sarah Olney: It has been a pleasure to be part of the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for bringing it forward. It would normally be customary, with so many contributors, to say that there has been a wide range of views, but I do not actually think there has been. There has been a wide degree of unanimity on the fact that banking services in this country are in crisis. The lack of access to banking for many of our constituents  right across the country is leading to social exclusion, limiting entrepreneurship and having a devastating impact on many of our local economies. I have heard from many hon. and right hon. Members that services cannot just be replaced by online banking, particularly for those who have poor digital connections in their constituencies. The difficulty of accessing banking is a massive problem for those who are reliant on public transport, those who are disabled and those who are elderly or have additional needs.

It is good to hear how banking hubs are making up some of the gap that so many communities are experiencing, but clearly there is a lack of banking hubs, and they do not do everything needed to close the gap in accessing cash or loan facilities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that.

The Liberal Democrats are strong champions of their local communities. We want to see the reversal of the damage caused to our local economies by the lack of access to banking. One of the things I call on the Minister to look at is reversing cuts to the interchange fee paid to ATM providers, which would go a long way to increasing ATM provision in many of our communities. The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington gave a stark example of what happens when cash runs out in certain town centres.

More needs to be done on digital inclusion because, clearly, digital banking will be part of our future banking provision, and for those who struggle to access it, more can be done to assist them. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to consider a fair banking Act to look at this problem in the round, to think about banking exclusion not just for individuals, families and small communities, but for the wider business sector, and to look at what more can be done to connect our communities and businesses.

I will close by adding my praise to Nationwide for its commitment to maintaining banking services on the high street. I was privileged to join my local Nationwide branch in central Richmond just before recess. The branch celebrates 110 years of being on Richmond high street. While I was there, I chatted to the local staff, who generously gave me some of the birthday cake. Many members of the local community were coming in to do their banking face to face. It was clear not only that it was good for my constituents to be able to use that face-to-face service, but that the staff got great satisfaction from helping customers and being that point of contact in the community. Other banks should be making available that sense of satisfaction to more of their staff, and I would like to see more banks making that commitment to community banking. \p Mark Garnier: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing this debate.

A great strength of feeling about banks has been evident in this debate, and it is important to remember the importance of banks not just to our communities but to the wider economy. Banks provide services for businesses and individuals, but they also provide two other fundamental services. First, banks and building  societies take money from where it has accumulated and distribute it to where it is needed for investment in infrastructure, businesses and jobs. Secondly, banks take overnight deposits and turn them into 25-year mortgages—so that our constituents can create a home and build a family—which is quite difficult for banks to do.

The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington made a couple of important points that I would like to address. The first was about the profits that banks make, and the second was about the policing of banks and the fact that banks apparently police themselves.

Following the 2008 financial crisis, there was obviously a huge number of problems in the banking system. The Financial Services Act 2012 created two regulators, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, both of which—and particularly the PRA—are responsible for making sure that our banking system is sound. Banks need to have strong balance sheets, and to do that they need to make profits to a certain extent. I agree that some of those profits look obscene, and perhaps some banks could put some of that money back into our communities. None the less, if banks spend their money unwisely, we potentially run the risk of another banking crisis.

Along with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden), I am one of only two Members left in this House who sat on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards from 2013 to 2015. Our work on that commission underlines the importance of banks in modern life, about which we have heard so much today. The commission found that holding and operating a bank account is now essential to participate in society and the economy, whether it is receiving wages, paying bills or accessing benefits. But we also found that people’s views on banks are shaped by their direct experiences. The more a person knows their bank, the more likely they are to have confidence in it. That means that if banks want to retain their customers, they must provide good, wide-ranging services. An inability to access banking services risks eroding that trust and confidence, as we have heard today, especially among the most vulnerable. \p David Mundell: Does my hon. Friend understand that people are very angry about bank closures, and about the fact they feel that the banks just do not listen to them when they go through some consultation exercise? That is why in Moffat, at 2 pm tomorrow, there will be a protest outside the closing Bank of Scotland. \p Mark Garnier: I agree 100%. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Let us be clear that the decline of our high streets and the decline of bank branches have run concurrently as behaviour has changed over the last couple of decades and retail activity has increasingly moved online. Banks are, of course, commercial entities, and their decisions to close branches are often driven by commercial imperatives, which is not necessarily what we want to hear in this debate. Falling footfall, the rise of digital banking and the need to be cost-effective are just some of those reasons.

As we have heard so often, there are now just 3,000 bank branches remaining in the UK, and that number is expected to drop even further in coming years. ATM  numbers, especially free-to-use machines, have also declined. Only 14% of payments in the UK were made with cash in 2022, and withdrawals from the Link network are down 50% on pre-covid levels. \p John Hayes: The clue is in the phrase “banking service”. It is about providing a service to people. As the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) said, banks dignify communities too. This is about personal interactions, trust and building relationships. That is what we do when we go into a bank, and we could never do that in the same way online. \p Mark Garnier: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about face-to-face relationships, not something done through an app.

Behind the statistics I cited are real people and real communities. The digitally excluded, older people, those in poor health and people with lower financial resilience mostly rely on cash. Small businesses and rural communities are hard hit. The question for Members who want to compel banks to keep branches open is how much digital-first customers should be charged to retain loss-making branches—notwithstanding, of course, that profit question.

Of course, the answer cannot simply be to do nothing and to walk away from our responsibilities to those who are left behind. The previous Government recognised the importance of maintaining essential banking services as a foundation for public confidence in this sector. Through the post office network, we provided a system of free and convenient access to banking services, and the banking framework partnership between the Post Office and over 30 of the UK’s banks and building societies means consumers and businesses can access basic banking services through the post office network. The Post Office now has more branches than all the banks and building societies combined, and according to the Financial Conduct Authority, post office branches make up more than 66% of all branch-based cash access points in the UK. The last Government also introduced banking hubs, which we have heard a great deal about.

I am conscious of time, and I do not want to incur your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, so although I have a lot more to say, I think it would be prudent for me to step aside and allow the Minister to face up to the passion about this issue from Members representing their communities. \p Emma Reynolds: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I want to thank and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on bringing forward this important debate, which was heavily subscribed across the House. He highlighted the needs of his constituents, particularly the elderly, the vulnerable and the disabled. My hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), and the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas),  for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) all stressed the importance of in-person services, particularly for vulnerable constituents.

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing banking hubs in their constituencies— in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales, two banking hubs are soon to open, as I understand it.

Other Members spoke about their campaigns to secure banking hubs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin)—who is apparently expecting a call from one such bank— and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of access to cash and banking services in rural areas. \p Alex Mayer: Will the Minister give way? \p Emma Reynolds: I do not have very long left, I am afraid.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare rightly stressed the importance of these services in urban areas as well. I will not go through all of them, but we heard lots of really good speeches on both sides of the House and a surprising degree of consensus, which is not always the case. It is interesting to see the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington so closely aligned, which is not something I expected.

Through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the last Government legislated to protect reasonable access to cash, giving the Financial Conduct Authority new powers to ensure that communities could both withdraw and deposit cash. The Government recognise that the ability to access cash and in-person banking support remains essential for many, particularly in rural areas and for vulnerable people, which is why we have secured the industry’s commitment to roll out 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament, ensuring that access to face-to-face banking is protected. Over 220 have been agreed, and more than 160 are open.

Banking hubs are a voluntary initiative by banks as part of meeting their access to cash obligations, as legislated for in FSMA. Many Members have asked the Government to demand that Link reviews its assessment procedure, but it is worth reminding colleagues that the process for deciding where hubs are needed is independently determined by Link, the operator of the UK’s largest ATM network. The Government are not minded to review the legislation passed by the previous Government.

A number of Members—including the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who mentioned this to me yesterday as well—talked about ATMs’ lack of reliability. I have done a little bit of work on that, and Link assures me that it takes a hard line with its members over the functionality of ATMs. However, I urge Members to raise these issues with me, so that I can raise them with  Link. I am soon to meet John Howells, the chief executive of Link, and I will feed back the concerns that Members have raised today about how Link applies its criteria.

I know that this is not necessarily the conclusion to the speech that Members were hoping for, but we think it is important that local communities have access to cash and banking services, which is why our Government are committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs across the country. \p Caroline Nokes: I call Ian Lavery to wind up very briefly. \p Ian Lavery: With the leave of the House, I will simply say a very brief thank you to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate, and to everybody who has participated in it. What my hon. Friend the Minister just said is exactly right. I am someone who has been criticised by Opposition Members as a left-wing dinosaur—I wear it as a badge of honour—but that would hardly be said of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). People should recognise that when someone with my politics and someone with her politics absolutely agree with everything that has been said, there is surely something wrong.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the importance of banking facilities to local communities and expresses concern over the precipitous decline over the past 40 years; notes the change to banking habits through online services; further recognises that, for vulnerable people, face-to-face banking is a vital service and a reduction of branches risks significant financial exclusion; further notes the impact of a loss of physical banking on small businesses through lost productivity and lost footfall; also notes the innovative nature of banking hubs as a solution to a loss of high street banking, but recognises that Financial Conduct Authority rules for their recommendation are too inflexible; and calls on the Government to instigate a review into the impact on communities of bank branch loss and a change to the regulations to ensure communities have appropriate access to banking facilities. \p Caroline Nokes: This is a subject in which I might have more than a passing interest. \p John Milne: I beg to move,

That this House recognises the unique challenges posed by lithium-ion fires in battery energy storage sites; and calls on the Government to bring forward enforceable national regulations for their design and construction.

I have asked for this debate in order to highlight important issues associated with lithium-ion batteries when deployed at grid scale. These installations are known as battery energy storage systems, or BESSs. In particular, I am calling for clear national regulations that could be applied in the same way in every part of the UK. We need legislation, and I hope that this debate will push the Government further along the road to passing it.

The UK has set a target to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. To achieve that, many wind and solar farms have been constructed and permissions are being sought for many more. I fully support the drive towards renewable energy; the enhanced regulation that I am suggesting today is intended to secure the industry’s future, not to create more obstacles. I think it is perfectly possible to draw up regulations that will not stand in the way of BESS roll-out, and which in the long term could actually save the industry from a wholly avoidable setback in the event of an accident.

BESSs solve the classic question of what to do when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow. They provide a number of highly useful functions, including load balancing, peak shaving and energy arbitrage. Above all, they make it practical to meet a much larger percentage of our national energy needs from renewables. However, every energy system carries some kind of risk, and most BESSs currently use lithium-ion battery technology. In the event of an accident—and sooner or later there are always accidents—lithium-ion batteries catch fire in a different way from other materials, in a process known as thermal runaway. It is important to note that most BESSs now rely on lithium iron phosphate or LFP batteries. This chemistry is much more stable than lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide or NMC cells, which are common in consumer uses. That means fewer incidents, but those incidents can still be dangerous. In the future, there will undoubtedly be other chemistries, so we need to leave space for innovation.

Thermal runaway generates very high temperatures and requires different firefighting methods. It is usually best not to try to put out the fire, but rather to control the spread. Firefighters also have to contend with severely toxic gas emissions, the risk of an explosion, soil contamination and damage to watercourses. To repeat, I am in no way suggesting that battery energy storage systems are inherently unsafe. The risks they entail may be different from those of traditional systems, but they are perfectly controllable. \p David Mundell: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the location of many of these sites are in rural areas, which are often served primarily by retained firefighters?  They are a long way from where specialist firefighting resources would come from, and that does not seem to be taken into account fully in the planning process. \p John Milne: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I agree that such sites can be in remote locations where there are fewer resources. As I will say later in my remarks, fire officer training is very much part of what I am recommending.

There is a strong case for mandating water-based suppression systems, off-gas detection, ventilation systems and thermal runaway mitigation as design conditions. Unfortunately, that is far from the case today. The guidelines for planning approval are imprecise and vary across the devolved nations. Currently, the burden of responsibility falls on individual local authority planning officers who have no specific training or background in lithium-ion technology—and why on earth would they?

For reasons that are hard to understand—perhaps the Minister can explain—fire and rescue services have not been made statutory consultees for planning applications. The current guidance states that applicants are “encouraged to engage” rather than required to do so, but even compulsory consultation is not enough by itself because the fire services themselves do not always have the expertise. Within the last fortnight, Henry Griffin, Suffolk’s deputy chief fire officer asked for fire services to be given new powers, saying:

“I’d like to see a power that is akin to a regulatory order like those for a commercial property, where we would have the power to enforce safety measures on those sites.”

He explained that the fire service is currently just a “contributing partner”, able to give “direction and professional advice”, but not necessarily to require what it might like.

The result is inconsistency, which is destructive both of public trust and of the success of the industry. In my own constituency of Horsham, the local planning authority has rejected a BESS application, while a similar site, just half a mile away, across the border in Mid Sussex, has won approval. Such inconsistencies show alarming parallels with Grenfell. The Grenfell disaster was the end result of many failings by both individuals and companies, but at heart it was a failure of regulation. The rules left things wide open for exploitation by cost-cutting developers, which is exactly what happened. Just as with lithium-ion batteries, a new technology—in that case cladding—was being used at scale for the first time, without proper understanding of the risks. The time to act is now because the number of BESS applications is expanding exponentially. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is right to highlight the issues around lithium-ion batteries and thermal runaway; we are all reminded of explosions and fires in Liverpool in 2019 and in Kilwinning, in Scotland, in 2025. He referred to the need for legislation for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but that needs to start here. Is it his intention to ask the Minister to confirm in her response that that will happen, so that the legislation can then fan out to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales? \p John Milne: The hon. Gentleman is better acquainted than I am with the way that devolution works, but yes, I hope that the Minister will be able to set out whatever course of action is required to get to that point.

It is essential that we build battery energy storage sites to proper safety standards so that we do not find ourselves facing the need for a massively more expensive retrofit, with consequences for the entire energy network.

What accidents have there been so far? In September 2020, a fire at a BESS site in Liverpool created a significant blast and took 59 hours to extinguish. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service said that the blaze on Carnegie Road

“appears to be the first significant fire of its type to occur within the UK”.

However, this was only a small BESS, with just four containers and a modest 20 MWh output in total. \p Samantha Niblett: In common with the hon. Gentleman, I welcome renewable energy. Safety is hugely important. In my constituency there are lots of battery sites that are being placed in pockets around beautiful little villages because there are connections to the national grid. Because of the potential fire hazards and possible toxic run-off into local rivers, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should prioritise brownfield sites as opposed to such pockets around pretty little villages? \p John Milne: The issue of site choice is closely associated with grid capacity, so that is a factor. That is why some of these sites are ending up in otherwise somewhat improbable and very un-industrial settings. Rules around the pollution of watercourses are one of the most important measures to be brought in, and a wider discussion of land use is going on that could help with that.

There was another accident in February this year. Essex firefighters dealt with a fire at a BESS project that was still under construction and therefore not even operating at full power. The most serious incident internationally, which caused serious injury, was in McMicken, Arizona in 2019. As a result, America, along with Germany, has some of the most effective BESS protocols in the world, which I think could be copied.

Overall, BESS fires are high risk in their impact but low in incidence. The Faraday Institution estimates that only one in 40 million battery cells will experience failure resulting in fire. That is an exceptionally high standard of safety, but there are millions of batteries, so there will be accidents—and, of course, in a BESS scenario one battery can trigger another. Grenfell was one fire in one building, yet the ramifications continue today. It has left us with the huge cost of retrofitting large numbers of high-rise buildings across the UK built with similar cladding methods. Even a single failure can therefore undermine an entire industry if it turns out to be the result of a systemic mistake in design.

The UK’s regulatory approach to BESS safety relies on performance-based regulations such as the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Building Regulations 2010. They place the responsibility on the responsible person—the site owner—to ensure that adequate safety measures are in place, but they lack specific provisions tailored to BESSs. Too much reliance is being placed on individual owners to mark their own homework. The National Fire Chiefs Council provides guidance for the fire and rescue services, but that needs to be more comprehensive and updated constantly in line with changes in technology if it is to serve a proper regulatory purpose. On fire response regulation, recent  changes to the International Electrotechnical Commission standards suggest a global shift towards mandatory water-based suppression and proactive risk mitigation, but that has not yet been echoed in UK law.

There are also the environmental impacts. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Water Resources Act 1991 provide a general framework for managing environmental impacts but, again, they do not specifically address the challenges posed by BESS fires. Existing regulators do not seem to know whose responsibility this should be. In a recent application for a solar park at Cleve Hill in Kent, which includes battery storage, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero stated that the Health and Safety Commission should be consulted on safety advice, but the HSC itself said that commenting on battery safety management plans was not in its remit. That confusion is not exactly reassuring.

It is important to note that if the batteries themselves are not manufactured in the UK, the Government have limited scope to regulate. However, because batteries are produced under controllable factory conditions, their failure rate is low. The focus of UK regulation should instead be on the processes that can happen in this country, especially the design of the battery containers and the overall site.

I understand from the Electricity Storage Network, which is the industry group for electricity storage in Great Britain, that it is currently talking to officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about a new permitting system. It is also talking to the British Standards Institution about laying down new standards for design and emergency response. However, the Government have responded to all questions from myself and others saying that they consider the present regulatory regime to be “robust”. I am tempted to say that pride comes before a fall.

In the last few weeks, a spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has stated:

“Battery fires at storage sites are rare in the UK. We already have high safety standards in place that require manufacturers and industry to ensure batteries are safe throughout their lifespan.”

That is just too complacent. Fires as a result of cladding were also incredibly rare, but that did not save 72 lives at Grenfell.

I and others have been asking for action for some time, but so far without success. It feels like the message still is not getting through. It is very concerning that many questions are passed from Department to Department, with no one seeming to be sure exactly whose responsibility it is. Because of inadequate regulation, some BESS units have already been fitted with inappropriate fire suppression techniques, which might actually make the problem worse, but they were installed in good faith by operators looking to do the right thing. Why are the Government so reluctant to act? I hope that the Minister will explain. Perhaps the Government are worried that regulations would slow down the planning process, but I would argue that clearer rules will actually make life easier for planning officers and councillors. Currently, they have to grapple with a complex technical subject for the first time each time—that is too much to ask of non-experts. I further suggest that it would be easier to win public consent if there were more clarity and consistency.

Perhaps the Government fear stifling innovation in a new and rapidly changing industry. I wholly agree that any regulations need to be carefully drafted and have sufficient flexibility. Any guidance needs to cover a number of areas, including the transportation of batteries to the site, design and construction, firefighting, ongoing inspection and decommissioning. In the short term, if the Government are—for any reason—still reluctant to regulate, perhaps they could issue clear national guidelines that are capable of being updated annually. Enforcement might then take place through the insurance industry, which would be likely to insist that any new applications follow such guidelines. As no project can go ahead without insurance, this would be enforcement by the back door.

Grenfell was a wholly predictable tragedy. A similar fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, which killed six people, should have made us understand the risk, but that warning was not heeded and history took its course. We cannot go back in time to stop Grenfell, but we can act now to avoid making the same mistake again with battery energy storage systems. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Members will be able to see how many are standing. I do not intend to put a formal time limit on, but if Members can keep their contributions below five minutes, everybody will just about squeeze in. \p Jon Trickett: First of all, I support the fact that there is a debate on this issue, and I support some of the points that the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) has just made. It is clear that technology is moving fast, and when it does, it is essential that public authorities move even faster so that we feel properly secure and protected. I do not think we are quite there yet, and it is clear that there are different patterns of operation by public authorities in different parts of the country. We need an overall pattern.

I also agree that we do not want to turn our back on this new technology. It is very important that we continue to transform our energy provision across the country as a whole, but the fact of the matter is that the fires that occur from time to time pose serious problems for fire authorities. Those authorities should take a central role in any national conversation about this matter. Guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council says that at least 1,900 litres of water per minute are needed to try to control a fire once it gets started. That is an incredible amount of water to deliver, and many sites simply cannot deliver it, although they seem to be making progress in some cases.

The Government have said that there have not been many fires, but there have been quite a few. The one in Liverpool that the hon. Member for Horsham mentioned burned for a substantial period of time—59 hours—and there was one in California that lasted for five days. There have been three other fires in the UK this year, and we are only halfway through the year. When the fire authorities are trying to eliminate a fire, it is obviously complex, but it can lead to pollutants going into the ground and into watercourses, which itself is very dangerous.  It has been shown that in Liverpool, when the smoke from the fire was sprayed by water, it produced hydrochloric acid that was distributed through the community—obviously, not a very healthy thing to have. Additionally, toxic fumes were created, which travelled a long way. \p Jamie Stone: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Jon Trickett: I will, but quickly. \p Jamie Stone: The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. He refers to the pollution of watercourses; in my constituency, the salmon fishing industry is hugely important to tourism and the local economy, so that could be a disaster waiting to happen. \p Jon Trickett: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and take his point entirely.

Some authorities have suggested that a two-mile radius is needed if a fire starts. People need to keep their windows and doors closed while the fumes are in the air, as there is a risk of children, elderly people and others breathing them in. In my constituency, there are two applications in place, both in beautiful parts of Yorkshire. In Heath, which is regarded as one of the crown jewels of Wakefield, there is a proposal for a large battery storage provision. Hundreds of people objected to it. The chief fire officer said:

“The risks of vapour cloud, thermal runaway and explosion are unfortunately very real and are becoming more common as we see an increase”

in battery storage. He talks about choices being given to the fire authorities, in whether they allow the fire to just burn itself out, with the risk of pollution of the atmosphere, or whether they attempt to tackle it. To control a fire at the site in Heath would require millions of litres of water in a 24-hour period. It is almost impossible to deliver that level of water and, anyway, what happens to the millions of litres of water used to try to eliminate such a fire?

There is a second proposal in Old Snydale, a beautiful village in my constituency. It is a one-road village, and the people who live there work hard or have worked hard. The proposed site will be almost next to the village, and there is no road access or egress. I do not know how the fire engines and other emergency services would get in. The proposal is completely inappropriate, but the two communities of Heath and Old Snydale are sitting there with planning applications in place and the fire officers expressing great worries about the risk of potential fire and how they will control it. Without national guidance and proper regulations that are sensitive to the prospect of fires, our local planning officers are having to reinvent the wheel, as are other planning officers in other authorities. I support the points made by the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) in introducing this debate. \p Alec Shelbrooke: I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) not just on securing this debate, but on giving it such a wide-ranging and thoroughly comprehensive introduction. I am sure that many Members would have mentioned many of the areas he discussed in their own way. Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I are very good  friends, and I know that you have been concerned about battery storage plants near the River Test and potential runaway fires that may lead to pollutants going into the river. As you are in your place, you cannot comment on that, so I thought it important to get that on the record.

The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) was focusing on some of the planning issues, and that is where I want to go, too. When we look at this debate overall, what we are talking about is a lack of statutory guidance. I want to get on the record immediately that this is not a debate of “Forget net zero and forget about renewables.” That is not the debate, and we are not deniers along that road, but there are serious concerns. The leader of my party has raised those concerns and immediately been accused of being anti net zero. We have to take the concerns seriously, because, as the hon. Member for Horsham outlined, there are changes, slowly but surely, in the materials being used. Nickel manganese, for example, has a vaporisation point of 900ºC. These fires can burn easily over 1,000ºC. I want to focus my attention on the fallout.

I had a meeting with some soil scientists, among others, from the University of Leeds at a research facility in my constituency. They are involved in all aspects of farming. I asked about research into potential contamination and fallout and what it could mean for soils if there was a fire. They said no such research had really been done, and I think they had a couple of PhD ideas appear from that. It showed that that work has not been done.

Where have we got to on thermal runaway? As has been outlined, such fires need a huge quantity of water. It is not just about trying to do whatever we can to stop the fire spreading. I read in the International Fire and Safety Journal about using high-pressure water mist at the starting point, monitoring the potential for thermal runaway and trying to cool the batteries before they get to that stage. Equally, if that mist is high pressure enough, it can contain the contaminants around the fire. Again, the science around this issue has to be closely managed. As the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth has outlined, acids and other things can be created. We have to be careful about the chemistry, but we do not have any statutory guidance for planning authorities. We keep speaking about what we need to do with water, so surely it should be a condition of the planning process that there is a mains water supply to where such incidents are happening.

In my constituency, planning applications for solar farms and battery storage are pouring in. They are being approved and pushed on, but there is no demand for water supply. These applications are for developments in the middle of a rural area, on farmland. Farmers are being offered a golden egg and told, “Sell us your land, and we will develop solar farms and battery storage.” Let me give the example of a planning application for Wetherby services. There were not really any objections or concerns about batteries, but Leeds city council then approved the development of hundreds of houses 600 to 700 metres away. As has been outlined, no one knows how far contamination goes.

There must be a lot more statutory undertaking for planning authorities. I recommend a pause on approving planning applications until we fully understand what mitigation could be put in place for disasters, which unfortunately do happen. \p Roz Savage: As the MP for South Cotswolds and an environmental campaigner who has spent decades campaigning for climate action, I would like to raise serious concerns about the unchecked expansion of BESS facilities. Earlier this year, I brought the Climate and Nature Bill to the House because I believe in having a fast, fair and science-led transition away from fossil fuels, but I also believe in doing so properly—safely, transparently and with communities at the heart of the process. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing in the case of the proposed Lime Down solar farm in my constituency.

The Lime Down proposal would industrialise over 2,000 acres of rural farmland and introduce a 500 MW battery installation right next to the railway line from London Paddington to south Wales. That is not just a visual or environmental concern, but a serious safety issue. We have already heard a lot about the low risk, but very high consequence, of a fire at such a facility. If such a fire were to break out, the consequences would be devastating for both infrastructure and public safety.

Members have already referred to many examples of fires that have taken place, so I will not repeat them, but I want to emphasise that the location of battery storage facilities is absolutely crucial. Right now, there are no national safety regulations tailored to best technology. There is no requirement for thermal containment, no mandatory fire suppression and no clear guidance for local planners. Under the Government’s new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, BESS projects would be removed from national oversight altogether, piling even more responsibility on to under-resourced local authorities. That does not look like thoughtful climate planning; it is a top-down proposal on a massive scale, with too many unanswered questions and too little engagement with the people who live nearby. Despite the obligatory consultations, residents close to Lime Down feel understandably overlooked in a process that should prioritise both safety and consent.

We should look closely at the companies behind Lime Down. The developer, Island Green Power, is now fully owned by Macquarie bank, a global investment firm with a track record that should give us all pause for thought. During its time leading the consortium that ran Thames Water, Macquarie extracted billions in dividends while letting infrastructure crumble and rivers fill with sewage. It is an asset management company. Its job is to make money, and it does it well. It is not a public utilities company. It is not interested in home-grown, community-led energy; it is interested in profit. It is not here to protect the beauty of the British countryside or to invest in long-term sustainability. Its business model is simple: build big, move fast and maximise returns, whatever the cost to people, nature or public trust.

We need a better alternative. Instead of handing vast developments to multinationals with sketchy records, we should be investing in community-owned energy projects—initiatives that are more resilient, more trusted and far better suited to rural areas such as South Cotswolds. Projects such as Westmill Solar and the Low Carbon Hub have shown how communities can lead the way on clean energy, cutting emissions while boosting local economies.

Let us not confuse scale with ambition. Our net zero future should be safe, smart and fair, not shaped by the profit margins of distant shareholders. We can and must do better if we are going to get to net zero without alienating the public and driving them into the arms of campaigners who would do away with the net zero enterprise altogether. \p Greg Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on bringing forward this important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in it, because this is a matter of considerable concern to the many rural communities in the Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, particularly given the safety risks posed by battery energy storage systems.

Let me be clear from the outset: this is a debate not about the principle of energy storage, although I am in principle opposed to such schemes taking agricultural land and challenging our food security, but about—and this is deeply concerning and the House must urgently address it—the real, growing and too often overlooked safety implications of these installations, particularly when placed in close proximity to villages and rural road networks that are ill-equipped to support them.

The most pressing risk, and one that has already led to devastation elsewhere, is the danger of thermal runaway, as others have said. These are not hypothetical risks; they are documented, real-world events. In Merseyside, a fire at a battery site in 2020 caused an explosion that shook nearby homes and required a major emergency services response. In Arizona, a BESS fire led to an explosion that seriously injured eight firefighters, and in Belgium, a BESS fire burned for over a week and forced the evacuation of nearby businesses.

These systems contain highly reactive lithium-ion batteries. When one cell fails—often due to manufacturing defects, overheating or damage—it can cause a chain reaction across the entire installation, releasing toxic gases, generating intense heat and creating a fire that cannot be extinguished with conventional methods. In rural areas, where response times may be slower and firefighting resources more limited, the consequences could be catastrophic.

In my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, we are increasingly seeing applications for these industrial-scale storage sites in rural settings near homes, farms, schools, conservation areas, watercourses and rivers. These are often justified in the name of green energy, but residents rightly ask: green for whom and safe for whom? It is not just the risk of fire; the cumulative impact of associated infrastructure—substations, cabling, transformer enclosures —often means miles of narrow rural roads being torn up by heavy goods vehicles, with lasting safety implications. Roads that were never designed for such weight and volume are left with potholes, uneven surfaces and subsidence. For local motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders, or schoolchildren walking along rural lanes, this poses a daily and wholly unnecessary danger. I have received multiple reports from parish councils, residents and emergency services who are concerned that the access routes used for construction and maintenance of these sites are not fit for purpose. My constituents in the Claydons and in Little Missenden are at risk from convoys of lorries, with junction visibility reduced, verges destroyed and road surfaces degraded if BESS projects planned for those areas go ahead.

Should an emergency arise at the site itself, one has to ask: would a fire engine or ambulance even be able to reach it safely and quickly? Could the fire service even attempt to deal with such a fire? That is why I am pleased that Buckinghamshire Council rejected a 500 MW site in the Claydons last year. I trust that other speculative developers, such as the one planning a site just outside Little Missenden, will take note and spare my constituents from these unacceptable fire risks and road safety risks.

We must take a more precautionary approach. At the very least, the Government should introduce clear national guidelines on the siting of BESS installations, including minimum separation distances from residential properties, fire resilience standards, mandatory site-specific risk assessments, and restrictions on placing these facilities on or near rural roads. I urge the Government and local planning authorities to take these concerns seriously. Safety must never be sacrificed on the altar of speed or ideology, or the first technology that happens to be on the shelf that day. Our rural communities in particular deserve better protection. \p Kirsty Blackman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate. Some of the newer Members may not know quite how much I love the geekiest possible debates. I have not had as much time since I became SNP Chief Whip, so I cannot reach the geeky heights managed by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) in reading the International Fire and Safety Journal. I commend him on that, but I want to bring the debate to another geeky level and talk about the mechanisms by which the Government should take action.

There has been a lot of talk today about planning mechanisms and regulations, but I urge the Government to look at health and safety regulations. I am from Aberdeen and a number of years ago we had the Piper Alpha disaster. The Piper Alpha disaster and the Cullen report that came afterwards resulted in a massive step change in safety. It was a huge, drastic change in how those things worked, with health and safety regulations that apply across the whole of the United Kingdom. Planning, for example, is devolved to Scotland and a lot of environmental rules are the preserve of the Scottish Parliament.

Currently, there are no health and safety rules in this area. The House of Commons Library briefing for this debate states:

“There are no laws that specifically govern the fire safety of battery energy storage systems”.

It also states:

“There are no specific health and safety laws relating to BESSs.”

I have written to the Health and Safety Executive, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, the city council and the Scottish Government about this issue. I have done a lot around battery energy storage sites. The HSE wrote back to me saying that it is a member of the cross-Government group on battery energy storage, so it is working on that. It has a landing page on its website that brings together some of the regulations of battery energy storage, but most of them were written for the safety of individual batteries rather than for the safety of these storage sites. That, specifically, is what is missing: the health and safety guidance for battery energy storage sites.

A number of Members have spoken about local or UK-wide issues, but across the world there have been 85 fires at battery energy storage sites. That is not a small number or a small percentage. This is a risky business. I do not disagree with those who say that these sites are necessary. We absolutely need them for our energy systems in the future, but they need to be safe. We need regulations in place. We should bring them together, even if it is just the best practice from all different places, to ensure that there is one place where the health and safety guidance is held. I would be even more flexible than having it updated by Parliament. I would give the HSE a level of control over changing and flexing that guidance, should more best practice come through. Again, that would apply across the whole of these islands, and I think that would be the best way forward.

I want to mention two other things. First, an earlier speaker mentioned that we have extreme weather events—once-in-a-generation events—just about every week at the moment. It is really important that we look at both the extreme temperatures and the flooding events that may occur, as flooding events at battery energy storage sites are an issue; whether or not there has been a fire in advance of a water leakage, there could still be concerns.

Secondly, I want to talk about the money. A number of people are looking at these sites with dollar signs in their eyes, thinking, “We can build these things and make a whole lot of money.” Actually, we should be telling the organisations that are creating the battery energy storage sites that they will need to pay for the fire safety assessment, consult the local fire service, and pay for the training of the local fire teams on tackling fires at these sites. I think that would be the most reasonable way forward. We should ask them to pay for that training, because it is those organisations that will be making a huge profit from the sites. It should not just be the public services that have to train up and increase the number of hours that retained firefighters, perhaps, are working. I think that is really important.

I urge the Minister to look at HSE guidance as the method and mechanism for taking this on. I have pushed the Scottish Government to change some of their planning guidance already—particularly around notification of local community councils, for example—but that health and safety guidance is, I think, the key place to take action, make that change and bring it together in one place, so that all our constituents are safer as a result. \p Bradley Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing it, and for his comprehensive introduction.

I would like to talk about this issue in the context of rural constituencies such as mine, as many other hon. Members have this afternoon. First, farmland is not just another piece of land, but an irreplaceable national asset. The ability to produce food domestically is a fundamental pillar in our sovereignty and our national economic strength. In recent years, we have witnessed prime agricultural land being converted into sprawling arrays of energy installations with solar farms, and now we have the increasing prevalence of battery energy storage systems appearing in glorious countryside across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for  Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is not present, has raised this point comprehensively in the past, as well as safety concerns around battery energy storage systems and the displacement of good agricultural land for energy production.

We are at real risk of displacing this good agricultural land and of energy production facilities becoming, in effect, a new cash crop. These facilities area incredibly lucrative for farmers who feel stretched—it is very difficult for them to make a living in this challenging economic climate. I am pleased to be supporting the new clause to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills to protect agricultural land in the long term.

There is another point I would like to highlight beyond those that have been made by many other Members today. We face the exposure of our energy supply chains to foreign countries—countries that may not share our values—and the long-term depletion of our energy resilience if they manage to embed their infrastructure within our national energy infrastructure in the UK.

In Weatheroak in my constituency, we have been battling an energy storage application bang in the heart of north Worcestershire’s green belt. This glorious countryside will be fundamentally changed forever should the application go ahead. I am grateful to Tony Williams, the chairman of Weatheroak residents association, for having written to me on numerous occasions. I have engaged with many local residents who share the concerns that have been raised today, namely around the proximity of such sites to villages and the potential danger should there be an accident or incident whereby one of these sites catches fire and the sparsely dispersed rural fire services are unable to get there. We also have the impact on roads, which has been picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith).

Rural communities across the country are facing a fundamental change in their identities, at the expense of industrial applications that are often granted at ease with little regard to the identity and character of those villages. I know that this is a concern that so many of my constituents share. If I had three asks of the Government, they would be: that they pause the granting of battery energy storage system applications in the first instance; that they consider a minimum radius for the proximity to settlements within which applications can be granted; and that they ensure that fire services across the country are statutory consultees in every case where there is an application for a battery energy storage system of any size. \p Jamie Stone: As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have come to the Chamber with a pre-prepared speech, but really everything has already been said. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this debate. I also want to thank everyone who has contributed—this sounds like a winding-up speech, but it is not. Whereas normally I would email my speech to people who have approached me on an issue, in this case I will just email the whole debate as it is published in Hansard, because so many of the concerns have been addressed, fleshed out and aired.

There are proposals in my constituency, way up in the north of Scotland, to have power lines from Spittal in Caithness to Lochbuie and Beauly in Inverness—it is massive—and there are lots of applications for battery storage systems. It does feel as if the technology is racing way ahead of the statutory authorities of the Scottish and UK Governments and that we are playing catch up. We are being left behind in a cloud of dust, and that worries me enormously. We have heard about the dangers of a battery fire—of thermal runaway. In the north of Scotland, where I represent, we are no strangers to extremely cold weather. Alnaharra in my constituency is always the coldest place in the winter. Cold temperatures can affect the batteries; they can change their lifespan and their mix. \p Alec Shelbrooke: There is a phenomenon called dendrite, which is a form of crystallisation—especially from lithium—with a tree-like structure. We do not fully understand where it comes from. Does that play into what the hon. Gentleman is saying about trying to understand the stability of battery storage? \p Jamie Stone: I, like others, am left in awe by the diligence of the research that has been carried out by the right hon. Member. Yes, that is absolutely correct; we just do not quite know what happens. We have heard that if one battery catches fire, it can ignite fires in other batteries, but I will not go over that again. Where possibly high-risk infrastructure is proposed for a community, we must surely have mitigation. And yes, we should have a complete consultation with the authorities and those responsible. In Caithness, we have only five fire stations, and they do not have enough personnel, let alone faintly enough water, to tackle such a fire. The authorities want to build a battery near the Castle of Mey where the King sometimes stays, but they ain’t got the troops to sort that one out, absolutely not.

I totally endorse what is being said about the Health and Safety Executive. In Scotland it should be HSE, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, and the Fire and Rescue Service. I take great heart from what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) has been saying—thank goodness that this is being taken seriously.

In conclusion, we should not simply forge ahead with this sort of stuff until we know exactly what we are doing. To be helpful, I shall namecheck one person. She is a councillor in the highlands. She is not a member of my party—Members can google her later and find out of which party she is a member. She is called Helen Crawford. She has been bravely standing up saying, “I think we need to have a way of structuring this that takes the communities with us, that does not seem that we are imposing something from on high.” She is referring to batteries, grid improvements and so on. Nobody is saying that they do not believe in getting to net zero, but let us take people with us when we do it.

I drop a little hint to the Minister and the colleagues of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North in Edinburgh that there will be a meeting of a large group of community councils on 14 June in Inverness-shire. They are reasonable people, and under Scottish law, a community council is a statutory consultee on planning matters. I would be very grateful if the Minister would take a look at what comes out of that meeting, because I think it will be  helpful to both the UK Government and the Scottish Government. Let us have renewable energy, but let us get it right. \p Sarah Bool: I rise to speak on the looming crisis facing us in relation to battery energy storage sites. As Members have explained, the sites are beginning to play a larger and larger role in the transition to greener energy sources, but at the moment ideology is winning the day and pragmatism is disappearing.

There is over 78 GW of battery capacity that is either operational, awaiting construction having been approved or in the early stages of the planning process. For context, that is enough power to supply nearly 200 million homes at once, which is almost 10 times as many as we have in the UK.

One of the 1,100 installations that are proposed but not operational is a battery energy storage site just outside of Grendon in South Northamptonshire. It is part of the wider Green Hill solar farm proposal owned by Island Green Power, and I note the comments from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on that. This proposal exposes how the Government are asleep at the wheel on this issue. The Green Hill BESS is a massive 500 MW site proposed for the edge of the town, just a few hundred metres from the centre and next to the beautiful Grendon lakes and the River Nene. On the border of a site of special scientific interest, the environmental importance and sensitivity of the site cannot be understated. The proposal is likely to come to the local planning authority eventually, which understandably has virtually zero experience in balancing the risks and benefits of a large-capacity BESS.

The Minister for Housing and Planning wrote to me this week after I raised with him several of the significant risks that the site poses to residents and the environment. He said that the current regulatory framework was “appropriate, robust and future-proofed”. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) has already alluded to this comment. I am sure all Members will agree that that sounds rather good, but the title of the framework that the Minister spoke so highly of was “Health and Safety Guidance: Guidance for Grid Scale Electrical Energy Storage Systems”. Unfortunately for the Minister, he has exposed exactly what is lacking in our approach to BESSs. Our framework for regulating the design, construction, running and decommissioning of these sites is simply guidance. We have not gripped the potential threats of these sites and attempted to mitigate them.

Thankfully, there are examples of where countries have faced up to the need to recognise the threats. The United States is further along the path of rolling out BESSs than the UK. As we have experienced here, they have faced large-scale fires, explosions, environmental concerns and, understandably, a gap in expertise when it comes to the emergency response to the unique challenges. In response, they realised that guidance did not suffice, so they passed, as the Housing and Planning Minister sort of alluded to, an “appropriate, robust and future-proofed” statutory framework that did simple things. It required co-ordination with local fire services during the planning process. It specified minimum distances from residential buildings. It mandated elevation in  flood-prone zones, and it enforced the training of the fire departments and first responders to give them the expertise that they need.

That framework is prescriptive, yes, but when it comes to the health of members of the public—health threatened by these sites in the ways that Members have articulated—we must be prescriptive. If we are not careful, much like a fire at a battery energy storage site, a fire will be lit that we cannot put out, and it will burn and burn. I ask that the Government immediately pause the roll-out of these sites until a proper regulatory framework is in place. \p Mike Wood: People in my constituency are worried. They are worried by the constant stream of applications for new battery energy storage systems in and around the villages across the constituency—from Kinver to Swindon, Hinksford, Wombourne, Lower Penn and the edge of Kingswinford. Their worries were not exactly alleviated by the response the Prime Minister gave to my question last month. He did not give the impression that the Government understand residents’ concerns and some of the reasons for those concerns.

Lower Penn in South Staffordshire is a lovely village with a population of just under 1,000, and it felt like pretty much all of them were in the village hall for the public meeting in February. At least seven battery sites have been either approved or proposed in or close to that small village. The same is happening in villages across South Staffordshire. As I have been sitting in the Chamber for this debate, I have received another email from the planning authority inviting me to speak on one these applications, which are coming through at such a rate. That reflects the position across the country.

There are 121 operational battery energy storage systems in the United Kingdom, but over 1,500 more are in the pipeline, so we really are at a tipping point, but the planning and regulatory systems have not yet caught up. That is why we need action.

As has been said, such batteries have a low failure rate, but sometimes they go wrong, just as they do in mobile phones and electric vehicles. That is why airlines tell us we cannot charge our mobile phone battery while we are on a flight, and it is why Parliament has decided that electric vehicles cannot be charged in the underground car park. It is not because the risk is high; it is because the consequences of things going wrong can be catastrophic. Whereas a mobile phone may have a capacity of 15 to 18 watt hours and an electric vehicle battery perhaps 80 to 100 kW hours, the site in Tilbury—the site of the fire earlier this year, which I think the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) referred to—when completed will have a capacity of about 600 MW hours. To put it another way, that site will be the equivalent of 33 million iPhone batteries.

As we see an increase in these sites, we know from basic statistics that there will be more fires on top of those we have already had this year in Tilbury, Cirencester and Aberdeenshire. We therefore need to ensure that our systems are properly adapted and modernised to reflect those risks. The risk of a fire is not only about the potential danger to human life—for both those who may be nearby and the firefighters who are sent to bring those fires under control over what may be 24 or 48 hours —but about our local natural environments. \p Alec Shelbrooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the issues is that there is no statutory requirement on prevention methods that may stop us from getting to that disastrous situation in the first place? \p Mike Wood: My right hon. Friend is completely right. Part of the problem is that the planning applications that come in are often very vague about exactly what lithium ion-type chemical and technology will be used, because they are often made years in advance, and therefore before the products that will be on a site have been acquired. In those circumstances, it is impossible to assess the risk properly.

When these fires run for 24 or 48 hours and millions of gallons of water are used to bring them under control, the chemical run-off has to go somewhere, and sadly many of these applications—including those in my constituency—are for sites near to our rivers and our canals. For example, in Wombourne and Lower Penn there are plans for two battery energy storage sites to be erected close to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire canal and the South Staffordshire railway walk.

Not only is the canal a green corridor through our beautiful countryside—an area of outstanding local beauty—but it is close to the historical Bratch locks and Bratch pumping station. It is a popular site for canal users and anglers alike. The consequences of a major fire and the chemical run-off would be devastating for fish stock and other wildlife.

The planning and regulatory systems must catch up with the realities before all the applications are approved and in use, by which time it may be too late. We need the National Fire Chiefs Council to update the guidelines, as well as their assessment of battery energy storage systems. Before that is done, however, we clearly need a minimum distance between battery sites and residential properties. We need the fire service to be made statutory consultees on planning applications for battery energy storage systems. Furthermore, the Government really must go back and make the changes needed to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to ensure that local authorities and communities have a real and meaningful say on where such systems are and are not installed. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Charlotte Cane: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am an unpaid director for Reach Community Solar Farm. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate, and on his strong and comprehensive speech supporting the need for regulation. I have been impressed by all the speeches from across the House, as well as by the fact that every single one supported the motion. I hope the Minister has heard that and will urgently take the actions required.

I am proud of the Liberal Democrats’ consistent support for green energy and recognise the need for battery energy storage sites, so I am deeply worried that current practices cause concerns about safety, anger at lack of community involvement and little or no share of the profits coming back to the communities affected. A prime example of those problems is the vast Sunnica solar farm planned in my constituency, stretching through  into West Suffolk. Community groups and parish, district and county councils all opposed the development. Their evidence convinced the planning inspector to recommend refusal, but within two weeks of joining the Government, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero granted permission. Now it is down to the local authorities to decide on final details, including the battery energy storage sites for up to 500 MW.

The councils will have 14 working days from receiving details from the developer to consider whether they need further information, to share the application with consultees, to collate any requests for further information and then to return the questions to the developer. They must do that without any clear guidance or regulation on battery safety. They are advised to consult the fire service, and the fire service in turn has no battery safety regulations to refer to, just the guidance issued by the national fire chiefs. It will also be difficult, if not impossible, for meaningful public consultation to be fitted into that timetable.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for local fire services and the Environment Agency to be statutory consultees for BESSs so that they can advise on making the sites safe and on how to manage a fire should one break out. Local communities also need to be consulted, as they know best how the area is used, where the water courses run and what wildlife is present.

Fortunately, as we have heard, BESS fires are rare, but where they occur, they can last for several days. The water used by the firefighters in the Liverpool case combined with the chemicals given off by the batteries to create hydrofluoric acid. Ely and East Cambridgeshire has many interconnected water courses, from drainage ditches through to the River Great Ouse, as well as the internationally important Wicken Fen wetland site and other vital wetland sites. If those became contaminated with hydrofluoric acid, the damage to wildlife, especially in our rare chalk grasslands, would be enormous. We are also the breadbasket of England. Imagine the impact on our farmers and therefore our food supplies, not to mention the impact on the horse racing and horse breeding industries.

Our planning departments need clear regulation and relevant statutory consultees, so that they can ensure that BESSs are installed in the right locations and have the necessary boundaries, run-off catchments and so on to ensure that the fire risk is minimised and that, in the event of fire, people, crops, soils and nature are protected. DEFRA has stated that it will consult in June on integrating BESSs into existing environmental regulations. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know when we can expect the consultation to open. Many BESSs are already operating, more have permission and yet more are applying for permission. Proper regulation and guidance are therefore urgent.

The Liberal Democrats want green energy to replace fossil fuels. Green energy reduces fuel poverty, gives the UK fuel security and is better for the environment. To be successful and reliable, green energy needs battery energy storage sites, but those storage sites must be safe, and that requires Government regulation and guidance and making local fire services and the Environment Agency statutory consultees. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Nick Timothy: I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and I hope to give a voice to your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker, given the interest in this important subject in Romsey and Southampton North. I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing the debate and making such a comprehensive speech. He was even wise enough to quote the fire experts from the county that matters most—by which I obviously mean Suffolk.

The fact that there were such clear themes from Members across the House and across the divides of the House—right and left, net zero enthusiasts and sceptics—shows that we are dealing with an undeniable problem that the Government have not yet gripped. There was a clear consensus across the House, from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), that there is a total absence of regulation with this risky technology. There was also agreement, from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), about the effects of the policy on the countryside, such as on the availability of good farmland and on rural roads, as well as the challenges of fire service response times in the country. The hon. Members for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made the point that BESS fires can have serious effects on our precious rivers.

I also want to single out the speech by the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), who drew attention to the dodgy finances of a lot of the firms behind a lot of these applications. That is something we need to investigate further. There was broad agreement on the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) that these battery sites should not be allowed to go ahead until a proper system of regulation is introduced.

I am afraid that I am going to breach the cross-party love-in by picking up on what my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) said about ideology. The Government are betting on battery energy storage systems thanks to their ideological aim to decarbonise the entire grid within five years, therefore choosing to depend on unreliable, intermittent and expensive renewables. That is the root cause of the dependence on the technologies we are debating. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) can intervene if he wishes.

It is the consequence of the zeal of the Energy Secretary that we are debating these subjects. Thanks to net zero policy costs, which are relevant more than wholesale gas prices, Britain already has the highest energy costs in Europe. Pushing policy to run faster than technology will allow risks a crisis in the grid and in our economy. \p James Naish: As someone who worked in the energy industry for five years before coming to this place, I would appreciate some honesty in recognising that the applications the hon. Gentleman has just referenced have been in the pipeline for a lot longer than the Labour Government have been in power. \p Nick Timothy: The hon. Member will note the enthusiasm and ideological zeal of the Energy Secretary, which began, I think, in his very first week when he came to this House and announced that he was imposing masses of solar farms on parts of the country and, in the case of the solar farm in my constituency, completely disregarding the independent expert examining authority. That is a clear difference between the two Governments we are discussing.

Mass solar is inefficient and produces less power even than wind, which has a higher load factor—between 10% and 11% for solar, between 22% and 28% for onshore wind, and between 30% and 38% for offshore wind. And that is wind, which is unreliable in itself. The comparison worsens next to nuclear, as it would take 8.5 million solar panels, taking up at least 10,000 acres of often top-quality farmland, to produce enough power to match an average reactor. To the surprise of no one, the World Bank says we are one of the countries with the “least generous conditions” for PV. Indeed, we rank higher only than Ireland.

Batteries and solar panels also expose us to dependence on China, which produces more than 80% of the world’s solar panels. Many are made with slave labour, and perhaps all contain kill switches controlled by Beijing. While an amendment to the GB Energy Bill was passed to ban the Government’s new quango from using slave-made imports, it does not apply to private sector purchases. So much for ending our dependence on foreign dictatorships and human rights abusers. So much for our energy security.

Giant solar fails even on its own terms, because it is four times more carbon-intensive than wind and nuclear. Apart from biomass, solar is the most polluting of all renewables.

As this debate has shown, there are very real safety concerns about the battery sites that we must address. These battery sites pose a public safety risk that the Government are simply ignoring. With 150 BESS sites already in operation, and with well over 1,000 planning applications in the pipeline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) noted, this needs to be confronted as a matter of urgency. Building these sites and trying to deal with the safety questions later is reckless, expensive and dangerous.

When a fire starts at a BESS site, highly toxic emissions are released into the air. They include chemicals such as hydrogen fluoride, heavy metals and carcinogens, forcing people to stay indoors. These fires do not need oxygen to keep burning, so they can last for weeks. They can be reignited easily, and the health effects of exposure to these gases are a major concern.

Just look at the fire in Liverpool four years ago, which several Members cited. It took 59 hours to put out. In answer to my written questions, the Government have confirmed that no environmental impact assessment has been made of that incident, so no lessons are being learned. And this year we have seen fires at battery sites near Rothienorman in Aberdeenshire, and in East Tilbury in Essex.

I have repeatedly raised fire safety directly with Ministers, but no satisfactory answers have been given. The Government have made no assessment of the adequacy of fire services near battery sites. There is minimal oversight from the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency.

The National Fire Chiefs Council recommends a minimum distance of 25 metres between grid-scale batteries and occupied buildings, but it is only guidance and there is no statutory requirement to maintain this distance. As the Liverpool fire proves, a major blaze can affect people over a much wider area anyway.

We need clear involvement from the fire and rescue services in the planning application process for battery sites, looking at concerns around construction, fire safety and retrofitting. Henry Griffin from Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service has described battery sites as an “emerging risk”, saying:

“There can be complications with vapour clouds and fires will last a long time.”

Fire services have no legal power to enforce safety measures on battery sites. We need legislation and residents need a say.

Sunnica is one of the biggest solar and battery farms in the country, as mentioned by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), and it has been imposed on our constituents by the Energy Secretary. Three days after entering office, the Energy Secretary approved the application, overruling the advice of examining authorities and, quite clearly from his answer to my question, he had not read the evidence—breaching his quasi-judicial responsibility.

Sunnica will cover over 2,500 acres of prime agricultural land across West Suffolk and East Cambridgeshire. Three battery sites will be built, and the whole project will actually increase carbon emissions. Sunnica has treated residents with contempt and used consultants who specialise in questionable assessments of the quality of farmland. Sunnica is also located very close to the RAF bases at Mildenhall and Lakenheath, which host the US air force, and many service personnel live in the area. We believe Russia has already targeted those bases with drones recently, and the director general of MI5 says that arson and sabotage are part of the Russian modus operandi in European countries. To approve Sunnica without assessing this very serious danger is grossly negligent.

Rushing towards mass solar and battery farms like this is an act of ideological irresponsibility. It is bad energy policy, reducing our energy security while increasing the cost of energy for families and businesses. \p Jack Abbott: It’s exactly what you did! \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) might like to read the handbook on how Parliamentary Private Secretaries should behave. It is not their job to be heard. If he wishes to contribute to a debate on a policy area, perhaps he should resign his position and return to the Back Benches. \p Nick Timothy: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Ipswich were more confident in his arguments, he might want to stand up and take part.

As I was saying, it is bad energy policy, reducing our energy security while increasing the cost of energy for families and businesses. It is bad farming policy because  it puts some of our best agricultural land beyond use, and as this debate has shown, it is bad for public safety, because the Government, in their haste and zeal, want to ignore the very serious dangers these batteries bring. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this debate and on his thoughtful and informed speech. I thank all Members for raising this incredibly important issue. Let me reassure them and this House that the Government appreciate all the concerns that have been raised. There is no complacency, and we are taking a responsible approach to the deployment of grid-scale batteries, which are an essential part of delivering clean energy.

We are very clear that increasing the amount of clean, renewable electricity generated, stored and used in the UK will improve our energy security. It will bring down bills for consumers in the long term by reducing our reliance on fossil fuel markets, which are volatile. It will create jobs, and it will tackle the climate and nature crisis, which we must do for future generations. We are committed to delivering clean power by 2030, and it was reassuring to hear support for that ambition from Members across the House, with the disappointing exception of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who has adopted a pretty impressive skill of rewriting history and forgetting his own Government’s shoddy legacy on this.

In the clean power action plan, the Government outlined that 23 GW to 27 GW of grid-scale battery storage could be required by 2030. I understand that many Members here today are concerned that this comes at the expense of health and safety, but let me reassure them that that is absolutely not the case. I acknowledge that there have been a number of incidents at battery sites, in 2025 in particular, and this has raised legitimate concerns. We hear those concerns and understand them, and Members are right to raise them with Government. However, it is incredibly important for me to stress—and reiterate a point that has been made by other Members—that the risks associated with grid-scale batteries are relatively small and well understood, that there are robust measures in place for managing those risks, and that Government are already taking further steps to address some of the issues that have been raised. \p James Naish: The Minister knows that I am as passionate about clean, green energy as she is and that flexibility will be key to ensuring cheaper bills for customers, but that is why it is vital that we give the public confidence in systems like BESS. Will she reassure me that the Government recognise that we must give the public confidence, so that we can ramp up the energy infrastructure needed to achieve the targets she has outlined? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I will absolutely reassure my hon. Friend. We understand that we must maintain public confidence and that we need a robust framework in place. \p Jamie Stone: Fire services are devolved to the Scottish Government. I do not think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) would disagree that  co-ordination on this matter between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, so that we are singing off the same hymn sheet, is crucial. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We recognise that there needs to be co-ordination, but first, let me take the framework that is in place. It is often claimed that there is no regulation in this sector because there is no specific law addressing battery safety. That is simply untrue. The safety and standards of batteries are assured throughout their life cycle. The Government are therefore confident that the safety risks posed by grid-scale batteries are relatively small and well managed.

I will take each aspect of this matter in turn, beginning with the planning regime. Planning practice guidance encourages battery storage developers to engage with local fire and rescue services before submitting a planning application, so that the issues relating to siting and location that hon. Members have raised are dealt with before an application is made. I think there is scope to strengthen the process and build on it in order to address some of the issues that have been raised.

Let me come to the crux of the regulatory regime for grid-scale batteries: the health and safety laws, overseen by the Health and Safety Executive. The fundamental principle of health and safety law is that those who create risk are best placed to control it. Operators of grid-scale battery sites are expected to assess the specific situation and implement the necessary control measures. Of particular relevance are the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Together, that framework puts in place protections against some of the issues that have been raised, but I take the point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) raised—that there is scope to think about how we bring this together in a way that is accessible and enforceable, and ensures that the underlying provision and protections that are baked into legislation are well understood by the sector.

To complement the existing health and safety framework, the Government will consult later this month, to answer the question on the timescale, on whether to include batteries in the environmental permitting regulations, to provide further safeguards and assurances. Environmental permitting will provide for the ongoing inspection of battery sites, giving additional assurance that appropriate mitigations are maintained throughout the project’s life cycle. Critically, the environmental permitting regulations make it an offence to operate a regulated facility without a permit, or in breach of the conditions of that permit. We will consult on the principle and then work with industry, local government and key stakeholders in order to develop the detail. If we get it right, that should go a long way to addressing many of the concerns that have been raised. \p Alec Shelbrooke: When the Government do the research on mitigation that the Minister talks about, I gently suggest that they lay down in statute the minimum mitigation facilities that will be expected to be satisfied in planning applications. At the moment, there is no statutory outline for what mitigation must be put in place. Inspections are great, but we are not actually  inspecting anything from a statutory point of view. I encourage her to ensure that the result of the research is that applicants have it laid out for them what mitigation needs to be in place. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We will consult, and work with a host of parties to ensure that we get this right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) said, we have an interest in ensuring that the public feel complete confidence as we put forward this technology, and as we agree sites across the country.

Let me respond to the specific point that was raised by a number of hon. Members on the proximity to residential areas. It is true that there is no mandated minimum distance between BESS sites and occupied buildings, but the National Fire Chiefs Council guidance recommends a distance of at least 25 metres. We can look at how we can build on that going forward.

The one thing that I hope everyone takes away is that the Government understand the concerns that have been raised, and that Members’ constituents are raising. We believe that there is a clear health and safety framework in place that we can build on, and we are intent on building on it. We will continue to work to strengthen the guidance and processes that are in place so that we can ensure that we have the confidence of the public. We believe that this is a crucial part of how we get to net zero, but as hon. Members have said, we must do it in a way that ensures the safety of the public. That is a priority for us, as it is for all Members of this House. \p John Milne: I thank the Minister for her response and all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. Wherever we stand on renewable energy, we can all agree that we must have the highest possible safety standards—that is an absolute given.

From the conversations I have had with industry, clear national guidance would be widely welcomed because what we have now is not felt to be sufficient. What industry most wants is clarity, so any rules can be integrated from the start, at the design stage, when the cost impact is minimal. Regulations are clearly a live issue in many constituencies with so many applications across the country, as Members have said. However, everything is progressing in a random and unco-ordinated way. The fact that the Government do not know which Department should answer questions on the subject is revealing.

I am concerned that Parliament does a weaker job of scrutiny on niche subjects like this one because they are so technical. We are currently placing part of that responsibility on the shoulders of local councillors and council officers, who cannot possibly have the relevant expertise. In her remarks, I noticed that the Minister was still using the term “encouraged” in relation to consulting with local fire officers. That is not enough as such consultation should be mandated and I am disappointed not to hear that there will be mandatory consultation, which is what we all want.

I stress again that incidents will be rare, but a single incident can bring down an industry. I hope that the Minister will not make the same mistake that was made over cladding regulations: let us make this a tragedy that never happens.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the unique challenges posed by lithium-ion fires in battery energy storage sites; and calls on the Government to bring forward enforceable national regulations for their design and construction. \p Chris Hinchliff: I rise to present a petition, alongside a corresponding online petition, signed by hundreds of my constituents in North East Hertfordshire, demanding a planning system that puts people and nature before profit.

The root cause of the housing crisis is the flawed developer-led model that fails to deliver affordable homes and manufactures a false conflict between housing and nature. The Government must put councils back in the driving seat, with the funding and tools to build genuinely affordable homes within sustainable communities. The petitioners therefore request

“that the House of Commons urge the Government to reform the Planning and Infrastructure Bill so it delivers for both workers and wildlife, redefining affordable housing based on local incomes, ensuring developers deliver on their housing promises, protects irreplaceable habitat like Chalk Streams and upholds local democracy in the planning system.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that the planning system should put people and nature before profit.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reform the Planning and Infrastructure Bill so it delivers for both workers and wildlife, redefining affordable housing based on local incomes, ensuring developers deliver on their housing promises, protects irreplaceable habitat like Chalk Streams and upholds local democracy in the planning system.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003081] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Taiwo Owatemi.) \p Iain Duncan Smith: It is a privilege to rise to move this Adjournment debate about applications to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, which has come to be known as the ARAP scheme. I intend to raise a deeply troubling case that highlights serious and systemic failings in the operation of ARAP. Those failings have very real and potentially fatal consequences for real human beings who served us, and who are now in fear of their lives. Importantly, I will ask the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), to reconsider the whole process.

The individual to whom I am about to refer played a crucial role in saving British lives during our operations in Afghanistan. He supported our troops and our mission, often at immense personal risk to him and his family, yet it seems that he has been abandoned by us. When we consider that we have given so much to Afghanistan—building a new Government, a new freedom and some democracy—I think the west running away from Afghanistan is an act that shames us all deeply, as is the fact that those who served us and clearly put their lives at risk have been brushed aside. It does not matter who is in power or which Government it is: I say simply that that is—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Taiwo Owatemi.) \p Iain Duncan Smith: Thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker—that has given me a few more minutes.

The ARAP scheme was introduced to provide a lifesaving path to safety for Afghan nationals who directly supported the UK’s mission in Afghanistan. At its core, it is a moral and strategic obligation. These individuals risked their lives working for UK forces, and I believe the UK must duly protect them. The Government were right at the time to introduce the scheme, and it is important to acknowledge that it has achieved something. However, in practice, I believe the scheme has fallen dramatically short both morally and logistically. Many eligible Afghans are still stranded under Taliban rule and fearing for their lives, which highlights the failures in the scheme’s execution. \p Wendy Chamberlain: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. Waiting for more than three years to hear about the outcome must be absolute torture for those who served in Afghanistan and supported us. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Afghan women and girls, I am emailed by people waiting for resettlement through ARAP and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme who want updates that I cannot give them. Does he agree that the Minister needs to review the communications given to outstanding applicants to ensure that they are given updates in a timely manner? \p Iain Duncan Smith: Indeed. The hon. Lady is right in raising those points. The fact is that this scheme does not fit the requirement any longer, and I think it is, in many senses, quite brutal and inhumane.

I will deal with a couple of the problems here, then I will deal with a personal case. First, the scheme is utterly slow and bureaucratic. I will say to the Minister from the start that this debate is not party political; it is very much about a scheme that we brought in and that the Government have inherited, and I hope that it can be changed. \p Julian Lewis: In the spirit of that remark, I do not wish to ambush the Minister when he speaks with a quote from the Defence Secretary when he was the shadow Defence Secretary, so may I put it on the record now? After a major inquiry by The Independent, Lighthouse Reports and Sky News in November 2023, he was quoted as saying:

“It is extremely worrying to hear that Afghan special forces who were trained and funded by the UK are being denied relocation and left in danger. These reports act as a painful reminder that the government’s failures towards Afghans not only leave families in limbo in Pakistan hotels, but also put Afghan lives at serious threat from the Taliban. Britain’s moral duty to assist these Afghans is felt most fiercely by the UK forces they served alongside. There can be no more excuses.” \p Iain Duncan Smith: I agree with those words the Secretary of State for Defence said previously. I hope he was speaking to highlight problems with the Government, as those in opposition must do; I am afraid that my Government did not resolve that issue. At the end of my speech, as the Minister will know, I will pitch to him how things should be different.

The bureaucracy of the scheme is astonishing. Thousands of applications remain unresolved, some of which were submitted as far back as 2021. Many of these people have had to flee and hide with their families, because they risk death—I will come back to a particular case that highlights all that. The long lack of transparency and the long delays have left these individuals in personal and collective danger.

The scheme has narrow and inconsistent eligibility criteria. Individuals who have served alongside UK forces have been excluded due to narrow definitions and specific eligibility categories that rule them out. Others have been denied protection because they were employed by subcontractors rather than the Ministry of Defence, yet they carried out the same vital work and faced the same risks as others who were directly employed.

Then there are the broken promises. The UK Government assured those who served with the British forces that they would not be left behind, yet lives are still at risk. First-hand reports from Afghanistan show that former allies are now being targeted by the Taliban. I did not serve in Afghanistan—I did serve in the British military, a fact of which I was proud—but there are some in this Chamber today who did serve there and who know from first-hand experience what was going on.

Throughout all of this, as I lay out the individual case, there is a very simple theme: we must stand by those who stood by us, because if we do not, we are not worthy of being British or of the freedoms we uphold and fight for. Those who stood by us fought for those freedoms, too; they supported us in those fights, and we  cannot abandon them, given the threats they now face. The fact that they are in hiding, fearful for their lives, is an absolute travesty, and the idea that we could have forgotten them should be a badge of shame for any British Government and for the British establishment. \p Mark Francois: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that he cannot intervene from the Front Bench in an Adjournment debate. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I hope I can give my right hon. Friend time to get to the Benches behind him, as he may wish to intervene on me. I am sure that he will not be noticed in that movement, swift and ghost-like as he.

I am not going to stretch this out any longer. The individual I will refer to today worked alongside British forces in Afghanistan, providing operational and intelligence support under direct threat from the Taliban. His family and his home were threatened. He served in the national security directorate in Kabul. His work involved sharing critical intelligence with the British special forces and intelligence services in Kabul and, of course, in the wider region. That intelligence undoubtedly saved lives and contributed to the success of key operations. His contributions are simply not in doubt or in question; they are evidenced extensively, including in a powerful testimony from the most senior commander of British forces in Kabul at the time, who is now a general. He personally worked with this individual and has testified to the crucial role he played.

I am not going to name the general at this point, but he says in his letter in support of this individual’s application:

“His daily security briefings covered possible threats and intelligence reports. These reports made a substantive and crucially life-saving contribution not only to the UK’s military and national security objectives with respect to operations in Afghanistan, but also to the day-to-day safety of British troops and civilian British Embassy staff”

and others. He also says that by the very nature of the daily intelligence that this individual was required to share within this high-level forum, the threat to his life and that of his family was unquestionably at an elevated risk from targeted attacks, including a high risk of death or serious injury by the Taliban regime. I would have thought that that alone was powerful enough evidence to say that this individual should be here now, as he is currently in fear for his life in another country nearby. \p Lincoln Jopp: I did serve in Afghanistan, including with the young major who is now the general that my right hon. and gallant Friend is referring to. He is an outstanding officer with unimpeachable credentials.

My right hon. and gallant Friend is making a compelling moral case. I have seen at first hand the risks that those Afghans who supported us on operations faced alongside us, which only increased exponentially when the Taliban took over. We have a very moral case for doing whatever we have to do to fulfil our obligation, and if that means tearing up someone’s bureaucratic rulebook, so be it. \p Iain Duncan Smith: It is powerful that my hon. and gallant Friend is here today to support this debate, given his service in Afghanistan. He will understand more than most the threats that were received by these people and how their lives would have been more difficult. He will also know that many would have lost their lives had this sort of intelligence and support not been available from these brave individuals. I am grateful for his intervention.

Despite the overwhelming evidence presented—there was much of it—the application was rejected on all counts and the individual remains at risk. What we got back in the papers that I looked through, which came first to the Minister and then to me, was this:

“the decision maker was unable to satisfy themselves from the evidence provided or that held by the UK Government that his role with National Directorate of Security…was closely supporting or in partnership with a UK Government Department”.

Is that really the best we can do—some bureaucrat stuck away somewhere who does not care, who is not even in the Ministry of Defence and who has no real understanding of what it is like to put one’s life on the line for other people’s safety? All of that evidence is dismissed in the line

“unable to satisfy themselves from the evidence provided”.

I find that astonishing and appalling. I say that not to attack civil servants—many of them are brilliant and do a lot of work—but this process allows someone to make a decision about the life and death of a brave individual without even thinking about the consequences.

This is not just about a bureaucratic error. As I said, the situation is very human; it is literally life and death. We are making a decision today under this scheme to have this individual die. That is pretty much what they are saying. He is a man in hiding, in fear of his life and the lives of his family. I understand that even his closest relation has been arrested and has probably been tortured to find out where he is. We dismiss it with the words that those processing his application were “unable to satisfy themselves”.

By the very nature of the daily intelligence that this individual was required to share, there is a threat to his life and to his family. He has placed himself between us and the Taliban. Records of these meetings were kept and widely publicised, including in public relations-focused photographs showing the individual at meetings attended by the general. This evidence was recorded in Afghan Government systems and in offices now commandeered by the Taliban, who now know what he was doing. It is still easily searchable on the internet today, yet the decision maker was

“unable to satisfy themselves from the evidence provided”

that he was closely supporting or in partnership with the UK. Really? \p John Cooper: I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for giving way on that point. Is this not a case of the old adage that rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools? Are we not seeing a punctilious following of rules here, when a man’s life is at risk? \p Iain Duncan Smith: Indeed, we are. We are elected—that is what makes us different—to this Chamber to take that on and to change it. We are not bound by a  bureaucratic process. We have the power here to change anything, and I simply ask: why not do that, when human lives and those who served us are at risk? We must recognise and remember that we are not bureaucrats—we are politicians, and we must feel the pain of others and understand when we need to change. I was concerned that my own Government did not make that change before and, in a way, I am begging the Government to see it differently and to try to do something about it.

More and more ex-military and ex-security forces people are being targeted in Afghanistan. We know that; it is a fact. Executions are taking place all the time, but because we are not there and it is not on the television every day, we put it to one side. We forget that dead British servicemen were clapped through the towns because people recognised their bravery in being out there to help people and to support those who did not want that tyranny back in their country. We supported those servicemen, and we feel strongly for their bravery; why do we not feel the same for those who helped them and who helped many others to stay alive? Surely they are just as valuable to us as any British soldier who was saved by them. That is the cost, and that is the equation.

I simply say to the Minister that according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan’s quarterly human rights update, the Taliban detained at least 23 former Government officials and members of the Afghan national security forces during this period. At least five were subjected to torture or other forms of ill treatment. Many of the arrests took place in Panjshir and Kabul, and were reportedly tied to alleged links to the National Resistance Front.

As I said earlier, I do not believe that this individual case is isolated. It exposes deep systematic failures in the ARAP scheme. The excessive bureaucracy and eligibility criteria are remarkable. The system as it stands is clearly ill equipped to deal with exceptional cases—there are many—such as this one. Most importantly, it fails to offer the necessary protection to those who are now at risk because of their loyalty to the UK and the British forces. As I said earlier, I know there are colleagues on both sides of the House who behave bravely and serve their country, including the Minister’s colleague who sits on the Front Bench.

I will finish my comments with this. Surely we must now change the scheme. We must be generous to those whose generosity with their lives has kept so many British lives safe. I know the restrictions of being at the Dispatch Box, and I know that civil servants will have said to the Minister, “Be very careful. You don’t want to step across this one, and you mustn’t make a pledge that we can’t consider. Don’t let that man put your career in danger.” I think putting our careers in danger is nothing compared with the actions of those who put their lives in danger for us.

I simply ask the Minister to pledge that he will do his utmost, that he will speak to the powers that be, and that he will bang on the door of No. 10 and demand that the Prime Minister take on this case and others personally. While we build up our armed forces, and look to have allies and people who will work with us, they will look back at how we treated those who came before and they will ask themselves, “Why do I serve with people who forget you when the deed is done?” I say to the Minister: let us not forget them. They are as  brave and as important to us as the soldiers who were directly employed by us, who served us and who made sure that many were saved as a result. \p Luke Pollard: I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for raising this issue, and for presenting his argument in the way that he did. We have spoken about this case on a number of occasions, so he will know that I take responsibility for making sure that we make the correct decisions on ARAP. When I was on the Opposition Front Bench, where the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is now sitting, I raised concerns about the functioning of the ARAP scheme. In office, we have made changes to the scheme to make sure that it functions better, which I will come to. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) mentioned communications, and I believe the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) quoted the Secretary of State’s comments on the Triples review, but I will address the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green in the first instance.

I very much appreciate the right hon. Member’s advocacy for the individual involved, and his passion for Afghan resettlement in general. He is absolutely right to say that we owe an obligation to the people who served alongside UK forces. What we have done with the ARAP scheme is implement as a nation, under the last Government and this one, probably the most generous Afghan relocation scheme of any of the allies that served in Afghanistan, and we have drawn a set of eligibility criteria that—with the exception of the Triples, which I will come to in a moment—have broadly remained the same under this Government and the preceding Government.[Official Report, 11 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 11WC.] (Correction) I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about elements of that, which I will seek to address.

As a former Minister, he will know that I will not be able to address the individual circumstances of the case without permission, so I will make some more general remarks in respect of that individual case. However, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that we have met previously on this matter, and I very much understand and appreciate his ongoing engagement. I have to be honest with him and say that when he and I first spoke about this case and I was briefed on it, I too was surprised by the decision that was made. That is why I undertook to take it back to the Department and to check on the eligibility of the case, which I did. Having done that, I am confident that the officials have followed the published criteria and applied them correctly to the evidence provided. The decision is appropriate and should stand. I should also be clear that there are no plans to ask to expand the criteria, which were implemented by the previous Government.

I do, however, recognise the context of this particular matter, and I am happy to take up the right hon. Gentleman’s challenge to see whether exceptional routes may be available. I do not want to give him false hope—I am not certain there will be such a route—but having spoken to him previously about this, I know the seriousness of the matter he raises, and I am happy to see whether we could look at additional opportunities to provide support in this case.

When it comes to the published criteria for ARAP, we must be absolutely clear about eligibility, and it is my job as the Minister responsible for Afghan resettlement to make sure that decisions are made correctly against the published eligibility criteria. Where decisions have been made, an individual has access to a review, and where there is a concern over an individual’s security while that review is ongoing—especially circumstances in which the life and safety of that individual are threatened—there is the ability to request an expedited decision. \p Lincoln Jopp: The Minister’s civil servants will be proud of him. I think the point my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was making was that when the computer says no and the Minister knows that the computer is wrong, does he not have an obligation simply to go away and change the system? \p Luke Pollard: First, I put on record that we have exceptional civil servants working in this area who take the decisions very seriously and make those decisions in full consciousness of their consequences. I am absolutely convinced that we have a good team working on this.

On the point the hon. Member raises, we are making decisions against the published criteria, and it is right to do so. We know that amendments to the published criteria change the eligibility in respect of past cases. We also know that at the moment we have the most generous Afghan resettlement scheme. We have resettled 34,000 eligible persons in the United Kingdom under ARAP and the associated Afghan resettlement schemes, which is more than many of our allies. It is right that we make those decisions against the published criteria, and that we look carefully at them. That is why I undertook to do so in this case, and I have done so.

There is a real challenge, and I entirely understand it. As someone who has advocated for Afghans in my own Plymouth constituency who fell outside the published criteria, which were set in place by the last Government and that we have followed, I have often argued that we should look again at this obligation. I am entirely aware that the majority of my efforts on this have centred on the Triples, who I will come on to, and whether those decisions were made correctly. I will give the House an update on that in a moment.

I want to make sure that decisions are correct according to the published criteria. Those criteria are frequently challenged in the courts, and we have to uphold them to make sure that every decision is valid. Every case is assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on the information provided following a request for the information held not just by the Ministry of Defence but by other Government Departments and partners across Government, in order to make sure that the decision taken is as appropriate as possible. Individuals who get a decision that is not in their favour also have the ability to provide additional evidence and to have that decision reviewed. \p Julian Lewis: I know that the Minister sincerely cares about all of this, and I am sure that he really wants to do his best, however the key point being made by my hon. and right hon. and gallant Friends is that, if the criteria do not cater for a situation in which senior British military personnel give first-person testimony  that somebody saved British lives by taking exceptionally courageous steps in our support, the criteria need to be adjusted. That is what should be done, as I hope he is going tell us that it may have been adjusted for the Triples. \p Luke Pollard: I entirely understand where the right hon. Gentleman is going with that argument. Under the criteria in the scheme we inherited from the previous Government, which we have continued, we have made the decision, with the exception of the Triples, to keep the eligibility decisions the same.[Official Report, 11 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 12WC.] (Correction)

Let me turn to the Triples, which the right hon. Gentleman raised. I believe that the quote of the Secretary of State when in opposition was in relation to the very concerning situation—I believe it was a concern to him and to me when in opposition—that decisions were made in respect of the Afghan special forces, the Triples, that were inconsistent with the evidence that was being provided. We backed and called for the Triples review, which was initiated by my predecessor in the previous Government. Phase 1 of that review has now completed and we have achieved an overturn rate of around 30%. A written ministerial statement on that was published— I think last month—should the right hon. Gentleman want to refer to the full details.

In that work, we interrogated the data that was available. The record-keeping of that period was not good enough, as I have said from the Dispatch Box a number of times since taking office. As part of that trawl, we discovered information in relation to top-up payments, which previously had been excluded from the criteria because they did not constitute the relationship with the UK Government that would have created eligibility. Our belief is that the way those top-up payments were applied may now constitute a relationship that needs to be re-examined, so phase 2 of the Triples review, which will be the final phase of the review, is looking at top-up payments. It was right to do that, because there was a clear point.

In the case raised by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I am very happy to try to see what is available to support it. I feel very deeply that we need to honour our obligations to those people who served alongside our forces, from the Afghan translators and interpreters who live in the constituency I represent, to the people who fought, and in some cases died, alongside our forces. The ARAP scheme is a generous scheme, but it was not intended, at its point of initiation or now, to cover all Afghans who fought in that conflict over 20 years. It was designed to support those who we can evidence had a close connection to UK forces, often defined by a contractual or payment relationship—in blunt plain-English terms—where a  sizeable commitment has been made. That draws a line for some individuals who were employed by the Afghan national army, the Afghan Government and elements of the security structures that the Afghan Government had at that time, for which eligibility is not created despite their role. The Taliban regime has created chaos, instability and terror through many communities in Afghanistan since our departure. That is why, as a Government, we are trying to accelerate and deliver the Afghan scheme.

The hon. Member for North East Fife mentioned communications. That is entirely right. It is something I have been raising since becoming a Minister. We will introduce, from the autumn, a new series of communications designed to help people understand where their application is in the process. The new performance indicators will kick in from September time—roughly in the autumn—and that will seek to help people to understand where they are in the process. There is concern around understanding for how long a case will be dealt with. I also hope the performance indicators will have time-bound targets to help people be able to rate the performance of the Ministry of Defence. Certainly, when the Defence Secretary published his statement on the Afghan resettlement scheme at the end of last year, he made the case that we need to complete our obligation and bring the schemes to a close, and it is our objective to do so. \p Iain Duncan Smith: rose— \p Wendy Chamberlain: rose— \p Luke Pollard: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman; I hope the hon. Lady does not mind. \p Iain Duncan Smith: We are close to running out of time, I understand that. If I may, I just stress that the failing I am referring relates to the fact that the officer who commanded the garrison met this man regularly and had him at meetings in which they discussed future operations. He was trusted. He fed them intelligence. He helped support them, so that they did not go into areas where they should not have gone. The major who worked with this guy also made a statement about how important he was, even though, officially, there was not some kind of P45 that tied him to our pay structure. The reality is that he served us. All I ask is that the Minister recognises that, goes away and says, “This is not good enough. This individual needs to be saved very soon.” He may be dead. We do not have much time. \p Luke Pollard: I am happy to continue the conversation with the right hon. Gentleman in the days ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.