debates/debates2025-01-22c conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-01-22)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-01-22c conversation_21

Matt Turmaine:Before the last election, the Conservatives baselessly promised a fully funded scheme to deliver a new Watford hospital—something they failed to achieve in 14 years. Does the Prime Minister share my frustration, and that of my constituents, that the Conservatives unforgivably failed to budget for its construction? Watford will only get its new hospital built and paid for thanks to the properly planned approach of this Labour Government. \p Keir Starmer: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend’s constituents are frustrated. There was never a plan; the funding only ever existed in Boris Johnson’s imagination. It was pure fiction and the Conservatives know it. We have an affordable delivery plan to build these new hospitals, including Watford general, and we will be getting on with it. \p Andrew Griffith: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the position of the chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority. \p Justin Madders: Following the resignation of the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority, Marcus Bokkerink, the Secretary of State has appointed Doug Gurr as the interim chair for a period of up to 18 months while our new permanent chair is appointed. The Secretary of State has expressed his gratitude for Marcus’s leadership of the board of the CMA since his appointment in September 2022, and for the work of the CMA in that time, particularly in response to cost of living pressures.

As the Prime Minister set out in his speech at the international investment summit, this Government will ensure that every regulator in the UK focuses on growth. Given Doug Gurr’s background and experience as an entrepreneur and business leader, and his clear under-standing of the importance of new and developing technologies such as artificial intelligence, he will bring the necessary strategic leadership to the CMA to enable it to promote growth for the benefit of businesses and consumers. As set out in the industrial strategy Green Paper, the Government will shortly be consulting on a new growth-focused strategic steer for the CMA. While respecting the independence of the CMA and the decision making of its panel members, the steer will be clear about the Government’s expectations of the CMA in supporting growth across the economy. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Andrew Griffith: Thank you for granting this important urgent question, Mr Speaker.

What a desperate state we are in when the Business Secretary has to phone up the regulators to beg them for ideas to fix the lack of growth that his own Government’s policies have created. I hope that when the regulators attended the roundtable last week, including the chairman of the CMA, they had the courage to put at the top of their list scrapping the Business Secretary’s 150-page, job-destroying and trade union-inspired Employment Rights Bill; or to point out the jobs tax in the Chancellor’s Budget, Labour’s socialist attacks on inheritance and non-doms, and the family business death tax that is causing one wealth creator to leave this country every 45 minutes; or even to point out that one of the best opportunities that this country has for growth would be to get on a plane to our closest trading partner, the United States, and secure a trade deal, rather than lob juvenile insults at President Trump or fail to invite Elon Musk to the Government’s UK investment summit.

It is certainly the case that, while regulators have a role, they generally depress growth and drive risk aversion, bureaucracy and slow decision making. Asking regulators  to boost growth is a bit like asking the village speed watch to organise the next British grand prix. I am a fan of speed watch.

The Conservative party is under new management, and we are unafraid to back wealth creators and risk takers. We are unashamed to say that we need fewer civil servants and arm’s length regulators so that our businesses carry less dead weight in the global race to be competitive, but dismissing the non-executive, part-time chair of the CMA seems a curious place to start. He is not responsible for day-to-day decision making at the CMA; that is the job of the chief executive. Did they aim and miss? Can the Minister confirm whether there are plans to change the Government’s view on the CMA’s remit, to play the ball and not the man? What evaluation has there been of all regulators as part of this process, and when will the Government publish it? \p Justin Madders: I think there were a couple of questions in there about the role of the CMA chair. Of course, he did not get sacked; he resigned. A new strategic steer for the CMA will be coming out in due course. The hon. Gentleman’s tirade of criticisms of this Government was a bit rich coming from a man who was in the Treasury when the last Government crashed the economy. I would point out that PwC announced only this week that we were the second most attractive country in the world to invest in, and that the International Monetary Fund last week upgraded our growth predictions for this year. We are going to be the highest-growing major economy in Europe this year, and that shows our determination to get the growth going, which was something that his Government failed completely on. \p Gregor Poynton: Getting the right regulatory environment is vital to drive innovation in our economy and also to protect our consumers and markets. Does the Minister agree that this renewed focus on the regulatory environment and getting it right to drive our economy will make sure that this Government deliver our No. 1 mission of growth? \p Justin Madders: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Growth is the No. 1 mission for this Government, and getting the balance right between protecting consumers and driving up growth in the economy means that we all benefit. That is something we are very clear about on this side of the House, and something that the last Government failed to deliver on. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Clive Jones: The Government are right to say that bold and ambitious steps are needed to get our economy growing again, especially after the damage caused by the previous Conservative Government, but we must also recognise that fair competition is the lifeblood of our market economy, which helps to drive innovation and ensures that economic benefits reach consumers. Does the Minister agree that ensuring proper competition in the economy is vital to achieving sustained growth? I also note that the new interim chair’s prior experience includes running Amazon’s UK business. Will the Minister guarantee that the digital markets unit within the CMA will be backed to hold powerful tech giants accountable, for the benefit of customers in Wokingham and across the UK? \p Justin Madders: We are absolutely clear that we need to protect consumers, but we also need to drive growth. The new interim chair’s experience will be really important in helping us to understand how the tech companies will move forward, and his chairmanship of the Alan Turing Institute gives him valuable experience to bring to the table in delivering on that. \p Chi Onwurah: I should declare an interest, having worked for a competition regulator for a number of years before entering Parliament. I suggest that the Minister does not take any competition policy lessons from the Conservatives, who oversaw the re-monopolisation of the broadband network, the consolidation of power within tech networks on an unprecedented scale, and the rise of crony capitalism on a scale not seen before. Some rumours around this appointment have suggested that it is a signal of a flight away from competition regulation. Can I urge him to quash those rumours and confirm that this Government believe that competition drives investment, innovation and growth, and that this country is open for investment and new market entry by as many companies as possible? \p Justin Madders: We absolutely agree that competition is vital for driving investment and growth. The CMA will remain operationally independent, as it always has been. \p John Cooper: The Government seem fascinated by the price of Oasis tickets. Meanwhile, debt and the cost of debt are soaring. Should the Government—definitely, not maybe—come up with some ideas of their own for growth, rather than trying to copy the homework of regulators? \p Justin Madders: We have our own ideas for growth. We have important planning reforms coming forward, and the industrial strategy, which drives forward the strengths of the UK economy. As for the hon. Gentleman’s Oasis pun, I think he needs to work a bit harder on that one. \p Sharon Hodgson: Having spent 15 years dealing with the CMA in my campaign to end the abuse of the secondary ticketing market, I have long felt that the CMA is in desperate need of much stronger and clearer ministerial oversight. Can the Minister confirm today which Minister will have oversight of the CMA, and that it will be an active role, not a role in name only? \p Justin Madders: I thank my hon. Friend for her work on secondary ticketing, a subject on which there is currently a consultation. I am the Minister responsible for the CMA. A new strategic steer for the CMA will be issued later this year, and of course it will remain independent from Government. \p Bob Blackman: The clear issue here is why the previous chair resigned, and what remit the Minister has given the interim chair to change the policy and direction of the CMA. Can the Minister outline that remit for the House? He says he will do it later this year, but he has manoeuvred a position in which the previous chair has resigned. We need to know what the CMA will be doing now to regulate the market. \p Justin Madders: The CMA’s operational independence will remain intact. We have clearly set out that there will be a new strategic steer, which will be about boosting growth. After conversations, we have decided that new leadership is needed to deliver on that. \p John Grady: I should declare that before entering the House, I advised, as a competition lawyer, on various CMA matters, including investigations and panels. Some of the criticisms from Conservative Members seem half a world away, to channel Oasis, from both the topic in question and economic reality. Will the Minister confirm that yesterday’s announcement does not change the independence of the individual CMA panels that deal with matters before the CMA? \p Justin Madders: I can confirm that the CMA’s operational independence remains intact. \p Bobby Dean: The power vested in large corporations is greater than ever. Tech giants are exerting monopolistic power over the market, so I am becoming exasperated with the Government’s Thatcherite-like attitude towards deregulation. Do the Government understand the risks involved in going for short-term boosts to growth over long-term stability of the economic market? \p Justin Madders: I would not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation at all, and I am sure that Conservative Members would not, either. We announced only this morning that we will take action against Amazon on knife sales, so I do not think the characterisation that we are in the pocket of big tech is at all accurate. \p Luke Charters: The CMA took far too long to reach a decision on the Vodafone and Three merger. This slowed down the roll-out of 5G across all our constituencies and was a drag on growth. How can regulators be pushed to ensure that their decisions lead to growth? \p Justin Madders: My hon. Friend is right that we need to give the business community confidence that decisions will be made quickly to provide certainty, so that it can move forward with investments for the benefit of the whole economy. \p Desmond Swayne: What will be the impact on growth of a record number of millionaires having left the UK since the Budget? \p Justin Madders: That is a very interesting question. I am not sure that the CMA’s role is to monitor the number of millionaires leaving the country. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: In 2023, after the CMA blocked a particular merger, the last Conservative Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), said that it must “understand their wider responsibilities”. He also said:

“I do think it’s important all our regulators understand their wider responsibilities for economic growth.”

He was right, was he not? \p Justin Madders: Yes, he was right. That is the message that the Prime Minister sent out to the regulators at the investment summit, and it is why they have been invited   in to give their ideas on growth. We do not think that asking regulators how they are going to stimulate growth is a problem—that is the No. 1 mission of this Government, and everyone should be signed up to delivering on it. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call Llinos Medi. \p Llinos Medi: Diolch, Llefarydd. The Government say that the CMA’s chair had failed to convince them that he was sufficiently focused on growth, but at the same time, reports suggest that the Government plan to freeze all rail spending except for on three projects in England. A lack of transport funding is stifling growth in the Welsh economy. To prove his commitment to growth, will the Minister outline the transport funding that his Government have committed to Wales? \p Justin Madders: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Unfortunately, transport funding—particularly in Wales—is well outside the CMA’s remit. \p John Slinger: Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK’s economic regulators have a responsibility to ensure supersonic growth in our economy with a pro-business approach, and that this is part of what I would term a responsibility agenda? We all have a responsibility to ensure the best for our economy, and those regulators do as well. \p Justin Madders: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all need to be signed up to this agenda, which is absolutely critical for delivering on our aims of getting a better-growing economy, getting more money into people’s pockets, delivering on the promises we have made, and changing the tune after the last 14 years of decline. \p Julian Smith: Changing personnel is one thing, but when we speak to business, we hear that resolving disputes and the way in which the CMA does so is key. Could I urge the Minister to look at how disputes are resolved, and whether litigation and an antagonistic approach to business is the best way for the CMA to proceed? \p Justin Madders: That is a very fair comment. We need to give businesses certainty and clarity that things will be resolved quickly, so that they have the confidence to make investment decisions. \p Olivia Bailey: How does the Department plan to appoint the permanent chair? \p Justin Madders: The appointment of the permanent chair will take place in the normal manner, as all other appointments do. \p David Chadwick: An active regulator is essential to securing fair prices for consumers. Residents of areas such as mine are often at the forefront of rises in petrol prices, and residents of Pontardawe are regularly left wondering why they have to pay 8p more per litre than people in  nearby towns. Will the Government commit to launching the Pumpwatch petrol price comparison platform, as recommended by the Competition and Markets Authority? \p Justin Madders: That is a very important point. Consumers see the petrol prices every time they leave their home in their motor vehicle. There is a disparity there that sometimes needs explanation, and certainly needs transparency, so I will take that issue up on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, and will come back to him on it. \p Blair McDougall: My constituents, particularly those living in Crookfur, have terrible mobile phone signal. How can the CMA progress the merger between Three and Vodafone, so that we  get the investment in transmitters that we need to improve the mobile phone signal in Crookfur and around the country? \p Justin Madders: That is certainly something that the CMA has been dealing with, and I am sure that we will be able to provide my hon. Friend with an update shortly. \p Christopher Chope: Will the Minister ask the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate why we have the highest energy prices in the world, particularly for electricity? \p Justin Madders: I will certainly pass that request on. That might be something that Ofgem would also have an interest in. \p Sorcha Eastwood: I thank the Minister for his responses so far. Does he agree that the first duty of the Competition and Markets Authority is to ensure that regulations are followed, and to break up monopolies at a time when our small businesses are suffering? The national insurance increase has not helped. If the CMA takes decisions that just so happen to have the by-product of stimulating economic growth, that is well, but the narrative that taking away regulation will promote growth is wrong. \p Lindsay Hoyle: It might be worth the hon. Member putting in for an Adjournment debate. \p Justin Madders: I thank the hon. Member for her question. It is important that consumers and small businesses operate on a level playing field; it is also correct that we are very keen to see more growth delivered. We think that will benefit everyone in the economy, but I take the point that a balance has to be struck. \p John Grady: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Mr Grady, I think you have asked a question. [Interruption.] I think the Whips need to be advising you a bit more. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers. The role of the CMA chair is essential in the current economic climate, as we watch how our allies in the USA approach their trading and their deals. We need a message of strength; we need to relay the fact that we are ready and open for international business.  Does the Minister believe that this interim measure sends that message, and how quickly can we get the right person in place to promote our business standing? \p Justin Madders: We are really serious about growth. This is about sending the message that we want to make sure that Britain is open for investment, and that we will work with partners across the world to encourage investment and get the growth that we want, for the benefit of the entire economy. This is just one part of the plan. \p John Healey: With permission, I wish to make a statement on the UK’s response to recent Russian maritime activity. [Interruption.] I am glad that the House waited for this statement.

A foreign vessel, Yantar, is in the North sea, having passed through British waters. Let me be clear: it is a Russian spy ship, used for gathering intelligence and mapping the UK’s critical underwater infrastructure. Yantar entered the UK exclusive economic zone about 45 miles off the British coast on Monday. For the past two days, the Royal Navy has deployed HMS Somerset and HMS Tyne to monitor the vessel, every minute, in our waters, and I have changed the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement so that our warships can get closer and better track Yantar.

So far, the ship has complied with international rules of navigation, but this is the second time that Yantar has entered our waters in recent months. In November, the ship was also closely watched, and was detected loitering over UK critical undersea infrastructure. To deter any potential threat, I took measured steps at that time as part of a clear, direct response to the Russian vessel. Royal Air Force maritime patrol aircraft, alongside HMS Cattistock, HMS Tyne and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Proteus, were deployed to shadow Yantar’s every movement. Today, I also confirm to the House that I authorised a Royal Navy submarine to surface close to Yantar—strictly as a deterrent measure—to make it clear that we had been covertly monitoring its every move. The ship then left UK waters without further loitering, and sailed down to the Mediterranean.

As colleagues will understand, I will not comment further for reasons of operational security. However, I thank all the personnel involved for their dedication and professionalism. I also want President Putin to hear this message: we see you, we know what you are doing, and we will not shy away from robust action to protect this country. With our NATO allies, we are strengthening our response to ensure that Russian ships and aircraft cannot operate in secrecy near the UK or near NATO territory.

This activity is another example of growing Russian aggression, targeting our allies abroad and us at home. The heads of MI6 and the CIA recently made a joint statement, saying that Russia is waging a “reckless campaign” of sabotage across Europe. We are seeing periodic incursions of Russian military aircraft into airspace for which we are responsible, and on Christmas day the EstLink 2 undersea cable between Finland and Estonia was damaged. Many analysts believe that that was caused by a vessel in Russia’s shadow fleet.

Russia is dangerous but fundamentally weak. In Ukraine, it has suffered devastatingly high rates of casualties over three years in a war it thought it would win in a week. Compounding the humiliation, Putin has been forced to turn to North Korea to reinforce its frontline fighters. While the strategic defeat in Syria has exposed Russia’s diminishing power on the global stage, at home the Russian economy faces crippling strains.

Nevertheless, Russia remains the most pressing and immediate threat to Britain, and I want to assure the House and the British people that any threat will be met with strength and resolve. First, we are delivering on the foundation of security in our plan for change by making Britain secure at home. Yantar has now passed through the Dover strait and is in Dutch waters. In September, RAF Typhoons scrambled to intercept two Russian Bear F aircraft operating near the UK. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service is also playing an indispensable role in safeguarding offshore infrastructure with its multi-role ocean surveillance ship, RFA Proteus.

Secondly, we are making Britain strong abroad, working with NATO and joint expeditionary force allies. The UK activated Nordic Warden with JEF partners after the EstLink 2 cable damage. The operation is tracking potential threats to undersea infrastructure, monitoring the movements of the Russian shadow fleet and sending out real-time warnings of suspicious activity to JEF allies and to NATO. Today, I can confirm that the RAF will provide P-8 Poseidon and Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft to join the new Baltic Sentry NATO deployment to protect critical infrastructure in the Baltic sea.

Thirdly, with allies we are piling the pressure on Putin. This year, the UK will provide more financial aid in military support to Ukraine than at any time since the full-scale invasion began: £4.5 billion to deliver military support, enhance training and strengthen industrial collaboration. The UK is also leading the way in finding ways to put pressure on the Russian economy, including sanctioning more than 100 ships in the Russian shadow fleet, which is more than any other nation; working with other countries to stop the Russian military acquiring the goods, equipment and technologies it requires to continue its fight and war against Ukraine; and with allies, exposing the activities of the Russian intelligence services, expelling Russian intelligence officers and sanctioning individuals responsible for hostile activity against the UK.

Russian aggression will not be tolerated at home or in Ukraine. That is why one of the first acts of this Government was for the Prime Minister to launch the strategic defence review, why the Government have increased defence spending next year by almost £3 billion, and why we will set a path to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in the spring. This new era of threat demands a new era for defence. Change is essential, not optional, and the Government are determined to meet the challenge and determined to deliver for defence. We will protect the homeland and our critical national infrastructure and we will make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p James Cartlidge: I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. I am particularly grateful to him for the greater level of transparency he has chosen to show to the House on the grey zone threat from Russia. We welcome that transparency, because it is critical for our war readiness as a nation that, as far as we are able and without compromising our national and operational security,  we tell the British public the truth about the serious nature of the Russian threat and what that will inevitably mean for public expenditure on defence.

I specifically welcome the change to the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement. That sends a powerful signal to Putin that we will not be intimidated and that if his aim is to keep pushing the boundaries of malign activity in our waters and those proximate to us, we will respond. I confirm that the Government will have the full backing of His Majesty’s Opposition in doing so. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government on Ukraine and we stand shoulder to shoulder with them on deterring the wider Russian threat that he has outlined today.

I appreciate that it is unusual to go into such operational detail, including about the operational deployment of submarines. Equally, we appreciate that this is about sending the strongest possible signal to our adversaries about our clear intent to protect and defend our homeland. If I may, I have a number of specific questions about the statement and its particular contents.

A key issue here is the safety and protection of critical undersea infrastructure. Beyond the operations the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech, such as Nordic Warden, will he confirm whether he is looking to widen the number of international partners proactively involved in addressing the threat to the North sea and the Baltic? What discussions is he having to drive an internationally co-ordinated response, including through NATO?

Given our prominent role within NATO, we have a clear opportunity to lead the way in developing cutting-edge underwater technologies that address those threats directly. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is prioritising development of underwater capabilities, such as uncrewed systems, through pillar 2 of AUKUS and also with European allies, and in particular that research and development investment into capabilities to protect critical infrastructure will be an urgent priority? Moreover, will he commit to doing everything possible to hinder the abilities of GRU operatives, including all possible action in concert with allies to restrict their ability to enter the United Kingdom?

I am very grateful to the personnel of our Navy, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and our Air Force involved in addressing the threats. I sincerely thank them, as well as the crews of allied vessels who assisted in tracking the ship through their waters. I have one particularly important point. The Secretary of State said that “Russia is dangerous but fundamentally weak.” Does he nevertheless agree that Russia’s willingness to tolerate such enormous losses on the battlefield against Ukraine underlines that, in conventional military terms, it remains a formidable foe before one even considers its unconventional capabilities?

In my view, Russia remains a critical threat to the United Kingdom. For that reason, I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s clear decision to be more open with the country about the threat we face. I urge him to ensure that, from the heart of Government, we have a serious grip on communicating and planning for the fact that we face the most serious nation-on-nation military threat to our homeland for generations. In turn, that means that the strategic defence review needs to be fundamentally threat-driven, prioritising homeland defence and putting the necessary resource in place.

To conclude, does the fact that we have seen the RFA, the Royal Navy, submarines, helicopters, P-8 aircraft and other assets involved in tracking Russian activity  not show the full extent of the work needed to defend our island and deter our adversaries, and ultimately why we need to increase defence spending as soon as possible? The Secretary of State said in his statement, as he did at oral questions—I welcome that—that the SDR will report in the spring. I urge him to ensure that that is in March, at the very earliest opportunity, and that we will achieve at least 2.5% spending on defence this Parliament. \p John Healey: I thank the shadow Defence Secretary for welcoming the statement and the Government’s greater transparency. He, like me, has confirmed that he sees Russia as the most critical threat to the UK. He has been a Defence Minister and he understands, as he acknowledges, the importance of sending the strongest possible signals to our adversaries. That is the underlying reason for the decision I have taken to make this statement today.

The shadow Secretary of State argues that our response provides the UK with an opportunity to demonstrate leadership within NATO. I think we have already done that, not by asserting our argument but by our actions: launching and leading through the JEF 10 nations the Nordic Warden response to the attack on EstLink 2 and now by confirming that we will play a leading role in the new NATO deployment in the Baltic, which is linked to the work that we are doing through Nordic Warden.

The shadow Secretary of State asks about the priority for our undersea cables for our homeland infrastructure. These cables are not simply a technical network. They are the infrastructure for the things on which we depend for our daily lives: the operation of the internet; the supply of energy; and communications with other parts of the world. He will therefore have seen and noted in the terms of reference of the strategic defence review, launched by the Prime Minister within two weeks of the Government being elected in July, that defending and reinforcing the homeland defence of Britain is foremost in those terms of reference. We will, as I have said, report on the strategic defence review in the spring. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Members are bobbing who were not in the Chamber at the start of the debate. We have made a note of all their names and the time that they arrived and they will not be called to speak. If they do not know whether that means them, they should speak to their Whip. I call the Chair of the Defence Committee. \p Tan Dhesi: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It is very apt that he should be making this statement, because during our Defence Committee visit to RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland last week, we discussed this very issue. Clearly, there is greater need for wider availability and capacity for Royal Navy and other maritime capability to meet the rising Russian activity in waters surrounding the UK. I refer, for example, to the threats to critical undersea infrastructure.

I have two questions for the Secretary of State. First, what lessons have the Government learned from the Finnish investigation into Eagle S, which was accused  of damaging the undersea infrastructure between Finland and Estonia? Secondly, what measures are available to the Government to stop vessels from traversing UK waters, to build on the recent insurance checks that were put in place in October? Is sanctioning vessels our only option? \p John Healey: I thank the Chair and the members of the Defence Committee not just for the work that they are doing, but for the work that they are willing to do outside this House. I thank them for the visit that they paid to Lossiemouth to see for themselves some of the essential work that our forces personnel and civilians are doing in defending this country. He asks about the Finnish investigation into the EstLink 2 cable damage. That is for the Finns to complete and to confirm the findings of their investigation. It will be at that point that we can draw out and discuss any lessons that there might be for the UK.

We defend more fiercely than perhaps any other nation in the world the freedom of navigation in our seas. Ships of all states may navigate through our territorial waters. They are subject to the right of innocent passage, and so some of the steps that the Chair of the Defence Committee might urge the Government to take are simply not available to us under the United Nations law of the open seas. It is for that reason that we take the steps and actions that I have reported to the House—to make sure that we monitor, we watch and we track, so that those who might enter our waters with malign intent, or try to undertake any malign activity, know that we see them and know that they will face the strongest possible response. \p Nusrat Ghani: It is also important for Front Benchers to arrive on time to hear the opening statement—I believe that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson was four minutes late—and it is important for them to know that they may not be called in the future, but, on this occasion, I do invite the hon. Lady to speak. \p Helen Maguire: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and apologies for my lateness.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It goes without saying that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in our support for their actions against the Russian threat. We also thank all the service personnel involved in dealing with this threat.

The Liberal Democrats believe that our defence policy and conventional forces should be focused on defending British territory and playing a leading role in our immediate European neighbourhood. As such, we welcome the Government’s announcement that the Royal Airforce will provide P-8 Poseidon and Rivet Joint maritime patrol and surveillance aircraft to join Baltic Sentry under NATO command.

Action to defend the realm is particularly pressing in light of recent escalations of hybrid threats from Russia. The suspected sabotage of undersea cables, including the damage to Estlink-2 on Christmas day, underscores the urgency of this moment. Such cables are the life blood of international connectivity and commerce and any attack on them is an attack on the collective stability of Europe.

The events involving the tanker Eagle S and its links to sanctioned entities supporting Putin’s war machine are deeply alarming. This is not an isolated incident, but part of a broader pattern of aggression that demands robust and co-ordinated action. This Government must rebuild trust with our European neighbours. The UK’s national interest and security have always been inextricably tied to that of Europe. From the second world war through to the cold war and the current war in Ukraine, our shared defence has been vital.

To that end, we urge the Government to work hand in glove with NATO countries to support Ukraine during the war and the rebuilding afterwards, including finding lawful ways to use the $300 billion of frozen Russian state assets as reparations; sign a comprehensive security treaty with the European Union to strengthen collaborative defence; and collaborate on developing cutting-edge defence technologies and ensure inter-operability with NATO allies to respond effectively in times of crisis.

We also face serious national vulnerabilities. The UK lacks land-based anti-ballistic missile systems to protect critical national infrastructure. Questions remain about the ability to secure the Greenland-UK gap.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but when will they outline a clear timeline for achieving that? This is not the time for complacency. The threats are clear, and the response must be decisive. \p John Healey: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). Perhaps she, like I, thought that there would be more interest in this House in the operation of the Competition and Markets Authority than the length of the urgent question proved was the case. It may just be that I can run a little faster than her. \p Nusrat Ghani: It gives a whole new meaning to “running to the defence”. \p John Healey: But Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her support for the UK contribution to the Baltic Sentry NATO operation. We play a leading role in NATO and we will play a leading role in this operation in the Baltic. It reinforces our allies, and by doing that we reinforce our own defences and strengthen collectively the deterrence that we can, as NATO nations, offer to any future aggression and aggressive intent from President Putin.

The hon. Lady urges us to work hand in glove with allies over the support for Ukraine, which is what we are committed to do. It is why the Prime Minister was in Kyiv last week, when he confirmed the record level of funding for this year to support military aid to Ukraine and when he signed a 100-year partnership with Ukraine. Finally, he made the commitment that I think the hon. Lady is looking for, when he said that, whatever happens next, our job is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position both on the battlefield and at any negotiating table. That is what I, as Defence Secretary, am determined to do for this country. \p Blair McDougall: Putin and his autocratic friends mistake our freedom and openness for weakness, so may I enthusiastically welcome the strength of the response to the Russian activity? The Secretary of State will be aware of the reports in Newsweek in recent days about patents that have been filed in China for specific cable-cutting technology, presumably for military use by the Chinese. Can he reassure the House that, as well as being active in deterring Putin, the Government are taking a similarly robust stance on any attempts by China to cut the cables? \p John Healey: I reassure my hon. Friend that I am aware of what he cites, and of the pace of development of many aspects of Chinese technology and equipment. Much of it may be for civilian use, but I assure him that we, with allies, are keeping a very close eye on what China is developing. \p Gavin Williamson: I thank the Secretary of State for the action that he has taken, and all the work of our servicemen to combat this threat. The Yantar has been a well-known threat for quite a long time, but Russia has also been very capable of using private and commercial vessels to map cables and undermine our security. The reality is that we need more resources in our Royal Navy and other services. What assurance can he give the House that a bid has been put together to ensure that the Treasury properly resources him and our servicemen to do a job that we all depend on? \p John Healey: Our UK servicemen and women will appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s thanks. I can give him that assurance. Most importantly, I can give him the commitment that we made to the British people at the election that the Government will increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a level that Britain has not spent on defence since 2010. \p Michelle Scrogham: Over recent years, we have seen a large increase in Russian activity of this type, and it is clear that the need for subsurface protection is critical and increasing. The UK sub fleet is built at BAE Systems in my constituency, and we play a vital role in countering this threat. Will the Secretary of State comment on the support that the Government will continue to provide to ensure that the submarine fleet continues to play this central role in the defence of our nation? \p John Healey: I can indeed. I, too, am intensely proud of everything that is done, designed and developed at the Barrow shipyard. It is central to our UK security, and has been for decades. Like me, she will be proud that the Royal Navy submarine that surfaced close to the Yantar in November, which led to the Yantar heading directly off to the Mediterranean, was built in that Barrow shipyard. \p Caroline Dinenage: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that our Royal Navy and RFA are the best in the world. They need to be equipped with the vessels and crew to do their job and address threats such as those I am grateful to him for articulating. He will know that Portsmouth harbour, which Gosport sits opposite, is home to the six Type 45s that were commissioned without adequate propulsion  units. Could he update us on the T-45 power improvement programme? Will it be sufficient for T-45s to be allowed to deploy with the upcoming carrier strike group? More broadly, what is he doing as part of the SDR to ensure that a significant and sufficient proportion of our naval personnel have seagoing liability? \p John Healey: I am so pleased that, alongside the Royal Navy, the hon. Lady cites the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which plays an essential part in our maritime defence and operations. I give her that assurance on the Type 45s’ participation in the carrier strike group. If she would like me to write to her in more detail about the progress on the engine upgrade programme, I will happily do so. \p Graeme Downie: I thank the Secretary of State for such a strong statement, which makes it clear to Vladimir Putin that this aggression will not be tolerated. Recently, Ministers were kind enough to answer a series of written questions from me on quick reaction alert, subsea cables and defence of the high north, all pointing to additional threats from Russian forces and the need for a strong response. With the strategic defence review well under way, how is the Secretary of State ensuring that it is flexible in dealing with those changing and evolving threats, and that we learn from Ukraine, and from the recent example of the Finnish ship in the Baltic sea? \p John Healey: My hon. Friend is one of the strongest voices recognising that the high north will become strategically much more essential. Degrees of conflict and contest are likely to grow there, particularly as climate change leads to the opening up of the northern passage. If he looks at the terms of reference of the strategic defence review, and the work of the review and challenge groups, which have been an essential part of the external leadership of it, he will see that the concerns that he raises are central to the SDR’s work. When it is published, I am sure that he will find evidence that the caution he gives to the House is taken very seriously by the Government. \p Alistair Carmichael: The activities of the Yantar may be an escalation, but this is not the first instance of such activity; it is almost two years since I first raised concerns about the activities of Russian vessels in the waters around Shetland. Events in Finland at Christmas show that Russia is prepared to go further, and we must show that we are determined to meet any challenge of that sort. This is a strategic threat for the United Kingdom as a whole, but it is particularly acute for our island communities, which rely on cables for digital and energy connectivity, quite apart from the pipelines serving the oil and gas industry. Will the Secretary of State speak to the energy companies and his colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and ensure that our island communities are not left as a soft target for the next escalation in this business? \p John Healey: The right hon. Gentleman is right that this is not the first instance; indeed, the total loss of digital connection that his constituency suffered in 2022 vividly demonstrated the dependency of such communities on this critical infrastructure in their everyday life, and their vulnerability to damage or sabotage. I give him the assurance that he seeks. In the consideration of the  strategic defence review, and certainly in its implementation, that is exactly the sort of question and challenge that we will meet. \p Mark Sewards: I thank the Secretary of State for his clear statement, and for spelling out why it is so important that we protect these deep-sea cables. Something like 95% of all international data goes through them. They are the backbone of the internet. Given those facts, can he assure us that the protection of that critical infrastructure will be at the forefront of the minds of everybody completing the strategic defence review? \p John Healey: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I certainly give him that assurance. \p Alec Shelbrooke: I welcome the Secretary of State’s candour. It is important that the country understands the threats to the nation. It is estimated that the economy would lose tens of millions of pounds per hour if there were a data loss. These cables are strategically central to our national wellbeing. With that in mind, the Government have to explain to the public why we have to keep increasing defence spending, given what the consequences would be if we did not do so. If we move above 2.5% to 3% or 3.5%, it will not be because President Trump is pushing that narrative, as many Presidents have done before him; it will be because that is the strategic requirement of Europe and NATO to head off clear acts of aggression—close to a declaration of hybrid war on NATO. It is vital that the public understand why defence spending is so important at this time. \p John Healey: As a leading member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the right hon. Gentleman understands better than most in this House the concerns and perspectives of other NATO nations, and he demonstrates that this morning.

On the question of the commitment to increase defence spending, everyone agrees that defence spending must rise. The commitment that my party made going into the election well predated the result of the US election. It is a commitment that we are determined to honour. If it is the case that everyone agrees defence spending must rise to meet the increasing threats, there is certainly a lead responsibility for Government and Ministers to help explain that to the public, but I would hope that everyone who believes defence spending must rise can and will play a part in conveying that to the public as well. \p Louise Jones: Although out of sight, our offshore infrastructure is absolutely vital to the smooth running of the economy, and any disruption would have a huge impact on my constituents in North East Derbyshire—it would be truly catastrophic. Can the Secretary of State assure me that we will not take the security of that infrastructure for granted and that we will take the necessary steps to provide that security as part of the SDR? \p John Healey: I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s voice from landlocked North East Derbyshire recognising the fact that this is not simply a concern of maritime communities or islands, but of the whole country and for all of us in our everyday lives. High up, and with  specific focus, the strategic defence review’s terms of reference, point to the need to review and reinforce the defence of our British homeland. Central to that consideration, in the light of our experience in recent months, will be the rising Russian aggression and the increase in such incidents. \p Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for his profoundly important statement, which is immensely reassuring, but may I ask about pre-emption? We all know that Russia is no respecter of international law, and an over-zealous and overcautious interpretation of the legal constraints on the UK armed forces could be very destructive. Are the Government refusing to rule out pre-emptive action against a hostile ship threatening critical national infrastructure, albeit if it lies under international waters, and will he agree that an open mind on pre-emption is a stronger deterrent than ruling it out? \p John Healey: The right hon. Gentleman has huge experience in this field, so he will recognise that I simply will not and cannot get into responding to hypotheticals. He urges me not to allow undue constraint of perhaps established practices or rules where there is a good case for flexibility. I hope he will take as a signal of the serious intent that I will bring, with the approach and return of the Yantar to UK waters, my readiness, as I have reported, to alter the permissions that the Royal Navy was using so that, should the captains of the warships that we deployed to watch and track the Yantar require it, they could go closer, see better and determine more carefully what exactly the Yantar was up to. Like the surfacing of the submarine in November, that was a move to deter and discourage the sort of activity that we simply do not want to see in our waters. \p Jeevun Sandher: Keeping ourselves safer at home means ensuring that Putin loses abroad, because when Putin is finished in Ukraine—whenever that may be—he will come for more. Defeating him means showing him that we have the resolve and the resource to defeat him in the future. Can the Secretary of State assure me that, as part of the SDR, we will have a way to combat, prevent and protect ourselves from Russia? \p John Healey: I hope the content of my statement—the assertion that the most immediate and concerning threat to the UK comes from Russia—and the action I have taken in response to the Russian spy ship, Yantar, being in our waters again, will reassure my hon. Friend that, exactly as he urges and as the shadow Defence Secretary the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has recognised, Russia is a serious menace. In Ukraine, it is fighting the first full-scale war in Europe since the second world war, but as the shadow Defence Secretary said, its aggression particularly in the grey zone—warned about by the heads of the CIA and M16—tells us that this is a regime intent on disruption and on disrupting our way of life. My hon. Friend is right to start by saying that the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. If Putin prevails in Ukraine, he simply will not stop in Ukraine. \p Dave Doogan: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the actions it details to intervene in Russian activity in the waters around these islands. I also commend the diligence and professionalism of those men and women in uniform in the Royal Navy, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the RAF. He said in his statement, though, that the UK will

“continue to lead the way”

on sanctions against Russia’s shadow fleet, but the UK is not leading the way on sanctions, is it? A Sky News investigation last week found out that the Government have no record of how many investigations they are carrying out into breaches of Russian sanctions. That follows a previous investigation showing that goods, including luxury cars, fossil fuels and items that can be weapons—or whose components can be converted into weaponry—have been flowing between the UK and Russia since the beginning of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Surely the Secretary of State must be concerned that inaction elsewhere in Whitehall is potentially putting men and women in uniform in the UK’s armed forces at risk from Russia’s malign aggression. \p John Healey: I certainly do not share the hon. Gentleman’s assertion. I simply say to him that I made the argument that the UK is leading the way with allies in action to deal with the Russian shadow fleet, and I confirm that we have sanctioned 100 ships—more than any other nation—that compose that loosely networked Russian shadow fleet. \p Ben Spencer: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement about Russia’s activities, which are concerning but not surprising. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Nordic countries. Does he agree that close co-operation with our Nordic allies is important in dealing with this threat?

Building on the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and the broader discussion about transparency and information sharing with the United Kingdom, before Christmas every Swedish household received the pamphlet, “Om krisen eller kriget kommer”, meaning, “In case of crisis or war”. Sweden does that regularly. Is it time for us to look into that? \p John Healey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he does on chairing the all-party group on Nordic countries in this House. One of the benefits of all Nordic countries now being part of NATO, and of the very close defence and security relationships we have with those countries, is that we can indeed learn from each other. It is not just the new approach taken before Christmas by the Swedish, but the sense that a country is stronger if its society is resilient and if societies recognise they may be under threat and are ready to respond if required. There are certainly some lessons for us in the UK as we consider the future and consider the rising level and complexity of threats we may face in the years ahead. \p Vikki Slade: Last week, alongside other hon. Members and peers in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I visited the nation’s flagship Prince of Wales aircraft carrier. The commanding officer Captain Will Blackett and his team  showed us the ship’s capability, and we witnessed an incredible demonstration of how they can respond. But when we asked about how they would respond to ballistic missiles, or how this place and other institutions are protected from hostile states, it was a terrifying response. I realise the strategic defence review is ongoing and that there is a commitment to get to 2.5%, but with President Trump threatening to pull out of NATO, that is not enough. What plans does the Secretary of State have to go faster and to put our military retention and recruitment on a stronger footing, so that our country and infrastructure are properly protected? \p John Healey: Captain Blackett and his crew were delighted that the hon. Lady and other members of the armed forces parliamentary scheme were able to go on board to be briefed and look at what an extraordinary piece of British military kit we have. The strategic defence review is set up to examine exactly the sort of points that she raises. It is designed to look at the threats we may face, the capabilities we may need, the resources available, and, in particular, the accelerated way in which the nature of warfare is changing and the central role of accelerating technology development in the changing natures both of the threat and of the capabilities that we must develop with allies to meet that threat. \p Julian Lewis: If Putin’s Russia is the greatest threat to peace in Europe, the second greatest threat must be any American decision to turn their back on NATO. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he will do everything in his power to convince his new counterparts in the United States Administration of the seriousness of the threat that Russia poses? \p John Healey: I do not expect the new Administration to require any coaching on the threats from Russia or other parts of the world. I expect that Administration to be one who take defence and security seriously, and who recognise that a secure, free and openly trading Europe is in America’s very best interests. \p Robin Swann: The Secretary of State said in his statement that we are strengthening our response to ensure that Russian ships cannot operate in secrecy near UK territory. He will be aware of an occasion just over a year ago when a Russian submarine was chased from the harbour in Cork by the British Navy, because the Irish navy does not have the sonar equipment to detect potential underwater threats. Those threats affect about 97% of the world’s communication and internet traffic. What communication or interaction has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Government and the Irish armed forces to strengthen our co-operation with them and ensure that the west coast of these British Isles is protected? \p John Healey: We do not and will not comment on specific operational details like that. Needless to say, however, we work very closely with the Irish Government on such matters. Recently, our Chief of the Defence Staff met his counterpart from Ireland. \p Andrew Murrison: I commend the Defence Secretary for his statement and for the actions that he has taken—particularly to change  the rules of engagement to allow for the closer inspection of that vessel. However, he does not control all the maritime assets of this country. In December, the Transport Secretary told me that there had been no instances of the UK using its agencies to board and inspect bits of the Russian black and grey fleet. Will he speak to his colleagues across Government to ensure that we use all the arms of government and its agencies to interdict unlicensed, unregistered threats to our security? \p John Healey: Where there are grounds for interdiction, the Government collectively will certainly be ready, with the appropriate agency, to take action. The right hon. Gentleman will know, having served as a distinguished Defence Minister for some years, that that sort of close co-ordination and collective action is a feature of the national security secretariat that we have at the very heart of our Government. It plays an important role and ensures that we can deal with any such threats or aggressive activity in the most appropriate way. \p Mike Martin: I thank the Defence Secretary, his team and the service personnel involved for their robust response—that is exactly the kind of thing we need when dealing with Russia. He is right when he says that the Russian army in Ukraine has nearly been destroyed, but of course the Russian navy—particularly the northern fleet, which we have to deal with in the UK—is still at strength. He has said a couple of times that Russia is the most pressing and immediate threat to the UK. In the light of those facts, does he still think it is the right decision to send the UK carrier group—which, given the Royal Navy’s size, is most of its deployable force—to the far east for five months this year? \p John Healey: Yes. \p John Cooper: Undersea cables in the modern era are as vital to this country as the merchant navy convoys were in the Battle of the Atlantic in 1942, and they are equally vulnerable. Taking shape on the banks of the Clyde at the moment are the state-of-the-art Type 26 frigates, which have mission bays on board. The right hon. Gentleman is fleet of foot—as we have heard, he won a foot race today—but we are in an underwater arms race. Will he do all he can to ensure that, when those ships take to sea, their mission bays bristle with the necessary underwater equipment to take on that threat? \p John Healey: Those bays are designed to be interchangeable, and they will do exactly that. \p Jim Allister: It is clear that Putin is testing the west’s resolve. I welcome the rigour of the statement. The threat to our underground cables is an international issue. Does the Secretary of State agree that the United Nations response has been disappointing, and that its convention on the law of the sea is wholly inadequate to deal with such subversion and, indeed, is out of date? What steps are being taken internationally to get concerted action to protect the undersea cables on which every nation depends? \p John Healey: I think the problem is less with the basic rules of the sea and more with observance by states that wilfully test the limits or contravene them. That is why  the actions that I have reported to the House, in the instance of the Yantar in British waters, are exactly the sort of steps that nations such as the UK will continue to take, working with allies—particularly close NATO allies. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement. Nobody can be in any doubt whatsoever about the strength of his words on what it means for us in the United Kingdom to stand firm. We thank him for that determination and his strong voice, which we in this Chamber all support. When the naval crew of HMS Somerset were called back to their ship on Christmas day, the message was clear: the Russians do not take a holiday, but neither do our Royal Navy crews. Russia’s perpetual activity in pressing towards our boundaries outlines the need for the complete preparedness of our Navy. Will the Secretary of State outline whether greater support is needed to ensure that our Navy is at full strength, given that our service fleet is now smaller than those of France and Italy? \p John Healey: We are grateful to those service personnel—not just the crew of the HMS Somerset, who were, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, mobilised on Christmas day to respond to the EstLink 2 damage, but the 10,000 servicemen and women who were deployed away from home at Christmas—for their service. We know that they do it to keep the rest of us safe, and we are very grateful.[Official Report, 28 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 1WC.] (Correction) \p Nusrat Ghani: That concludes proceedings on the statement. I will give the Secretary of State a moment so that he can walk out—not run, as he did earlier on. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Liz Kendall, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Pat McFadden, Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and Georgia Gould, presented a Bill to make provision about the prevention of fraud against public authorities and the making of erroneous payments by public authorities; about the recovery of money paid by public authorities as a result of fraud or error; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 167) with explanatory notes (Bill 167-EN). \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Blair McDougall, supported by Mr Alex Barros-Curtis, Rachel Blake, Mr Connor Rand, Alex Sobel, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Phil Brickell, Chris Law, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Tom Tugendhat and Ms Marie Rimmer, presented a Bill to make provision for a right to consular assistance for British journalists abroad who have been detained or held hostage; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed (Bill 168). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Julie Minns: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of audio and tactile measures at polling stations for the purpose of enabling blind voters to vote independently and in secret; to require the Secretary of State to take steps to identify, develop and implement new accessible voting solutions for blind voters; to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the arrangements for postal voting in respect of accessibility for blind voters and to implement any recommendations of that review; and for connected purposes.

I first began work on this issue in the 1990s. Sadly, I am not so young for that work to have been a school project, but rather it was an excellent campaign led by the disability charity Scope, for which I had the privilege of working at that time. Scope’s “Polls Apart” report on the 1997 general election shone a light on the many different ways disabled people were denied their democratic right to vote. From archaic medical approvals for postal voting to steps at polling stations, the barriers to voting—and everyday life—were and remain very real. The “Polls Apart” report that I co-authored with my colleagues Jane Enticott and Nicky Philpott, informed by the excellent campaigning work of Olivia Marks-Woldman, made a number of recommendations for reform. Indeed, the former Member for Nottingham East Mr John Heppell presented a ten-minute rule Bill—the Disability Discrimination (Provision of Voting Facilities) Bill—that sought to enact many of those recommendations.

The “Polls Apart” report found that a staggering 94% of polling stations surveyed on the day of the 1997 general election were inaccessible to disabled people who wanted to vote independently. This led to some being unable to vote entirely, while others physically injured themselves trying to open impossibly heavy doors or navigate gates designed without thought for wheelchair users—all in pursuit of trying to exercise their right to cast a vote. The report called on the Government to review the legislation for disabled people and the Home Office guidance to returning officers with a view to removing the barriers that prevented disabled people from exercising their right to vote independently and in secret—a right that has been enshrined for over 150 years, since the Ballot Act 1872.

I am proud of the work I did for Scope all those years ago, and I would genuinely love to stand before the House and tell hon. Members that all the issues we identified have been rectified. Many were, but nearly three decades on, too many remain. John from my constituency of Carlisle has glaucoma, and like many partially sighted people he had difficulty casting his vote in secret at last year’s general election. With his guide dog, John headed to the polling station on 4 July, where staff escorted him to the booth and read aloud the candidates’ names, because for those who cannot see a ballot paper, it is impossible to read and mark one independently. With no tactile device provided to enable John to read the ballot paper, he asked the clerk to fold it between candidates’ names and used the fold creases as a guide, relying on his memory to select his preferred candidate. At first glance, this may seem like an adequate workaround, but we must ask ourselves:  why should voters with sight loss like John have to settle for a situation where they cannot guarantee the privacy or accuracy of their vote, and where solutions are available?

John’s experience is not an aberration. Across the country, blind and partially sighted voters are still confronted with barriers to voting independently. The Royal National Institute of Blind People’s “Turned Out” report on the 2024 general election revealed that just a quarter of blind and partially sighted people felt the current system allowed them to vote independently and in secret. The same report found that only half of blind and partially sighted people were satisfied with their voting experience, and 73% did not know they could request reasonable adjustments at their local polling station. Many blind voters struggle to get the information they need in an accessible format, forcing them to either tell another person their vote or remain disenfranchised. Blind voters report feeling humiliated and let down by the system when having to share their vote out loud in public and in some cases not being certain who they voted for.

Our democracy is all the poorer for this, and that is why this Bill seeks to ensure that all voters with sight loss are consistently able to access information about the election and candidates independently, and that when voting they can, without assistance, review the candidates on the ballot paper, reliably find and mark their chosen candidate, and be in sole control of the secrecy of their vote. This is not out of reach: the technology exists and the solutions are low-cost and effective. For example, tactile overlays placed on top of the ballot combined with an audio recording of the candidate list allow blind voters to easily navigate and mark the ballot paper with autonomy, dignity and certainty. In a recent UK trial, audio and tactile-accessible voting solutions enabled 93% of participants to vote independently and in secret. Currently, however, these modest solutions are not routinely available at our polling stations. As it is, the law puts the onus on the blind and partially sighted person to pre-book their vote by making contact with the electoral authority and requesting specific adaptations—requests that may or may not be granted. The vast majority of blind and partially sighted people do not know these provisions exist or what adaptations to request.

The barriers facing voters with sight loss also extend beyond the polling station. That is why this Bill also calls for a review of our postal voting system, which many blind voters feel pushed towards because of the inaccessibility of polling stations. However, the same issues of independence and privacy are present: 68% of blind postal voters told the RNIB they had assistance from another person to enable them to vote. One respondent told the RNIB:

“I avoid voting in person because my local polling station doesn’t have a clue what to do with me. Now I use postal voting but have to rely on my partner completing my voting form so it isn’t confidential, nor can I guarantee they tick the boxes I ask them to. I just have to trust them.”

While voting in this country continues to rely on an inaccessible paper-based system, in Australia they have introduced a human-assisted telephone voting model, whereby a blind or partially sighted person can pre-register so that on the day of the election they can vote over the phone anonymously and in secret.

Reflecting best practice from other countries, this Bill demands a proactive and accelerated approach to tackling the barriers to voting that disabled people face. This Bill is ultimately a recognition that elections can and must be made accessible to everyone. An accessible voting system is essential for the health of our democracy, and this Bill is a vital step to correcting an injustice and building a democracy where voters such as John are not left behind. I urge the House to support this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Ms Julie Minns, Steve Darling, Jim Shannon, Mims Davies, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Paul Davies, Liam Conlon, Katrina Murray, Irene Campbell, James Naish, Lee Pitcher and Deirdre Costigan present the Bill.

Ms Julie Minns accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed (Bill 166). \p UNKNOWN: King’s recommendation signified. \p Stephen Kinnock: I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.

The Government are of the view that the Bill is a matter for Parliament rather than the Government to decide. In order for the Public Bill Committee that is now scrutinising the Bill to consider the clause that would have spending implications, the Government must first table this money resolution. This is purely to allow the Bill to be debated in Committee, and the Government have taken the view that tabling this motion does not act against our commitment to remain neutral. Only the Government can table such motions, so tabling it allows further debate to happen. To assist that debate, the Government will also assess the impacts of the Bill, and we expect to publish the impact assessment before MPs consider the Bill on Report. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister, Dr Kieran Mullan. \p Kieran Mullan: I am conscious of the limited time available and so will keep my remarks focused. I appreciate that it is not commonplace for Front Benchers to speak at length on money resolutions, but this is not commonplace legislation. I reiterate that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have taken a neutral stance on the merits of the Bill, both in principle and  in detail. The House has expressed its support for the introduction of assisted dying, and Members are currently considering the Bill in detail before it is presented back to the whole House for further consideration. The money resolution is a necessary part of associated legislation. Proponents of the Bill will welcome the Government bringing this forward, as it is not unheard of for Governments to withhold these resolutions in a manner that delays the progress of legislation. \p Jim Shannon: There are concerns from those of us who voted against the assisted dying Bill. I understand the process, and how it works with the money resolution coming forward, but on the day that this was finalised I asked a question, and the make-up of the Committee was 15 of those who voted for the Bill, and nine who voted against. A secrecy process has now been brought into the Bill, and we do not know what is happening. That is against the rules of this House. The second thing they have done is the issue of withdrawing the opinion of the judges, which is also out of order. \p Kieran Mullan: I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that the money resolution is narrow in scope—I will perhaps bring the attention of the House to some tangentially related issues when it comes to the role of the Government in these proceedings.

As I said, proponents of the Bill will be glad of the progress that has been made, but this motion brings into sharp focus the fact that at some point the Government will need to fund, organise and provide assisted dying services to reflect any legislation that receives Royal Assent. As the Minister said, the money resolution will provide the legal basis for funding that service. I recognise that we are not yet at the stage when the Government can say with certainty what exactly those services and their associated funding will look like. There is time still for changes to be made, and we should not of course make an absolute assumption that any Bill will pass all its stages, as likely as that is, given the will of Parliament as expressed to date.

As the Bill proceeds, it will become increasingly important, and helpful to Members voting on future stages, to begin to have some idea of how the civil service and Ministers are envisioning enacting the legislation, not least in relation to the matter of resources before us today. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) estimated that up to 3% of adults may eventually choose assisted dying. In 2023 there were 577,620 adult deaths in England and Wales. If 3% of those were assisted dying cases, that would result in about 17,000 cases annually. Those are not insignificant numbers, and Members will recognise the considerable existing challenges with resources and personnel in the relevant areas of spending.

Although this is not a Government Bill, the Lord Chancellor has ultimate responsibility for ensuring the effective functioning of our legal system and judiciary, as does the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for the delivery of this service, and how that will balance and interact with the other health services provided. I therefore have a small number of questions relating to resources, which I hope the Minister agrees will assist the House in better understanding how the Government are approaching such matters.

If information is not forthcoming today, it is crucial that the Minister sets out, in slightly more detail than he did earlier, at what point the Government will engage more fully with the detail of how they intend to resource the Bill, and start sharing their considerations. First, have the Government produced at the very least internal estimates of a potential range of the costs of delivering an assisted dying service, for both the NHS and the judiciary? If they have, will they share that with the House today? If they have not produced internal estimates, when do they anticipate doing so, and when do they intend to publish such estimates?

Secondly, have the Government identified potential sources of funding for the service? If they have, will that funding come from existing departmental budgets, or will it be allocated from outside currently allocated funding? In the latter case, where will those additional resources be drawn from? If the Government have not yet produced options for Ministers to consider on these questions, when will they do so, and when will they share them with the House?

Questions of resources relate to the impact on existing services of any decisions that the money resolution enables. The closer we come to the closing stages of the Bill, particularly ahead of any final parliamentary vote on a settled set of proposals, the more important it will be that Members get the benefit of answers to those questions, which can only come from the Government.   It is important to say that it is perfectly legitimate for Members to decide that a better understanding of these issues is not an absolute necessity, and it will be for Members to decide whether they are happy to support legislation purely on principle. That may well be the position for many Members of the House, but I think most would agree that it would be preferable to be able to vote with, at very least, possible approaches and assessments of these matters, even if not definitive answers.

In conclusion, these are not merely procedural or technical issues. The Government’s tabling of this motion signals an acceptance that, should the Bill become law, the financial costs will need to be met, and that will not be a minor area of expenditure. This House has a duty to scrutinise every aspect of the Bill, and I urge the Government to provide a degree of clarity that only they can provide to assist Members in doing that. At this stage there has been a clearly expressed will of Parliament to introduce this service, and it is right for the Government to make legal provision for funding it in principle. However, the Government should enable Members to make decisions at future stages with as good an understanding as possible of how the legislation they may wish to support will translate into the real world. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Members should keep their contributions within scope. This is about the financial implications of the Bill if it is passed, so let us keep contributions within scope. \p Kim Leadbeater: On 29 November last year, in a debate widely described as showing Parliament at its best, this House sent the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill into Committee for scrutiny by a majority of 55. It was the clear will of this place that the Bill should be allowed to proceed, in the knowledge that Members will have further opportunities on Report and beyond to decide whether it should be enacted. For that process to continue, the resolution before us today must pass.

Those who oppose the Bill on principle—something they are absolutely entitled to do—are seeking to suggest that there is something extraordinary or improper about this process, and on that they are simply wrong. This is a standard procedure that comes before this House all the time. Without it, there can be no Bill—that, I humbly suggest, is sadly what some people intend. This is not a blank cheque, as some Members have suggested. The right time to discuss the detail of what expenditure may be required is when we know the final shape of the Bill. At that point, if Members are concerned about the expenditure required, or indeed anything else, they can of course vote as they wish. \p John Hayes: The hon. Lady says that the right time to discuss the capacity of the judiciary and health service to deliver the Bill is presumably once it has completed its Committee stage, but should the Committee that considers the Bill have the impact assessment that allows it to scrutinise it line by line, mindful of the implications that it might have on our health service and our judiciary? \p Kim Leadbeater: I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I would say that point is slightly out of the scope of the money resolution. However, I think it is a fair point, and I acknowledge that a lot of work is being done, as the Government said it would be, to look at the workability and operability of the Bill. I am working closely with Departments on those issues, and those conversations will continue, alongside the work of the Committee. I hope that provides him with some reassurance.

The other point is that I have never sought to stifle debate on the Bill or this really important issue; quite the contrary. I value it and I welcome it, but I do ask that it continues to be conducted in the same respectful and considered manner as on Second Reading. Where we disagree, let us do so with respect and without questioning each other’s motives or integrity. \p Ruth Cadbury: I congratulate my hon. Friend on how she has conducted this important debate. On stifling debate, does she share my hope that there will be no vote against the money resolution, because such a vote would end debate? While there was a strong vote in support of the Bill, there were many strong arguments for amendment and there was opposition. Does she agree that that debate needs to happen as the Bill proceeds and not be stifled and ended today? \p Kim Leadbeater: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Having done such a powerful job of debating this issue on Second Reading, it is crucial that we continue that debate in the right manner, as Parliament voted to do. It would be wrong for anything that happens today to put a stop to that debate and those discussions.

Let us not forget that the public are watching our deliberations carefully and that the issue we are discussing means a huge amount to many people. It is extremely serious and, for many, hugely emotive. We owe it to our constituents to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. I ask Members to consider carefully what it would say about us as a Parliament if such an important debate were to be curtailed as a result of procedural manoeuvring, which, sadly, is what I worry is being attempted by some colleagues today.

The money resolution is not about the pros and cons or the detail of the Bill; it will simply allow for proper scrutiny—including of any cost involved—to continue, and mean that the Bill Committee can begin its important work. I urge Members to support the resolution. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: To ensure that as many colleagues as possible can get in during the time allowed, there will be a speaking limit of four minutes. \p John Hayes: The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) is right that this is not unprecedented; in fact, it is the normal procedure for a money resolution relating to a private Member’s Bill to be debated ahead of Report. That is not true of Government Bills, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, it is really important that we examine the detail of what we are presented  with today, which is an open-ended commitment. The wording makes it absolutely clear that

“any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and…any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act”,

money is so provided. The hon. Lady says that this is not a blank cheque, but it cannot get much more blank than that. Essentially, any moneys associated with the Bill—if it becomes an Act—will be provided.

Pertinent to this vote, we have to ask the question: where will that money come from? Presumably it can come only from existing resource, and one assumes palliative care; it will not come from A&E, surgical treatments or GPs, so it will presumably come from that source. One does not know, of course, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask that question. \p Simon Opher: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p John Hayes: I will in a second.

On the judicial point, I simply say to the hon. Lady that the establishment of a judicial competence to deal with this system will be resource-hungry. To offer her a parallel example, when I took the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 through the House, we established what was then described as a double lock—it became a triple lock—which required a whole new judicial function to make it happen. It may well be that the same applies in this case, with immense cost and immense pressure on an already overstretched judiciary.

Therefore, in considering those precise matters—not the ethics of the Bill, which are an entirely different consideration, and highly questionable—it is absolutely right and pertinent to ask what this will cost, when, and how it will be delivered. Those questions have not been answered. I scanned the hon. Lady’s speech on Second Reading, and it contained no mention of scale or cost. That is why I am immensely sceptical about what we have before us. While I accept that the money resolution is not unprecedented, it is certainly not desirable. \p Maya Ellis: A major argument in the debate on assisted dying has been about making it accessible to all, rather than only those who can afford to travel to access it. The argument is made about dignity in dying. I struggle to see the fairness, however, in pursuing spend to allow dignity in dying when we struggle to fund dignity in other areas of the NHS. I am sure that many midwives and those who have been through pregnancy and birth in recent years will agree that severely underfunded maternity services can lead to experiences completely lacking in dignity for mothers. The impact can last throughout the life of a family. In September 2024, the Care Quality Commission found that almost two thirds of inspected maternity units were unsafe to birth in.

We likewise know that the dignity offered to disabled people, those receiving palliative care and those in supported living is often far less than they deserve. One of the biggest flaws in the Bill, therefore, is the money resolution. I do not see how we can sign a blank cheque to  guarantee dignity only in death when dignity in all parts of life is still so desperately in need of resources, and equally deserving. \p Simon Opher: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Maya Ellis: I will not, if that is all right. Sorry.

At the other end of the spectrum, we need to be acutely aware that we are not today expanding overall budgets in the NHS, so what we agree to in this money resolution will put further strain on our already stretched NHS. That means that, for example, St Catherine’s hospice in my constituency, which already requires private fundraising for almost 80% of its income, will have further NHS funding pulled away to accommodate publicly funded assisted dying. It is prudent for us to make clear what we put at risk if we vote through the Bill, having agreed this money resolution. The resolution means that money for palliative care will likely be diminished. The House should consider that in the next stages of the Bill, given what it is supposedly designed to alleviate.

Finally, let us make it clear what we are agreeing to today. I have asked a few times, and never really got a clear answer, why making assisted dying legal has to go hand in hand with a commitment to funding assisted dying on the NHS. Most of us, including me, fiercely protect the idea of an NHS that is free at the point of use, but we risk maternity services encouraging women to pursue induced births rather than planned caesareans, partly because of resource limitations in the NHS. I caution against an agreement to spend money on guaranteeing dignity in dying when we lag so far behind on guaranteeing dignity in birth, and in many other areas. \p Kit Malthouse: I rise to support the money resolution, broadly for two reasons. The first is the significant risk to the reputation of the House. One of the greatest criticisms of this place is that we play games and do not take these issues seriously. We all accept that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said, a money resolution is normally a technicality for private Members’ Bills. If the Bill fell at this moment, we would not only deny debate to those Members who expressed either soft opposition or soft support for it on Second Reading, but strike a hammer blow to millions of people in the United Kingdom who are looking to us for a sense of leadership and clarity on this issue.

I hope that there will not be a Division today, but if there is, I urge Members to vote in favour of the resolution. Those Members thinking of voting against should bear in mind that the message that would go out from this place would be that a matter of life and death—a matter fundamental to many people, and on which there are profound feelings on both sides of the debate, as we have seen—can be dismissed on the basis of a casual, technical vote on a quiet Wednesday afternoon. That would be a bit of a travesty. I hope that Members realise what is reputationally at risk.

Secondly, there is broad misunderstanding of what the Bill is designed to do. The hon. Member for Ribble  Valley (Maya Ellis) said, in effect, that the money resolution offers a blank cheque. Well, the rest of the NHS is already a blank cheque. Over the years, things have evolved in such a way that Parliament gives Government Ministers permission, through estimates, to make judgments about how they prioritise spending on the services for which they are responsible; and the Chancellor makes judgments about spending for Departments. If this House starts micromanaging spending—saying what the Government should spend on particular drugs, treatments, crimes or interventions—we will end up in an unholy mess. I have yet to hear anyone in this House object, for example, to the creation of a new criminal offence on the grounds that it would be more costly for the police. I have yet to hear anyone in this House object to the NHS prescribing a new drug because it will be costly for the health service.

We must remember that the people we are talking about—the dying individuals who may want to make this choice at the end of their life—are already receiving treatment in the national health service. They are already reliant on expensive care services, drugs and so on, as well as social support mechanisms that cost the taxpayer. It is, of course, important that we see the overall impact assessment, but we should not pretend that the status quo is cost-free, because it is costly—not only in monetary terms, but in terms of humanity. We should not forget that we are attempting to put a price on quality of life, and on mercy at the end of life. I urge Members to reflect on that and support this motion.

Finally, let me address the misunderstanding by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). There was no attempt yesterday to create any air of secrecy about consideration of the Bill in Committee. There was a brief period in which we had hoped to have an informal discussion about witnesses, before the public sitting resumed, which is normal for Bill Committees in these circumstances. Unfortunately, that has been misconstrued, but I guarantee that the rest of proceedings will be open for the public to view. \p Paula Barker: My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has led this important debate with openness and transparency at all times, and has treated all views with dignity and respect. She is acutely aware of the strongly held beliefs on both sides of this debate. Many right hon. and hon. Members expressed the concern that there was not enough time to debate the Bill. It is important to ensure the maximum amount of debate on this important Bill, and to ensure that all views are heard. The public wish to hear a considered view from all parliamentarians in this place, and we owe it to them to ensure that the debate continues, while treating each other with dignity and respect, just as we did last November, when we saw this place as its very best.

A money resolution is standard for any Bill put forward by the Government or an MP. The wording is identical to any other money resolution for any other Bill. It is important that all Members are clear that this debate is not about the merits or otherwise of the Bill, and it would be incredibly disappointing if any Member sought to use it as such. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: Does there not appear to be some confusion about the motion? It clearly says that this procedural motion has to be laid before the House

“for the purposes of any Act resulting from”

the scrutiny and debate that is to come. If hon. Members on either side of the debate, and on either side of the House, having considered the final version of the Bill, think that it should not be agreed to for monetary reasons, will not that be the time to vote no to the Bill? \p Paula Barker: I will come to that point shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has sought every opportunity to be inclusive, and has sought a wide range of views, because she knows the value of all voices being heard. If the resolution does not pass today, the Bill cannot progress. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that that is not what the House voted for in November, and it is certainly not what our constituents want.

Three full days of oral evidence from 50 witnesses will begin next week. That will be followed by at least eight full days of scrutiny. None of that will proceed if the resolution is voted down today. I appeal to Members across this place, regardless of their views, to let us have the long overdue, open and transparent debate that will enable Members to formulate a final opinion on the Bill, irrespective of what that may be. To stifle it would be to stifle democracy. We must remember that democracy is a slow process of stumbling to the right decision, instead of going straight to the wrong one. \p Brian Mathew: Let me start by saying that I am in in favour of the motion, so I will vote for it, if it comes to that. However, would the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and the Minister consider the inclusion of two social workers on the group, made up of two GPs and a High Court judge, that assesses requests for assisted dying? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Your contribution has to be within the scope of what we are discussing, which is the financial organisation of the Bill. \p Brian Mathew: I was making a point about the added expense. \p Nusrat Ghani: You need to get to that point very quickly. \p Brian Mathew: There would be added expense. Social workers are trained in understanding family dynamics, and need desperately to be involved in these situations. \p Kim Leadbeater: I take that point on board. I had a very productive meeting with the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers yesterday, and we had a useful conversation on that issue. \p Brian Mathew: I thank the hon. Lady. \p David Smith: I would like to raise a couple of practical and principled concerns  about the finances around assisted dying. First, on the practical, I welcome the comment from my hon. Friend the Minister that there will be an impact assessment in due course. However, until we see it, we have no idea what the measure will cost. We are being asked to approve a blank cheque for assisted dying. We have heard that the NHS is a blank cheque, but the NHS has a clearly defined budget. At this point, we do not have any sense of what the Bill will cost. If that were the case for any other legislation, we would be shouting about it.

The Bill represents a profound change to the very nature of our healthcare system, and we are simply guessing at the cost. That is not good for the Bill Committee’s ability to scrutinise, and not good for this place, or for the democratic and legislative process. In order to legislate well, we need a firm commitment. I am glad to have heard that the impact assessment will be published before Report. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) that the motion is routine, and I accept that. However, the consequences are extraordinary, and that is why this is an important moment.

On the principle, whatever the cost, once it is assessed, and despite the Government’s recent financial boost for the hospice sector, palliative care is massively underfunded. The postcode lottery in the provision of end of life care has led to some of the horror stories that we heard on Second Reading. The hospice sector has only 30% of its funding provided by central Government, so this technical stage represents a commitment to taking potentially scarce funding from end of life care and allocating it to ending lives. \p Simon Opher: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p David Smith: I do not have time. That opens up the dark possibility of a race to the bottom—to looking for savings in the health and social care budget. Any Government would be tempted, where cost saving is a possibility, to push assisted dying as a cost-saving measure; we have seen that in jurisdictions such as Canada.

Finally, let me say this with humility and respect to my hon. Friends on my left. I fear that the Bill will lead to the marketisation of death and dying. We have learned from other jurisdictions that many medical services and clinicians do not want to be part of the delivery of assisted dying, for reasons of principle or because they fear that they will be sued. Independent private health organisations will have to take over to fill the space. Those businesses will have shareholders and annual reports. They will be driven by the desire to maximise profit, with death for the bottom line. They will advertise and seek to expand their market share. \p Simon Opher: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p David Smith: I am sorry; I am almost finished. This could seem like a tangential point to make on a money resolution, but, to summarise this and my other points, I fear the consequences of the relationship between money—this resolution in particular—and assisted dying. Although I will not be voting against this resolution, because I believe in the democratic process, I think we seriously need to consider the relationship between money and this Bill. \p Ben Spencer: Unfortunately, this debate and the circumstances of this money resolution are a manifest example of the concerns I have raised about this Bill and the process of taking it forwards. Many Members talk about debate, and it is important that this issue is debated; however, what is critical is scrutiny—ensuring that we can properly scrutinise the Bill, the work that is put into a very complicated area of law, and what would be, if the Bill were to pass, a manifest change in the relationship between the state and its citizens.

This money resolution is in the name of a Treasury Minister, the response at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading was from a Justice Minister, and we have a Health Minister here today. We cannot say whether the Bill will be paid for by the Ministry of Justice, and what the liability will be. What is the health liability? How much will be in private hands, and how much will not? What about legal aid? There are all these spin-out costs from the Bill.

As a parliamentarian, I like to scrutinise. I want to see impact assessments; I want to see what the spending that I am being asked to vote for looks like, yet we do not have that information. Members have said that the Bill will come back on Report, and the Government are in a hokey-cokey position: sort of in, sort of out—what’s it all about? I am sorry, but I do not think that is good enough for something of such importance to our constituents and for Parliament to get right. \p Antonia Bance: Last summer’s Labour manifesto included the words

“Fully costed, fully funded—built on a rock of fiscal responsibility”,

and they were words on which I was proud to be elected. Money resolutions are normally a formality, but not this one—not today. This resolution asks us to give a blank cheque to this Bill, which makes me nervous, because that sounds like something that we in this changed Labour party just do not do. When we put forward a proposal for public spending, we know how we will fund it. \p Simon Opher: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Antonia Bance: No, I will not.

In the case of this Bill, we not only do not know how much it will cost or how it will be paid for, but we do not even know what the money will be spent on. Let us think of the questions that we do not know the answers to. What will be the cost of NHS doctors attending the final appointment and waiting while their patient dies? What will be the cost of a second doctor to sign off? What drugs will be used, and how much will they cost? Will assisted dying happen in hospitals, in hospices or in new, purpose-built facilities? How many will there be, and where? \p Daisy Cooper: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Antonia Bance: No.

How much will those facilities cost? There are even bigger questions, too. Will this be an NHS service, or will we be contracting private providers? If it is an NHS  service, which of my constituents will have to wait longer for an operation or a GP appointment because this Parliament will today authorise massive, unspecified spending in our cash-strapped NHS? \p Martin Wrigley: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Antonia Bance: I will not—I have only a little time.

It is not just the health system that will take on new costs. Our civil courts are groaning under the strain of years of Tory underfunding, although my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is doing a brilliant job of putting our court system back to rights. However, this Bill will impose new unfunded and unknown costs on our courts. It blithely assumes that judges and courts will be available, yet the waiting time for a family court case at the moment is 10 months. That just will not work for the Bill. How much will the extra spending on courts cost? \p Daisy Cooper: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Antonia Bance: I will not.

Those are all reasonable questions, and this House deserves to have many more answers than it has so far been able to get. According to the Hansard Society,

“To table a money motion, the Government must therefore assess how much money will be required and have some idea about where the funding will come from, although it is not required to set this out in the motion itself.”

That information is not in the motion, so will Ministers make that assessment available and set out where the funding will come from? I am glad to hear we have a timetable for the impact assessment, but it would be good also to see the delegated powers memorandum, given the scale of powers delegated to Ministers in the Bill.

Alongside others, the Minister is a member of the Public Bill Committee, and I thank him and all members of the Committee for their work on behalf of this House, scrutinising and seeking wisdom. I particularly thank the Minister for upholding the neutrality of this Government and our party towards the Bill in his acts on the Committee and in this House.

Those of us with concerns will not push this resolution to a vote today. I know that colleagues are desperate for there to be procedural game playing, but there is no such thing; there are in principle concerns and questions about practicalities. I do hope for some answers to my questions. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: Can we just state what is really quite obvious? This House has voted for further debate in order to make workable and legally watertight legislation, and with that debate will come a full understanding of the resources needed for both England and Wales. Of course, in Wales, health is devolved and justice is reserved, and we need to understand the implications for that.

What has been a bit of an eye-opener for me, as a member of the Bill Committee—it is, of course, a larger Bill Committee for a private Member’s Bill than ever before—is the sense of the way in which this place operates. We have been given the role of producing  workable legislation as best we can, on the advice of witnesses—there is a part of me that would like the Committee to receive more witnesses, but I am very aware that we have to move ahead with what we have been charged with doing: namely, producing that workable legislation—but we will not arrive today, next week or after we have heard from our witnesses at a complete, perfect, already-made understanding of what we need to do to make correct and workable legislation. For those things to be in place today, the House would need estimates and information that the Bill Committee has been charged with providing, which it will not be able to provide until we have heard the advice from the witnesses we are calling forward to give us a sense of what the resource needs and associated costs will be.

It will then be the duty of us all on Report and on Third Reading to ensure that the money and resources are sufficient for the legislation to be workable. With that in mind, I support this motion. \p Daisy Cooper: Members in this House who have spoken against the money resolution say they are doing so because they have so many unanswered questions about the costs. Does the right hon. Lady agree that if Members vote against the resolution, they will never get those answers? That is precisely why the Bill should move forwards. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: Let us imagine what the public would make of our role in this place if this legislation were to fall at this point. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We are going to drop the speech limit to three minutes. \p Anna Dixon: Colleagues will know that I put forward a reasoned amendment on Second Reading. In that amendment, and in my speech in that debate, I set out some of my concerns about how the private Member’s Bill process does not allow for sufficient scrutiny to develop complex legislation on such a sensitive matter. Indeed, such a once-in-a-generation approach to suicide, death and dying and these changes need to be looked at independently and in a formal public consultation.

This House was given reassurances, both by the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and the Leader of the House, in the light of which some colleagues voted for the Bill on Second Reading to allow the process to proceed. As part of that, reassurances were given about an impact assessment, which would have included an estimate of costs. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has given assurances that an impact assessment is forthcoming, but we do not yet have it. As a result, we are very unclear at this point how much assisted dying would cost to implement.

I therefore seek clarification from the Minister and others involved on a number of questions. Will assisted dying be offered free on the NHS? How many people do we estimate will expect to exercise their right under the Bill? There are a wide range of estimates out there, based on overseas jurisdictions. \p Lewis Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Anna Dixon: No; I have very little time.

How much will it cost for the additional doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals? How much time will be required to do a proper consultation? What about the lengthy paperwork? Will new clinics be set up, or will existing facilities be repurposed? What will be the costs of the lethal drugs? What about the oversight by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and other regulators? What about the training for healthcare professionals involved in the process, and the cost of oversight by the chief medical officer and the Registrar General, and any new data systems required?

It is clear that palliative and end of life care is in desperate need of investment; some 100,000 people die each year who could benefit from end of life care but do not receive it. If assisted dying is to be implemented, it is essential that there is equitable and free access to hospice care, so how much additional funding would be provided to hospices for palliative and end of life care under this money resolution or from elsewhere?

I fully support this Government’s commitment to fixing the NHS, establishing a national care service and providing additional investment, as they have already shown, to hospices. However, I would like the Minister to provide clarification to assist our understanding because, given our inheritance from the Conservative party, I am concerned like others that funding for assisted dying risks diverting essential resources away from end of life care, other NHS services and social care. I look forward to the Minister’s response. \p Jim Allister: There is no more important function for Members of this House than that of being the guardians of public money. It is very hard to equate the performance of that function with signing a blank cheque, and yet that is what we are being asked to do today. One thing is abundantly clear: if this Bill passes, it will bring with it a huge financial burden in perpetuity. \p Lewis Atkinson: On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Jim Allister: I would be happy to do so in a moment.

It is quite clear that the measures will impose huge costs on the health and justice budgets. Given the provisions in the Bill, is it impossible for that not to be the consequence, so when the Treasury Minister produces the financial information, will he include current Government expenditure on palliative care and suicide prevention, so that we can look at and balance what we are spending? The Bill invites the Government to move from funding charities to prevent suicide to becoming facilitators and providers of suicide. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Mr Allister, we must confine our remarks to the money resolution for the Bill. \p Jim Allister: Madam Deputy Speaker, I was seeking to do that by asking the Treasury Minister to give us a  comparison. What is this Bill going to cost our health service and justice system? How does that compare with what we are already spending on palliative care and suicide prevention? Those are pertinent questions and we need the answers. \p Carla Lockhart: It is mind-blowing that there is no money to pay for winter fuel payments or to support the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign, yet the House is about to approve the provision of a bottomless pot of money to create a state-funded, gold-plated assisted suicide service. \p Jim Allister: I agree. We all have our views on the merits of the Bill, but fundamentally we have a duty to our constituents to handle public money properly. In handling that money, we must know how much the Bill will cost. When it comes to that financial statement, it must not be fudged or opaque; it must be absolutely clear and it must— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I must now call the Minister. \p Stephen Kinnock: I thank Members for their continued contribution to the debate. The Government are of the view that the Bill is an issue of conscience for individual parliamentarians and it is rightly a matter for Parliament, not the Government, to decide. The money resolution allows the Bill to be debated in Committee, where its detail will continue to be scrutinised. As I have said, the Government will also be assessing the impact of the Bill and we expect to publish an impact assessment before MPs consider the Bill on Report. I therefore commend the money resolution to the House.

Question put and agreed to. \p Jim Shannon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) made a   comment that I feel impinged upon my integrity. I have spoken to the right hon. Gentleman and he knows what I am referring to. I underlined and highlighted that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee went into private session; some 15 Members, who support the Bill, voted for the private session and nine Members, who oppose the Bill, voted against the private session. The record must be corrected about what the right hon. Gentleman said about the comments I made about that. Facts are facts; they matter to me, as does my integrity. \p Nusrat Ghani: Thank you, Mr Shannon, for letting me know you would be making a point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of Member’s speeches, but I remind the House of the advice in Erskine May on the importance of good temper and moderation in parliamentary language. \p Kit Malthouse: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was no intent in my remarks to undermine the integrity of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I may have misunderstood his remarks, but he implied that the Committee was adopting some kind of veil of secrecy over our affairs and I was pointing out to him that, in my view, that was a misunderstanding of what we were attempting to do yesterday. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman was offended, as he knows I hold him in great affection and I had no intention to do so. \p Nusrat Ghani: Thank you, Mr Malthouse. I can see Mr Shannon nodding, so hopefully your apology has been accepted. \p UNKNOWN: Second Reading \p Emma Reynolds: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill will enhance the UK’s resolution regime by giving the Bank of England a more flexible toolkit to respond to bank failures. The Bill creates a recapitalisation mechanism that ensures that certain costs of managing the failure of banking institutions do not fall to the taxpayer. It strengthens protections for public funds and financial stability, while supporting the competitiveness and growth of the UK financial sector by avoiding placing new up-front costs on the banking sector. It is therefore an important Bill that underpins this Government’s vision to promote growth and economic stability.

The policy in the Bill builds on the proposals set out in consultation by the previous Government. I thank the previous Government—I do not always do that, by the way—for the work they did with the Bank of England on the consultation and on the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK, back in March 2023. The Bill provides the Bank of England with greater flexibility to manage the failure of small banks, and thereby embeds lessons learned from the volatility in the UK banking sector in 2023, notably that arising from the failure of SVB UK. I hope, given their origins, that these proposals will be welcomed by hon. Members from across the House.

The resolution regime was created by the Banking Act 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis. It provides the Bank of England with a set of tools to manage the failure of financial institutions in a way that limits risks to financial stability, public funds and the UK economy. The regime was introduced in recognition of the global consensus that reforms were needed to end “too big to fail” and to ensure that, where necessary, financial institutions can be supported to fail in an orderly fashion. This regime has been developed and steadily added to by a series of successive governments over the past decade. That work has given the UK a robust regime that reflects relevant international standards and supports the UK’s role and reputation as a leader in financial regulation, enhancing confidence in our financial system and making the UK a more secure and attractive place in which to invest.

The resolution regime was last used to resolve Silicon Valley Bank UK, the UK subsidiary of the US firm that collapsed in March 2023. The Bank of England used its transfer powers under the Banking Act 2009 to effect the sale of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC. That delivered good outcomes for financial stability, customers and taxpayers. All the bank’s customers were able to continue accessing their bank accounts and other facilities, and all deposits remained safe, secure and accessible. The Bank of England achieved the continuity of banking services, and maintained public confidence in the stability of the UK financial system.

The case of Silicon Valley Bank UK demonstrated the effectiveness and robustness of the resolution regime. However, as would be appropriate following any bank  failure, the Treasury, the Bank of England and their international counterparts reflected carefully following this period of banking sector volatility, and following that reflection, the Government concluded that there was a case for a targeted enhancement to give the Bank of England greater flexibility to manage the failure of smaller banks such as Silicon Valley Bank UK.

At this point, I should explain that the Bank of England generally expects to place failing small banks into insolvency under the bank insolvency procedure, because their failures are not generally expected to meet the conditions that must be satisfied for the Bank of England to exercise its resolution powers. One of those conditions is that winding up the bank would not achieve the resolution objectives to the same extent as they would be achieved through the use of the resolution powers. Those objectives include protecting UK financial stability, covered depositors and public funds. When a failing firm enters insolvency, its eligible depositors are paid out up to £85,000 each within seven days by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, with higher limits for temporary high balances. This compensation is funded initially through a levy on the banking sector, and then, to the extent possible, recovered from the estate of the failed firm.

As was seen in the case of the Silicon Valley Bank, it is the Government’s view that in some cases of small bank failure, the public interest and resolution objectives are better served by the use of the resolution powers than by placing the firm into insolvency. Smaller banks are not required to hold additional funds and liabilities that could be bailed in during a resolution, so in a case in which a small bank does need to be resolved, additional capital may be required to support a successful resolution. For example, funds may be required for the bank in resolution to meet the minimum capital requirements for authorisation, or to sustain market confidence. At present, these recapitalisation costs have to be borne by public funds. The Government believe that that situation should be avoided to protect taxpayers from bearing those costs, and I hope that the Opposition agree; we shall see very shortly. To that end, the Bill aims to strengthen the protections for public funds when a small bank is placed into resolution.

Overall, this is a prudent set of reforms to ensure that the resolution regime continues to effectively limit risks to financial stability and, indeed, to taxpayers. The Bill does not make widespread changes to a regime that is working well, and it is important to emphasise that the bank insolvency procedure will continue to play an important role in managing the failure of small banks. That said, the Bill reflects the Government’s belief that a targeted set of changes is needed to ensure that, if necessary, existing resolution powers can be applied to small banks to achieve good outcomes for financial stability, while also protecting taxpayers. It achieves that by introducing a new recapitalisation mechanism, which allows the Bank of England to use funds provided by the banking sector to cover certain costs associated with resolving a failing banking institution.

The Bill does four main things. First, it expands the statutory functions of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, giving the Bank of England the power to require the FSCS to provide it with funds to be used to support the resolution of a failing bank. Secondly, it allows the FSCS to recover the funds provided to the  Bank by charging levies on the banking sector. This mirrors the arrangements for funding payouts to covered depositors in insolvency, with the exception of the treatment of credit unions, to which I will return. Thirdly, the Bill gives the Bank of England an express ability to require a bank in resolution to issue new shares, facilitating the use of industry funds to meet a failing bank’s recapitalisation costs. Finally, following constructive debate in the other place, the Bill sets out a number of accountability measures that apply when the Bank of England uses the recapitalisation mechanism.

The Bill consists of eight clauses to deliver those key components. Clause 1 inserts a new section into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which introduces the new mechanism. It allows the Bank of England to require the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to provide the Bank with funds when using its resolution powers to transfer a failing firm to a private sector purchaser or bridge bank. It sets out what these funds can be used for, namely to cover the costs of recapitalising the firm and the expenses of the Bank of England or “relevant persons” in taking the resolution action. “Relevant persons”, for this purpose, means the Treasury, or a bridge bank or asset management vehicle operated by the Bank of England. The clause also allows the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to recover the funds provided through levies.

Clause 2 sets out the reporting requirements for the Bank of England when it uses the recapitalisation mechanism, added to the Bill by the Government in the other place. The Bank must report to the Chancellor on the use of the recapitalisation mechanism and the stabilisation option that it was used in connection with. The Treasury can specify the content and timing of these reports, although if a final report is not produced within three months, the Bank of England must produce an interim report within that three-month period. The Chancellor must lay all reports before Parliament, although the clause allows discretion to omit any information that it would not be in the public interest to publish.

Clause 3, added by the Government in the other place, requires the Bank of England to notify the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees in this House and the other place—the Treasury Committee in the House of Commons, and the Financial Services Regulations Committee in the House of Lords—as soon as reasonably practicable after using the mechanism. Clause 4 requires the Bank of England to reimburse the Financial Services Compensation Scheme for any funds it provides that were not needed. Clause 5, also added by the Government in the other place, states that the Treasury must include guidance on the contents of reports on use of the mechanism in the code of practice, a statutory document that the Treasury must publish and to which the Bank of England must have regard, which explains how the resolution regime is intended to work in practice.

Clauses 6 and 7 make several consequential amendments to reflect the introduction of the new mechanism. Clause 6 primarily ensures that existing provisions relating to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme apply to the new mechanism in the same way. The most substantive provision specifies that the FSCS cannot levy credit unions to recoup funds provided under this mechanism, and was added to the Bill before its introduction to Parliament in response to valid concerns raised by industry. In clause 7, which contains mostly technical consequential amendments, the most substantive change  gives the Bank of England the power to require a failing firm to issue new shares. That will make it easier for the Bank of England to use the funds provided by the FSCS to recapitalise the firm, by using the funds to buy the new shares. Clause 8 deals with procedural matters, including the provision that the Treasury may make regulations to commence the provisions in the Bill. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for shepherding the Bill through its successful passage in the other place. As I have mentioned, the Government made a number of amendments to the Bill in the other place following constructive debate, feedback and engagement. They include the insertion of the requirements for the Bank of England to report to the Treasury and notify parliamentary committees. The Government also amended the Bill to ensure that there was clarity over whose expenses could be covered by funds provided through the mechanism. In addition, the Government published a number of important documents during the early stages of the Bill’s passage, including a draft update to their code of practice setting out how the mechanism is expected to be used in practice.

There remains one area of the Bill that will require the attention of this House, namely the question of the scope of the mechanism—that is, which firms the Bank of England can use the mechanism on to support their failure. This was heavily debated in the other place, and reflects concerns about the risk of the mechanism being used on a wide range of firms, with the potential for large levies as a consequence. Those concerns led to an amendment to the Bill, intended to exclude from the scope of the mechanism those banks that already hold the full set of equity and debt resources—the so-called MREL, or minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—necessary to manage their own failure. The intent was to limit the scope to banks that are not required to hold additional capital resources, or banks that have not yet raised the full amount of additional resources to fully support their own failure. As I have alluded to, the Government note and appreciate the concerns being raised on this point, but as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made clear during the Bill’s passage in the other place, the Government are clear that this Bill is primarily intended for smaller banks. My predecessor made a written statement to the House on 15 October to reiterate this policy position.

However, after careful reflection, the Government continue to believe that some flexibility should remain in the legislation on this point, in order to avoid constraining the Bank of England’s ability to use the mechanism in a highly uncertain crisis scenario. Narrowing the scope would constrain the Bank of England’s optionality, particularly where it might be necessary to supplement the bail-in of a firm’s own resources with additional capital resources. I note that this is considered an unlikely outcome, rather than a central case. Nevertheless, the Government consider it important to avoid constraining that optionality, given that the alternative may be to use public funds. Ultimately, we want to protect the taxpayer. The Government will therefore table an amendment in Committee to remove the constraint on the scope of the application of the new mechanism.

More broadly, I want to express my gratitude to the banking sector, with which the Government have engaged proactively and constructively both before and since  the Bill was introduced. The Government appreciate  the feedback from industry, and we have reflected on it  carefully to ensure that the Bill delivers a proportionate reform. As alluded to earlier, in response to feedback from industry, the Government carved out credit unions from levy contributions to recoup funds provided by the financial services compensation scheme under the recapitalisation mechanism. That was deemed appropriate because credit unions are out of scope of the resolution powers. It would therefore be disproportionate to require them to contribute towards costs under the mechanism.

The Government have also sought to provide reassurances to industry on the impact of this Bill. For example, by modelling the mechanism on the existing funding framework for depositor payouts, industry will be liable to pay levies only after the point of failure, avoiding new up-front costs to firms. Alongside the Bill, the Government also published a cost-benefit analysis that sets out our general expectation that lifetime costs for levy payers will generally be lower under the mechanism outlined in the Bill, compared with insolvency. I note again the draft updates to the code of practice, which the Government have published to provide additional transparency to industry and Parliament on how the mechanism is expected to be used in practice. \p Adam Jogee: I am enjoying listening to the Minister’s speech, and I am learning quite a lot. Will she do me and the House a favour by sharing her thoughts on how I can best describe the benefits of this Bill to the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme when I go home tonight? I am sure she knows far better than me. \p Emma Reynolds: My hon. Friend flatters me. It is not that easy to explain in simple terms, but I will do my best. Essentially, if a small bank is in trouble, it is better for it not to go into insolvency but instead to go through resolution to protect its depositors. In the  case of SVB, only 14% of deposits were covered by  the financial services compensation scheme, because the scheme only covers deposits up to the £85,000 threshold. Had public funds been required to facilitate the sale of SVB to another purchaser—in this case it was HSBC, but it could have been another institution—it would have had recourse to public funds. We are seeking to avoid a situation in which taxpayers in all our constituencies are on the hook for the failures of small banks. Where a bank has high-quality assets, which was the case for SVB, we can avoid the insolvency situation and pay out to depositors who have deposits above the £85,000 threshold. That resolution would be funded by the financial services compensation scheme and ultimately the banks, which contribute to the scheme through a levy. I hope that answer helps my hon. Friend—I am sorry that it was a bit long.

Stability is at the heart of the Government’s agenda for economic growth, because when we do not have economic and financial stability, it is working people who pay the price. We have to bear in mind what we are seeking to do, which is ultimately to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to ensure that we do not have to have recourse to public funds. \p Ashley Fox: I welcome this Bill, but can the Minister assure the House that, at all times, the aim of the Government is to minimise the  liability of the taxpayer? Where losses have to be sustained, they should be borne first by the shareholders, secondly by the bondholders and perhaps thirdly, and regretfully, by the deposit holders. That should be the order in which losses are sustained. \p Emma Reynolds: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who puts it very well. He will know that there was a different order in the case of Credit Suisse, but the then Government said at the time that that would not be their order of priority. We are seeking to protect the taxpayer in this Bill, and he is right: had there been a cost associated with the transfer of SVB, it would have fallen first to those people before falling to the taxpayer. If we pass this legislation, for which I hope there is cross-party support, we will avoid that eventuality, because if we follow the order of priority and get to the financial services compensation scheme, the cost will be paid through a levy on the banks in that scheme. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question.

The resolution regime is a critical source of stability when banks fail, because it ensures that public funds and taxpayer money are protected. This Bill delivers a proportionate and targeted enhancement to the resolution regime to ensure that it continues to provide that important stability. As I said at the start of this debate, it is therefore an important Bill that underpins the Government’s vision for economic growth, and I commend it to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Mark Garnier: I welcome the new Minister to her place. I think this is her first Bill that she has taken through as Economic Secretary and, interestingly, she is absolutely right. This is one of the frequent occasions on which we will agree on pretty much everything. This Bill was obviously written by the previous Government who, I think we all agree, delivered 14 years of strong and stable government.

Broadly speaking, we will not disagree on this Bill. As the Minister set out in her opening speech, this legislation was born out of the learnings of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. The failure came out of the US parent company, with a contagion that quickly spread to its UK subsidiary. Although the Bank of England had initially planned to use insolvency procedures, HSBC emerged as a buyer thanks to the tireless work over the course of a weekend in March 2023, and much credit must be given to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), and the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). They secured an outcome that has not cost the taxpayer any money at all, and which protected millions of pounds’ worth of customer deposits, primarily in the tech sector. The bank’s customers would face an uncertain financial future were it not for that intervention, so I am sure that the House will join me in commending the action that was taken by the previous Government.

The failure and subsequent transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK shows how robust our post-2009 banking reforms have become. The Bank of England has used its resolution powers only three times since 2009, and this  was the first time since the Southsea Mortgage and Investment Company failed in 2011. It is fair to say that the process worked absolutely as it should have done: the transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC was done in an orderly manner, there was no wider contagion in the banking sector, and withdrawals and panic did not spread to other banks. In short, it demonstrated why the UK is such a financial centre of excellence, and we must continue to champion that point.

However, we can continue to uphold our world-leading reputation only if we review and learn from when the system is stressed in real life. In some ways, we were very fortunate. HSBC was the only credible bidder for Silicon Valley Bank that did not require financial support or guarantees from the Government or the Bank of England. In addition, HSBC’s level of capital and liquidity resources greatly reduced the risk to public funds, delivered stability and boosted market confidence. However, had HSBC not come forward, the only option for the Bank of England was the bank insolvency procedure. This Bill comes out of the subsequent root-and-branch review, and it went for industry consultation under the previous Government. I thank the current Government for supporting it.

The Opposition recognise that some banks may fail due to issues outside their control and should have pathways to continue as a going concern if transferred to another entity, and it is right that the Bank of England has more tools in its arsenal to support the financial system. We are therefore delighted to support the Bill—it is one that we started. As it made progress in the other House, it benefited from considerable scrutiny from noble peers. The successful amendments and new clauses enhanced the Bill and will significantly improve transparency.

This was a point addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) during the Delegated Legislation Committee on Monday, which finalised the transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC with no compensation to shareholders. He rightly raised some of the unanswered questions on what changed the Bank of England’s decision between announcing that the Silicon Valley Bank UK was going into insolvency procedures on the Friday and being transferred under resolution by the Monday. These additional transparency arrangements will ensure that colleagues in this House remain confident in the independence of the Bank of England. Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to support those amendments in this House? I would be amazed if he said no, actually.

I will move on to what could be the crux of any potential disagreement. When this Bill was introduced in the other place, there was no limit to the scope of this regime. We can safely categorise our banks into three different groups. First, there are the large-scale institutional banks that have reached the end-state minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities, or MREL, as it is known. Secondly, there are the challenger banks such as Monzo and Starling that are working towards end-state MREL. Finally, there are the smaller banks that do not meet the threshold for MREL, such as Silicon Valley Bank.

The Banking Act 2009 provides a robust framework for dealing with banks that have achieved end-state MREL status, and while there is a sensible argument for  saying the new mechanism could provide top-up funding for banks working towards end-state MREL, it is not fair or reasonable to expect the mechanism to be used for the largest banks. The consequences of such a decision could be extremely costly for banks and their customers, and if an institutional bank failed and this mechanism were used to facilitate a transfer, our fear is that there could be a recapitalisation requirement that was many times the annual cap of the financial services compensation scheme. The only decision left to the FSCS would therefore be to borrow from the national loans fund via the Treasury. The ex-post levy set out in this legislation would therefore be charged not only in the year in which the levy was first implemented but potentially for many years thereafter. MREL requirements should ensure the safety of our largest institutions. Bank directors should be ensuring sound compliance of MREL, not taking comfort in the fact that they can fall back on to an ex-post levy of the banking sector in times of trouble.

The Opposition took reassurance from a policy statement that the mechanism would be used for the largest banks only in exceptional circumstances. However, this still left the key question as to why the legislation allowed large-scale banks to trigger the mechanism. In her opening speech, the Minister referred exactly to this. Baroness Vere’s amendment makes it clear that this mechanism cannot be used on the largest banks—those that have achieved end-state MREL. That amendment was opposed by the Government in the other place. I was hoping that the Minister would update the House today on the Government position and she has done that, but we may want to talk about this at greater length. Concerns were also rightly raised by peers that this mechanism, and using resolution to transfer failing banks, should not become the default position of the Bank of England, which is important.

Ultimately, banks are businesses. They have shareholders that bear the responsibility and the burden of risk, and we should not create a system where banks can always expect to fall back on industry-funded life support. The code of practice, alongside this Bill, rightly states that using the insolvency procedure should be the default position. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether there could be further need for that to be strengthened in the legislation.

The introduction of this mechanism is another example of a banking industry in strong health. In 2007, it was the taxpayer bailing out the banks. Now we have a system whereby the industry is expected to cover the cost of a failing bank. This raises questions as to whether the Government need to review how we can make the UK banking sector more internationally competitive—we have had an informal chat about this.

Let us take the bank levy as an example. It was introduced for three main reasons. First, it was introduced to help repay the cost of the banking bail-out, and it has raised something in the region of £25 billion since it was first introduced. Second, the bank levy acted as a kind of insurance premium in case the post-financial crisis stability of the banking sector were to falter and fall and there needed to be another bail-out. Finally, it was almost a quasi-punishment to the banking system for the failures that led to the financial crisis. It was there to reassure unhappy shareholders that there were consequences for a sector in which there was bad practice.  If we add up the total cost to the UK taxpayer of the financial crisis, it was £137 billion, according to the House of Commons Library, as of 2023. That has been reduced to £33 billion now, so there still is some outstanding cost.

On top of the bank levy, other post-2009 reforms include much more stringent ringfencing and capital requirements. That might not be a subject for this debate, and I am not calling for the bank levy to be abolished, but I would certainly welcome the Minister’s comments on whether there could be scope to review the international competitiveness of the banking sector alongside the Chancellor’s growth agenda. The international competitiveness of the City of London should be an absolute priority for this Government—I believe that it is—yet according to UK Finance’s 2024 banking sector tax report, produced by PwC, UK banks face the highest tax contribution since the study started a decade ago.

In terms of international competitiveness, according to PwC, the total tax burden of a model bank operating in the UK is currently 45.8%. That is significantly higher than our competitors in Frankfurt at 38.6%, in New York at 27.9%, or in Dublin at 28.8%. The City, as I am sure Ministers and the whole House will agree, is an extraordinary asset for this country. For a Government who are seeking a growth agenda, the City is the oil in the engine of that economic growth.

Banks do a very important job, and it is a job of significant social and economic importance. Banks take money from where it has accumulated and distribute it to where it is needed for investment. This is crucial to fairness across our economy and delivering growth. They transfer overnight deposits into 25-year mortgages that provide hope and opportunity for people to bring up their families in safety. So we should not demonise banks, and we must remember that shareholder returns on bank investments are as important as shareholder liability in the event of a failure. We must ensure that there is a good return, given the fact that bank shareholders bear the ultimate risk of losing everything.

This Bill is a shining example of the fact that the banks and regulators are now in a position to keep their industry in order. As I said at the start of this speech, I believe that there is cross-party support for the Bill, and I look forward to working with the Government as these reforms progress through the House. They are magnificent, because of course they came from the previous Government, but I thank the Ministers for continuing with them in the spirit with which they were intended. \p Adam Jogee: I would like to start by welcoming both the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to their new positions. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West and I go way back, and I am enjoying now being able to address him as a Minister in His Majesty’s Government. I congratulate both of them. I did not quite agree with the shadow Minister’s description of the previous Government as “strong and stable”, but it was certainly worth a try—I mean that in all good spirit, honestly!

I thank the Minister for her speech and for her thorough but accessible explanation of the reach of the Bill. I shall look forward to talking about it with the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme tomorrow on the doorsteps of Town ward, where there is a by-election, which I look forward to the Labour candidate, Sheelagh Casey-Hulme, winning. I will make sure that I share the benefits of this Bill with the voters in my constituency when I knock on their doors tomorrow. This Bill has the good fortune of being supported by both sides of the House. We have heard that from the shadow Minister, so I want to reassure all colleagues that I shall speak very briefly indeed.

I have never received an invitation for a prawn cocktail in the City—although all good things come to those who wait—but the Bill and the issues contained in it are important and I am pleased to be here to speak in favour of them today. I have just a couple of points that I would like the Minister to touch on in his winding-up speech. Could he set out in greater detail how the payslips of workers in Newcastle-under-Lyme will be protected by the contents of the Bill? My constituents’ finances and livelihoods are obviously my focus, so I welcome anything and everything this Government do to protect and enhance their lives, or to promote growth across the economy. I would welcome anything the Minister can do to provide reassurance both on the growth agenda generally and on the specific benefits of the Bill.

Ahead of this debate, like all keen newbies, I read the Hansard report of the debate in the other place, and I hope Ministers have ensured that the legitimate points raised by the noble Lords were taken on board. I agree with the noble Lord who noted that small banks play a big role in our economy, and I thank the Economic Secretary and the shadow Minister for acknowledging that.

I echo the shadow Minister’s point about the importance of the City, which is an engine of growth that reflects the success of our country and the strength of our economy. However, my focus as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is on ensuring that the growth, benefit and skill of that powerful engine reach up the M6 to junction 15, so that my constituents in God’s own county of Staffordshire can benefit from all that the City does.

This is a technical but important Bill, and I am pleased to be here today to give it my support. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: All of our constituents are still feeling the cost of living crisis very acutely, and mortgage holders are still suffering from the misery of the mini-Budget, so the very last thing that taxpayers want to worry about is whether public money will be used to bail out banks that have gone bust. That is why we Liberal Democrats are broadly supportive of the Bill, which we hope will make sure that taxpayers do not have to do so.

A number of improvements were made to the Bill in the other place, as the Economic Secretary alluded to, and we welcome the improved requirements on reporting and accountability. However, as she and the shadow  Minister acknowledged, there was a point of contention on the Bill’s scope. Liberal Democrats in the other place supported the successful Opposition amendment to prevent the Bank of England from using this mechanism, which is meant for smaller banks, to support bigger banks that are signed up to a different scheme.

The Economic Secretary said that an updated code of practice has been produced, but it is disappointing to hear that Ministers intend to table an amendment in Committee to try to delete the Lords amendment from the Bill. The Economic Secretary suggested that the purpose of keeping it in the code of practice, rather than on the face of the Bill, is to ensure flexibility in a time of crisis.

I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to say a word or two about that in summing up, because it strikes me that if this is not on the face of the Bill, it could create uncertainty rather than provide flexibility in a time of crisis. There is a danger that even the suggestion that this mechanism could be used to support a bigger bank could cause chaos, confusion and instability. I encourage Ministers to think again and to ensure that the restriction on the Bill’s scope remains on the face of the Bill.

The Liberal Democrats tabled a further amendment in the other place that sought to create a secondary objective for the Bank of England to consider the competitiveness and growth of the market before directing the recapitalisation of failing small banks through this levy. In effect, the amendment was designed to protect against unintended consequences. Obviously, it could be a catastrophe if the Bank of England were required to rescue one small bank, even if that act may put others in jeopardy. The intention behind the amendment was to protect against the systemic collapse of the banking system. Will the Minister set out the Government’s objections to that amendment? Can the Government provide assurances about alternative protections that could be put in place to achieve the same goal of protecting against unintended consequences? \p Kit Malthouse: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have no desire to detain the House for long, but I have some questions that I hope the Economic Secretary can address, continuing our conversation in the Delegated Legislation Committee earlier this week.

The Economic Secretary and I are both alumni of TheCityUK, so she will know that what financial services want most of all is certainty of regulation and decision making. They need to know that the playing field is level and predictable. While we are all patting ourselves on the back about Silicon Valley Bank, the consensus that everyone did a good job makes me slightly suspicious.

The Bank of England effectively made three decisions during the unravelling of Silicon Valley Bank that I want to put on the Economic Secretary’s desk for her to consider. Is more certainty required from the Bank of England on the triggering of those decisions?

First, the Bank of England denied Silicon Valley Bank short-term funding. SVB UK was solvent, as it would have to be as a UK subsidiary regulated by the  Bank of England. It applied for £1.8 billion of short-term funding when it became clear that its parent company was in trouble. That funding was denied by the Bank of England, and I do not think there has ever been any significant examination of why the Bank took that decision.

Obviously, there was a run on Silicon Valley Bank, with depositors seeking to pull out their money, and the bank was unable to honour those withdrawals, which is why it applied for short-term funding. A possible alternative route could have been a temporary freeze on withdrawals and/or the provision of short-term funding, which could have allowed the bank to remain solvent in the UK. Understanding what triggered that decision, and how other banks in similar circumstances might be handled by the Bank of England in future, is key.

Secondly, as the shadow Minister said, the Bank of England initially decided to put Silicon Valley Bank UK into insolvency and rely on the £85,000 depositor guarantee and the £170,000 joint depositor guarantee. We do not know why the Bank changed its mind. \p Emma Reynolds: I can tell I am going to enjoy discussing these matters with the right hon. Gentleman. I have looked into this since our exchange on Monday, and I want to clarify what happened on the Friday before the Monday in March 2023. The Bank of England issued a statement on the Friday evening saying that it intended to apply to the court to place SVB UK Ltd into a bank insolvency procedure, absent any meaningful further information. However, a buyer came forward over the weekend, which is what changed between the Friday and the Monday. It was judged to be both in the public interest and in the interest of SVB UK customers that this resolution on the Monday morning was preferable to the insolvency procedure that had been announced on the Friday. \p Kit Malthouse: That is useful information about the Bank’s decision making. However, the Bank still decided to go for insolvency prior to a resolution mechanism. I find it hard to see that, within that 36-hour period, it had not canvassed whether there was a market for the bank. My point remains: if I were an investor or an overseas bank trying to establish and invest significant funds in a UK branch, I would like to understand why the Bank of England makes these decisions, and the criteria and parameters by which it is likely to make a decision either way. Then, of course, the final decision was taken to sell or transfer the bank to HSBC—for a minimal consideration, I think. I really want to understand what value was placed on that bank going to HSBC, as opposed to any of the other banks that might have been bidding for it.

At the heart of this is my worry about competition. When a bank is put in this resolution position, obviously it needs to move to another bank that has significant assets and can fulfil the rightful demands of its depositors to withdraw their funds. That will naturally be a bigger bank, and there is a possibility—although hopefully this will not happen, as we will not use resolution very often—that small, higher-risk challenger banks will find themselves unable to obtain short-term funding from the Bank of England because of their size, and will therefore be gobbled up by the leviathans of the banking system. Over time, there might be a natural move back  towards where we were prior to all these challenger banks appearing—to having four or five massive banks that dominate the system in an uncompetitive way.

I am asking the Minister not necessarily to change the legislation, but to consider setting out in a code of conduct what consideration the Bank of England has to give to the competitive landscape when it is resolving a bank. When it transfers one small bank to another small bank as part of a resolution, for example, that wheel might be oiled with a bit of short-term funding, in the interests of maintaining that competitive landscape. The cost of that should not fall on the taxpayer; effectively, it should be a loan for repayment. One of the benefits, if you like, of the 2007-08 crash—one of the silver linings of that cloud—is that we have a much more diverse banking landscape than before. There was recognition that having these huge organisations that crash the entire global economy if they fail was dangerous for the western economy, and that a much more diverse landscape was therefore desirable. The problem with that, obviously, is that there is more inherent risk in those smaller banks. If there is more inherent risk, we are likely to see more resolution, and in time we may end up back where we were.

I support the Bill. I think that resolution is exactly the right way to go, and we should obviate the risk to the taxpayer. There are also negatives to the system, though, so I hope that the Minister, who I am sure will do the job with aplomb, will think carefully about the impact on the world of the Bank of England’s decision making and predictability; about what the Bank can do to provide transparency, whether through a code of conduct or indicators of practice; and about the impact of resolution on competition. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Mark Garnier: It gives me great pleasure to wind up this debate, with the leave of the House, on behalf of the Opposition.

First, I thank the handful of Members present, who have made very helpful contributions. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) rightly asked questions on behalf of his constituents. He asked whether they will be under the cosh if a bank goes bust again—they should not be, under this legislation—and what banks will do to generate economic growth in his area. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), rightly raised a point about the legislation being extended to and used for the larger banks, which is not its intention. As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) has brought an intelligent scepticism to the question of what could happen with this legislation, and has demonstrated why Parliament is such a brilliant place, with intelligent people like him scrutinising what goes on.

I also welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. He has had a glittering career, and has done extraordinarily well in his meteoric rise to Minister in not one but two Government Departments in his first Parliament. He is double-hatting already; he is a clever chap. We have come across each other in the past.

I will not take too much of the House’s time, as I was on my feet just a few minutes ago, but I would like to come back to three points that I hope the Minister will address. The first is the amendment to the Bill; the Economic Secretary to the Treasury made the point that the Government do not want to support that amendment. This may come up later, and we may have more conversations about it. Secondly, does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury feel that the Bank of England’s code of practice provides enough reassurance that the bank insolvency procedure remains the default option for failing smaller banks? Finally, how does he weigh up continued use of the bank levy and regulation of our banking system against the Chancellor’s growth agenda? I appreciate, however, that that is beyond the scope of the Bill.

As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill retains surprisingly strong cross-party support. It is a good thing for the Bank of England to have more tools at its disposal during periods of heightened stress, and the version of the Bill before us today—the version amended in the other place—is more robust than it started out. We look forward to getting clarity from the newly appointed shadow Minister. [Hon. Members: “The Minister.”] My apologies—it will be a few years before that. I congratulate the newly appointed Minister on his appointment. \p Torsten Bell: I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, which were small in number but high in quality. I also thank those who contributed in the other place, or by responding to the consultation that brought the Bill forward. As today’s short debate has demonstrated, there is broad support, both political and industrial, for the Bill. I thank hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench for their kind words and constructive approach, particularly, to echo the shadow Economic Secretary, previous Treasury Ministers, not least the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), who brought us to where we are today.

The enhancements to the UK’s resolution regime are relatively modest, targeted and proportionate. That regime was established in the wake of the global financial crisis, and its powers were put to the test when Silicon Valley Bank UK failed in March 2023. That episode demonstrated that the regime was broadly working as intended, but it is right to learn the lessons from that experience. The first of those lessons is that the implications of a firm’s failure cannot always be anticipated before the event, and sometimes it can be in the public interest to use resolution powers even on small firms that were not deemed systemic prior to their failure. That was the case with Silicon Valley Bank UK, and insolvency would have had implications for public confidence in the stability of the UK financial system.

The second lesson is that there is a potential gap in the resolution framework when it comes to managing the failure of such firms. They do not hold the additional resources to absorb losses and facilitate recapitalisation in the event of their failure. Silicon Valley Bank was well capitalised, and it was possible to find a willing buyer in HSBC. However, such an outcome may not be possible for a small bank with a shortfall in capital. At  present, such a shortfall would have to be met through the use of public funds, and there is cross-party support for reducing that risk.

We also wish to increase the options available to the Bank of England for managing the failure of a small bank. The Bill does so without imposing any new up-front costs on the banking sector, or fundamentally altering the broader resolution framework, which has been shown to work well. It rightly does not alter the public interest test that underpins the Bank of England’s decision on whether to use its resolutions powers or place a firm into insolvency. I will return to that point shortly.

The shadow Economic Secretary raised a number of points. I broadly agree with his description of the events around Silicon Valley Bank UK. It was a helpful summary of developments. I can confirm that the Government welcome the amendments made in the other place, with the one exception raised by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, which I know we will discuss further in Committee.

We have been clear that the powers are to be used for smaller banks, but that does not mean that use of the powers will become the default. Insolvency for small banks remains the default approach. The shadow Economic Secretary also raised the wider question of banking taxation. I am sure we will discuss that in the months and probably even years to come. Our view is that banking taxation remains competitive, but his comments have been noted, and we will always keep that matter under review.

The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) focused on the proposed size limits for banks. As I have mentioned, we do not think that what she suggested is the correct way forward, but we will continue to discuss it. The intention is that the powers will be used in the case of small banks, but the lesson of the last 20 years—not just in the UK, but around the world—is that flexibility is important when it comes to resolving bank failures. She asked whether a wider growth objective should be inserted for the Bank of England. This is a narrow Bill, and we do not think it is the right place to discuss wider issues about the Bank’s approach. The public interest test, which the Bank is already required to apply when it comes to resolution and questions of bank failure, provides much of the protection that she seeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) asked about the impact on ordinary workers. That is a good question, and we always need to come back to it. Another lesson of the last two decades is that a stable and strong banking sector is an important underpinning for a strong economy, and for rising wages right across the country.

I started my career in the Treasury in the years when the UK and other advanced economies were having to swiftly relearn that banks can, and do, fail, and that the consequences of them doing so in an unmanaged way are very big and very bad indeed. The lesson from that crisis was clear: a comprehensive resolution regime is important for protecting financial and economic stability and public finances in bad times, but also for underpinning confidence in the financial system at all times. This lesson is especially significant for the UK, as the financial services sector plays such a vital role in our economy—a point that was powerfully made during the debate. We have also learned that it is important for the Bank of England to have a range of tools available for managing  firm failures, because those failures can be unpredictable. The best tool for managing the situation is not always apparent prior to the point of failure, as evidenced by the failure of Silicon Valley Bank UK. That is why, despite the UK’s resolution regime having worked well in practice, the Government believe that it is important to learn the lessons of the banking sector volatility of 2023.

The targeted enhancements in the Bill provide the Bank of England with a more flexible toolkit for responding to the failure of smaller banks, while also protecting public funds. The Bill also supports the Government’s growth agenda. Although it is common to focus on the trade-offs between regulation and growth, confidence in and the stability of the banking sector are key to supporting long-term growth.

I am glad to have heard this afternoon that there is broad support for this Bill in the House. Assuming that support continues for at least the next few minutes, the Government look forward to engaging further with hon. Members in Committee. I commend this Bill to  the House.

Question put and agreed to.

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

That the following provisions shall apply to the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

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

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13 February 2025.

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

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

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

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

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

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Gen Kitchen.)

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

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums payable out of the Fund by virtue of the Act.—(Emma Reynolds.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges for the purpose of meeting expenses incurred by the scheme manager of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in connection with the recapitalisation of a financial institution.—(Emma Reynolds.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 26 November 2024, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

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

That the draft Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 11 December 2024, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

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

That the draft Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 4 December 2024, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

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

That the draft Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 26 November 2024, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gen Kitchen.) \p David Smith: Colleagues across the House will be delighted to know that, as we have rattled through the business today, we get to have a four-hour debate, so I welcome interventions, and will welcome anybody else making a speech.

It is genuinely a delight to lead my first Adjournment debate, especially one focusing on access to public services in rural areas. I am proud to be a rural Labour MP, so it is especially good to talk on this subject. I have given my debate the subtitle, “The Case for the Countryside”; Members can feel free to bear that in mind when making an intervention.

The key point in this debate is that we as a country need to value the people, the landscapes, and the produce of our countryside a great deal more. For too long, successive Governments have not recognised the crucial role of rural communities to our national flourishing. Up to 10 million people across the country live in rural areas like North Northumberland, and our natural landscapes and quiet places form a deep and enduring part of Britain’s imagination. Rural areas often possess enduring community, but they also risk becoming museums, full of interesting artefacts for visitors, but lifeless and neglected underneath. That is something, I am sure, that none of us in this Chamber wants. It is vital that rural communities are vibrant and full of life.

In this speech, I will outline the domino effect, by which a range of below-average rural public services, especially poor public transport, underperforming education, inaccessible healthcare and low connectivity, interact and overlap to drag rural areas down, including North Northumberland. I will also remind this place that rural Britain is a deep and integral part of our nation. As the frantic pace of life in our big cities has increased, so has our ability to extract, consume and bottle the virtues of rurality, while rural regions struggle at times to see the benefit in return. Every time we eat a meal, switch the lights on, turn the radiator up or take a trip to the countryside, we are benefiting from rural areas doing the hard work of producing and delivering, often out of view.

I have to ask whether our increasingly urban nation is committed to the flourishing of our rural areas in return, because the quality of our public services sometimes suggests that it is not. According to the Rural Services Network, those in predominantly rural areas pay 20% more council tax than those in predominantly urban areas, yet in urban areas, Government-funded spending power is 41% higher. I am not trying to set up some kind of dichotomy or competition between rural and urban areas; we simply have to acknowledge that sometimes our rural areas miss out when it comes to public services.

That spending gap impacts the practical delivery of services. In the northern part of my constituency, the nearest accident and emergency department is an hour and a half away. Many children heading out of the constituency for secondary school spend two hours a day travelling to and from school. The village of Pegswood, of 3,000 people, has a doctor for just half a day a week. I wonder how rural Britain can nurture our nation’s  traditions, history and community, as well as produce the goods so desperately needed by urban areas, when its basic public services can fall below the basic standard.

Any conversation about rural public services begins and ends with transport. Rural authorities spend 4.6 times less per head on bus services compared to urban authorities, yet those living in small rural settlements travel a third greater distance than their urban counterparts. \p Emma Foody: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important topic to the House. As an MP whose constituency also covers part of Northumberland, I know all too well the impact on public services in recent years. A mum in New Hartley recently shared with me how the unreliability and inconsistency of the local bus service means that her son is often late for school. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable for children to miss out on their education as a consequence of poor public services in rural areas? \p David Smith: I could not agree more. I will come on to talk about bus services, but the situation is especially challenging in counties such as Northumberland. I certainly find that there are students in my constituency who struggle to get to school.

Getting around areas such as North Northumberland without a car is extremely difficult, and North Northumberland residents are right to be sceptical of local bus services, considering that Arriva, which runs the primary bus service in my area, is owned by an American equity investment fund based in Miami. Members can make of that what they will. From 2017 to 2022, the distance travelled by bus services in Northumberland fell by over a third—the highest reduction of any authority in the north-east. The confused status of cross-border buses makes a bad situation worse, with many people around Berwick crossing the Scottish-English border multiple times a week, and having to own multiple bus passes or buy new tickets to change services. Also, the elderly cannot use their free bus pass on both sides of the border.

Recently, I was made aware of a constituent’s teenage daughter who undertook an apprenticeship across the border in July. Emma—not her real name—lives in Berwick and was catching a bus to and from work; however, just a few weeks later, Borders Buses removed the morning bus. This young woman is now relying on taxis to get her to her apprenticeship in the morning. This is costing her family, who are not in a position to afford it, £150 a week. She endured a difficult time at school, but was thriving in her apprenticeship, yet that is now at risk.

What we need in rural areas is a publicly controlled bus system run for public service, not private profit, with an emphasis on accessibility, affordability and simplicity. As luck would have it, that is exactly what the Government are aiming for and what Kim McGuinness, the Labour metro Mayor for the North East, is seeking to introduce. She has capped bus fares at £2.50 for over-18s and started the process of bringing bus routes back into public control, and she wants to invest in an integrated public transport system that gets people where they need to go. No one expects rural Britain to have the same level of public transport as central London,  but a reliable network would boost confidence, improve work and school opportunities, and boost struggling communities. \p John Hayes: This is the second useful contribution the hon. Member has made to our affairs this afternoon. I have two points that he might want to take on board in the considerations he is offering us.

First, public funding formulas should be sensitive to the particularities of rural areas such as Lincolnshire and his constituency, and at the moment they are not. The local government funding formula and the police funding formula, for example, are skewed towards urban areas.

Secondly, and pertinent to the hon. Gentleman’s point about transport, we need to re-dignify small towns and rural places by ensuring that the footprint of government in those places is felt. Over my time as a Member of Parliament, we have closed magistrates courts and removed tax offices. Driving test centres have been centralised, and cottage hospitals have reduced in number. When the dignity is taken out of rural places, it obliges people to travel much further to access what they need and it changes the character of those communities. \p David Smith: Absolutely. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), is looking at the formula for how grants are made to local authorities in rural areas. Fundamentally, there should not be a penalty to living in the countryside or in a rural area. It is not an indulgence; it is vital to the future of our country, so we need public services in rural areas. \p Sarah Dyke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his comments. We know that it costs more to deliver services in rural areas, yet rural councils are set to receive 41% less central Government funding than urban councils in the local government finance settlement that is coming up. Does the hon. Member agree that the settlement formula should consider rural deprivation alongside clustered deprivation to ensure that rural areas receive the services they deserve? \p David Smith: People would expect me as a Member of Parliament for a rural area to say it is absolutely essential that we consider the peculiar circumstances, geography, logistics, the long-term challenges and the rural deprivation, which really does exist, when considering grants to local authorities in rural areas.

I will move on to education, which is another of the four areas I want to discuss. Assuming that children can get to school, having just talked about transport, we need to ensure that they can go to a good school that sets up their future and energises the local community, but when the school provision in rural areas suffers, so does the whole town or village, because there is no business or transport link more significant than the nearby secondary school.

The town of Berwick is extremely reliant on its one secondary school for the nurturing of the necessary skills and qualifications for the town’s economy, so  when the school struggles, the town struggles. A report from 2017—I think it still stands—noted:

“Berwick is one of Northumberland’s most deprived towns. It has a vulnerable economy characterised by poor quality job opportunities, part time working, low wages and very limited education facilities.”

Berwick does not just need a better school; it needs a school that can generate a revival in a beautiful but isolated town that has no A&E, no major employer and minimal further education. Right now, Berwick deserves, and has the opportunity to build, a new world-class educational campus on the secondary school site that combines learning with further education, vocational study, special educational needs provision, local enterprise and primary healthcare. That makes the slow progress of Conservative Northumberland county council’s plan to rebuild Berwick Academy frustrating for parents, students and the whole community.

The further education point is important. North Northumberland students keep pace with their national peers up to GCSE level, but at A-level and higher education level they begin to struggle, because further education opportunities are few and difficult to access. One constituent in Berwick told me about their son who wants to be on a sports course in Newcastle that would set him up to go to university. The council is able to provide basic transport, but only to a course in the closer town of Ashington, which would not provide him with qualifications for university. Instead, his family are paying £15 a day for his transport to the educational opportunities that he needs—an unsustainable amount for basic provision. \p Imogen Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the record settlement given to Scotland by this Government should be spent by the Scottish Government on vital infrastructure such as schools and transport for constituencies such as mine, which feel sadly neglected after 18 years of SNP Government? No SNP Members are here for this debate, unfortunately. \p David Smith: I do not know whether I should declare an interest as a Scotsman who is the Member of Parliament for an English constituency—and proud to be so. I have seen that with my own eyes, and I agree that the record settlement that the UK Government have given the SNP Government in Edinburgh should be used well to provide for the whole of Scotland, but especially rural areas.

I will stick with education but look a little more at special educational needs. There are 588 children on an education, health and care plan in North Northumberland. Many of those with more severe special educational needs face a 100-mile round trip to access adequate education. There are not enough specialist schools nearby, or enough specialist places at mainstream schools, to support their learning. That is why I welcome the Government’s £1 billion increase in special educational needs funding—that is excellent—and I look forward to ensuring that rural areas receive their fair share of it. Rural areas get held back by a lack of educational opportunities. They need help from a broad coalition of local residents, businesses, council and Government to develop outstanding solutions that can become engines for opportunity. \p Joe Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech. I can tell him that people in the west of Northumberland share his frustration about the neglect and the contempt in which they seem to be held by the Conservative administration at county hall. I am delighted that he has picked up on the point about provision of SEN transport. Constituents visiting our surgeries are devastated by the challenges they face in getting their children into an appropriate educational environment. Does he agree that we must judge local government on the provision of those opportunities, and that residents of Northumberland will ultimately judge the Conservatives on that come the local elections? \p David Smith: Yes, I wholeheartedly associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. Last Friday, I was in the village of Chatton, which is near the border between our two constituencies, to speak to a group focused on autism and special educational needs. There was palpable frustration in that room among 30 parents and carers who are simply unable to get the support they need from the county council, despite the additional funding. I believe that he and I can work on that together.

Let me move on to my third and fourth points, which relate to healthcare. Until schools improve, and until transport becomes more reliable, healthcare professionals will not move to rural areas. For Berwick to have an accident and emergency department, and for North Northumberland to have genuinely local primary care, we must incentivise doctors and nurses to move, with their families, into our neighbourhoods. Until they do, rural healthcare will continue to suffer.

Some 25% of rural residents are aged 65 or over, and in North Northumberland the average age is 54, but rural councils receive 14% less grant funding for social care services and 58% less for public health. Dental care provision is also extremely sparse. It is estimated that a 1,500 sq km region of North Northumberland has no NHS dentist. Imagine someone living alone in Wooler or Rothbury—miles from the nearest NHS dentist—whose tooth starts to twinge. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: On healthcare provision in rural areas, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a desperate need to review GPs’ core contracts, so that we better incentivise GPs to set up in rural areas? Would he also agree that, in areas where the ongoing need for a GP surgery is clear, integrated care boards have a role in managing that estate so it can be secure over a long period? \p David Smith: Yes, we need to do everything in our power to encourage healthcare professionals, including GPs, to move into rural areas, where they can have a fantastic quality of life. I think there is a role for ICBs. I am pleased to see that, in my part of the world, 25% of GP surgeries in the Northumbria healthcare NHS foundation trust are working directly as a part of the trust. We should look at any option that can draw additional healthcare resource, especially people, into rural areas.

We need to rethink how we do rural care and primary care. In Orkney, for instance, I am reliably told that doctors practise in rotating shifts—one week on, eight weeks off—and pursue other work. It is certainly an  unusual solution, but to provide rural residents with quality care, we may need to think and work creatively together. I welcome the Government’s work and funding to incentivise GPs to see more patients, as well as more of the same patients, and the promise to introduce 700,000 more urgent dental appointments.

That leads me to the last of the four points I would like to make. \p John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous in giving way, and I thank him for giving me a second bite of the cherry—I know he is moving on to his exciting peroration. GPs seem less and less keen to meet people face to face and still less keen to visit them in their homes, as they once did routinely, by the way, in my lifetime. Would he agree that, rather than their distribution, the centralisation of services, which seems to have been the order of the day under successive Governments on the grounds of rationalisation, is particularly bad for rural areas and for least advantaged people? \p David Smith: I do agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It may be utopian to imagine the family doctor doing home visits, but we should always aim for the ideal. As I have said, there are particular challenges in attracting and retaining GPs in rural areas.

The last point I want to make is about digital connectivity. Any discussion of rural areas must also include the ultra-rural. It can be hard to believe, but thousands of homes across this country do not receive mobile coverage, gas from the mains or even electricity. If we split the country into urban and rural, there is this other category of the ultra-rural, and many of these ultra-rural areas are in North Northumberland. I am thinking of settlements such as Elsdon and Thropton, tiny villages in the east of my constituency, which are perhaps as isolated as it is possible to be in modern England.

Perhaps 12,000 properties in North Northumberland are not connected to the gas grid, instead relying on a mix of alternative fuels, and a handful of properties do not even receive electricity. This year, residents in the upper Coquet valley are being connected to the electricity grid for the first time, thanks to the Ministry of Defence. Prior to that, two neighbours could not put the kettle simultaneously on without both houses being plunged into blackout. I remain hopeful and excited about the promised potential of Great British Energy for these ultra-rural communities. I look forward to finding out in more detail about hyper-local and hyper-rural communities can benefit from the renewables that will come about from Great British Energy.

On top of this, BT estimates that 1,000 premises in North Northumberland will not benefit from commercial investment in gigabit-capable broadband coverage, because they are simply too hard to reach. It is a similar story when it comes to mobile networks. I can hear my constituents groaning as they listen to this, because mobile signal comes and goes as we drive up and down the constituency. Ultra-rural settlements cannot take advantage of the digital age because they can barely get online. I am thankful for the Government’s commitment to the shared rural network and to developing ways of supporting Project Gigabit so that ultra-rural communities benefit from these upgrades, otherwise we risk turning into two divided nations.

I could go on, and I am sure hon. Members would be delighted if I did— \p Adam Jogee: Go on! \p David Smith: I thank my hon. Friend. However, I hope a few points have become clear from my remarks. \p Jim Shannon: I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, both as the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief and because I understand it is his first Adjournment debate. I wish him well—he is using his time well. He has lots of time; he can go to 7 o’clock if Madam Deputy Speaker does not take exception.

One issue in my community and countryside, and the constituency I live in, is mental health—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the chance to mention that. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), who is sitting in front of me, always speaks about farmers living alone, independence, and the pressures of life, and never more in all my life do I remember those pressures being this intense. Does the hon. Gentleman have similar problems in his constituency to those I have in mine? \p David Smith: Yes, sadly my constituency absolutely has those same challenges with mental ill health in the farming community but also in the rural community, which often comes about from isolation. People living generation after generation in rural communities are proud and resourceful. Sometimes they perhaps do not reach out for help, but I would encourage them to do that—it is always a good thing for someone to reach out for help if they are struggling, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point. \p Luke Myer: My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech. He and I sit at opposite ends of our region, but rural communities across the region share similar challenges. He has spoken about mental health, and I wonder if he would comment on the problem of addiction and substance abuse in our rural communities. That is a real issue in communities in my constituency, but there are some positive community-led initiatives that local councillors have been involved in, in particular Brotton, which  has a peer-led scheme called Recovery Connections in the local village hall. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending that work, and does he agree that it is important to tackle the issue of substance abuse in rural communities? \p David Smith: I am so pleased that my hon. Friend made that intervention. I declare an interest because, before I became a Member, I was chief executive of a homelessness charity, and I was delighted to work with Recovery Connections, which is a great organisation doing great work. We have talked about mental health challenges in rural areas, but we also have challenges with drugs and addiction, which is not the preserve of urban areas. We have our own challenges, and we need support as a result of that.

Rural areas provide so much for the flourishing of the nation as a whole, but they are not receiving enough in return, especially in terms of public services, which is  the subject of this debate. Public services overlap and create a network effect to either energise or hinder the flourishing of rural areas. Bad public transport means less educational access, which dampens the desire of healthcare professionals to move in and treat our sick. That issue is not easily fixed or accounted for with a simple spending algorithm, but we need to address it.

Raising the quality of public services in our rural areas will require a combined approach across Government. The Country Land and Business Association may have a point when it says that Ministers and officials across Departments assume that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has sole responsibility for the rural economy—I am pleased to see the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs in his place—but DEFRA does not have the economic levers at its disposal to unlock the potential of the countryside by itself. DEFRA has an important role, but it cannot do that itself. That power lies in other Departments and, increasingly, local authorities. We need a cross-Government approach to rural public services, and I appreciate the Minister being here today.

Rural areas are not simply urban areas with fewer houses. They cannot be approached and handled with the same calculations as in our cities because they are serving our country in different ways, whether preserving land, investing in local communities, producing our food, reminding us of our past, generating our energy, or offering a vision of the good life. To do all that, rural residents need to know that their children can hop on the bus to a good local school that sets them up for the future, that they can access primary and urgent healthcare when they need it, that they can phone family and friends without fear of a power cut, or hop in an electric car, charged by the mains, to visit them. They need to know that their nation values them and their way of living, and is determined to see them thrive. I am encouraged by all the Government are doing and have done to serve rural areas, and I encourage them, and all Members of the House, to ensure that rural Britain plays as key a role in establishing our future as it has our past. \p Dave Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate on a really important subject. My constituents in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages surrounding them, like people across the country, know just how hard it can be to access basic public services in rural areas. I rise to talk about an incident on Monday that has already had a significant amount of national press coverage and was mentioned yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), in winding up a debate.

In the early morning hours of Monday morning, an enormous pile of rubbish was fly-tipped at the top of Watery Lane, a country road leading out of Litchfield that has about nine residential properties. When I heard about it, I popped up to have a look, and a genuinely staggering amount of waste was up there: it was a cuboid perhaps 20 feet wide, 15 feet high and probably at least 40 foot long. This was not a few tyres out the  back of a Transit van but an industrial scale, enormous fly-tip, which meant that the lane was completely unpassable from the north. Unfortunately for residents living on Watery Lane, the southern end of that road has been closed for a housing development for a few months, so for a time they had no access to public services. When we talk about public services, there can be nothing more basic than the ability of the fire service, ambulances and the police to get to an emergency, should one occur.

I thank Redrow homes because, as soon as it was made aware, it put a member of its staff up the top of the lane by the road closure who could keep the service road—the road that runs past—clear and make sure there were no accidents involving people crashing when trying to get down the road. Redrow also opened up the compound on its site so that the emergency services could access those properties, should they be needed. In the event, they were not, but that was more by luck than anything else. I am glad that, should they have been needed, Redrow was able to step in and do that. The company also offered to help the council clean up. When it comes to asking builders to be considerate to their communities, that is a great example of an organisation stepping up.

It is important that we raise such serious examples of industrialised rural crime. There must have been a serious set-up involving an articulated vehicle of some type because of the sheer size of what was left. Some residents have estimated that there may have been 200 tonnes of rubbish, which has today been cleared following hard work by the district council. Although there was a way for those nine households to get in and to get out to work, that morning they faced not being able to go about their business—they could not get to school or to work.

The fly-tip also led to a massive issue for the Curborough countryside centre just off Watery Lane. About 20 businesses are based there—I will declare an interest as my old man’s art studio is up there now, although he is not a commercial exercise—including a butcher, a distillery, a café and a bakery as well as a host of others, including Cocker Hoop Creative, which runs Lichfield’s food festival. All those businesses lost two days of trade due to this rural crime.

When we talk about the provision of public services in rural areas, that is not always just about the availability of hospitals, the availability of doctors, the distances from A to B or the availability of bus services. As important as all those are, it is also really important that we see a response, including from the police service, that is attuned to the issues of rural areas. That fly-tip was much more serious because of where it happened.

In that instance of serious fly-tipping, as in other such instances right across the country, it is really important that the police have the necessary framework to prosecute these individuals. We need an investigation into the case in Litchfield this week, because there may be some clues in that tip that could lead to a resolution. But investigations need to end not only with significant fines; we also need to start considering custodial sentences, because the actions of those individuals pose a genuine risk to life, for example if an ambulance cannot reach someone having a heart attack.

This problem affects rural areas much more significantly than urban areas, which is why it is important to raise it as part of this excellent debate. I thank again my hon.  Friend the Member for North Northumberland for securing the debate and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting me leave to contribute. \p Adam Jogee: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), a good Staffordshire man. He and I do lots of work together, so I enjoyed seeing him cast the iPad away and speak from his heart, which he did very well.

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak—I will say just a few words, you will be reassured to know. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who made an excellent, thoughtful, comprehensive, authoritative and engaging speech. He gave voice to his passion for his constituency and for our rural communities up and down our United Kingdom. In this House we talk about being hon. Friends, but he and I are actually friends, which is great. We have a mutual friend who I am thinking of right now, who will be enjoying the fact that I have contributed to this excellent debate.

Like my hon. Friend and many others on the Government Benches, I proud to represent a number of rural communities in God’s own constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme—Audley, Madeley, Betley, Balterley and Wrinehill, to name just a few. I am proud to speak on access to good-quality, affordable and reliable transport; on tackling flooding—in Madeley that is a particular challenge—and on school finances. I am going to Ravensmead and a number of other schools to talk about some of the pressures that our schools are facing. I am proud to speak about NHS pressures, as was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, our ambulances being able to get to incidents and our rural community generally. Newcastle-under-Lyme is indeed on the frontline.

Last Thursday evening I had the great pleasure and fortune of attending a meeting of Audley parish council. I am grateful to all its members for their hard work to champion the needs of their neighbours and our community. They also do very well at holding me to account, as well as the sometimes questionable leadership of Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council. A clear theme of that meeting was the contempt—I use that word consciously—with which the parish council is treated by the Conservative party leadership of the borough council. Planning is just one example of that.

Alongside that Conservative-led borough council, which shows the contempt to which I referred, Staffordshire county council is missing in action—unsurprisingly, it is run by the Conservative party, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield will know. As we are thinking about improving access to services in rural communities such as mine in Newcastle-under-Lyme, thank goodness we have the chance to vote the Conservatives out in May. I look forward to electing good Labour county councillors in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

I do not need to wait until May to vote, of course, because tomorrow in Newcastle-under-Lyme the good people have a chance to express their frustration with the lack of effective services in our rural communities and town centre in the Town ward by-election. The Labour candidate, Sheelagh Casey-Hulme, is brilliant. She has campaigned passionately for a very long time  about Walleys quarry, which the Minister heard me make representations about when I was in the shadow DEFRA team, and now as the Member of Parliament for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I wish Sheelagh well in the election tomorrow, as I am sure you do, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Daniel Zeichner: I think probably not. \p Adam Jogee: No confirmation was sought or provided.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumber-land noted, our rural communities remain at the heart of our country, economy, society, culture, heritage and arts. They deserve to be championed by all layers of Government.

We heard from my hon. Friend just what His Majesty’s new Government are doing to ensure that our rural communities get the support they need. I say gently to the Minister, who knows me well, that we will be holding him and his colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to account to ensure that we do just that. With that in mind, I wonder whether the Minister would accept my urging to ensure that the rural communities of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and Staffordshire more generally, are at the top of his agenda as he carries out his important duties in the months and years—many years, I hope—ahead.

I also echo the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, which I think is bang on, and note the cross-party nature of the approach required from Government to ensure that we deliver for our rural communities. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland raised that point, too.

By the nature of their job, vocation, passion and commitment, our farmers are at the heart of our rural communities. They feed us and, in some cases, they clothe us, with sheep’s wool and the rest. They play an important role in keeping our life going, and I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that we advance the buy British and eat British agenda of both this Government and many Labour Members. It is one tangible way that we can not only help our farmers, but ensure that our rural communities get the well-functioning and reliable public services that they deserve. When the Minister winds up this important debate in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland, some clarity on the buy British, eat British agenda would be welcome.

As I conclude my remarks, I invite the Minister to accept an invitation I think I may have already gently put to him—perhaps in a less formal way than raising it on the Floor of the House this afternoon. I invite him to come to Newcastle-under-Lyme to see and understand the challenges facing the rural communities in my wonderful constituency, where he would be very welcome. There are a number of excellent places we can have a cold drink; I think of the many pubs in our rural communities, and there are also tea shops and places for cake.

The Betley Tea Room is an excellent example. It is on a working farm, but it has an excellent tea room. The National Farmers Union has a satellite office there, so we would be able to kill two birds with one stone: we can have cake and see the farm and understand the challenges. In fact, now that I think about it, the Secretary of State—then the shadow Secretary of State—came to  the farm and had some tea and cake and a tour. The only thing I would note is that when the Secretary of State came to the farm, he forgot his wellies, so I urge the Minister to make sure he has the appropriate footwear when he accepts my invitation to come and see us in Newcastle.

As I say, there are a number of pubs; I think of The Swan in Betley and The Hand and Trumpet in Wrinehill. You would be very welcome to come and visit us there any time, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will get the first round in. I will take anybody who is interested in seeing the wonders of North Staffordshire, with our local economy and all that we have to offer, exemplified by our rural areas.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland for securing this debate. As I said earlier, he gave an important speech that had us both listening and, I think, inspired—I mean that seriously—both by his commitment to his community and by the wider commitment of His Majesty’s Government to delivering for rural communities. I look forward to working with him and other colleagues—there are now a number of Labour colleagues who represent rural communities, and we are working together to get things done—to deliver for the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme, to help to support the people of North Northumberland, and, most importantly, to deliver for rural communities up and down our United Kingdom. \p Caroline Nokes: Before calling the next speaker, I think it is important to clarify that, although I am a huge supporter of women standing for election, I have not actually endorsed Sheelagh’s candidature. [Laughter.] \p Sean Woodcock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate. He gave a really long speech of considerable depth. I am not going to repeat that, purely because I do not want to repeat any of the things he has said in such detail.

I am grateful for the debate because it offers an important chance to reset the narrative that has gone around over recent months about our rural areas. It has been suggested that our rural areas are suddenly in crisis because of things that have happened in recent months. Let us be clear: our rural areas are in crisis because of 14 years of under-investment and the betrayal of the post-Brexit deals that undercut our famers, making their lives much more difficult than they were previously. That needs to be put on the record.

In many ways, our rural areas are suffering because they are too robust, too resourceful, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland said, and too innovative, so they have not been seen to suffer as much as other parts of the country may have done. I have a couple of examples of that from my constituency.

House prices are an issue in my area, as they are across much of the rest of the country. In one village, Hook Norton, people working in local shops and even artists—people valued by the community—have had to leave because they could not afford to stay. Not content to allow that to continue, people in the village set up a  community land trust and invested capital in purchasing land to build properties. Last year, the trust opened 12 affordable homes in the village, catering to local communities. The scheme has its own power generation and the homes are covered in solar panels. It is a brilliant example of innovation and looking after the community in the face of challenges from elsewhere.

In the village of Middle Barton, in my constituency, bus services had been cut by the previous Conservative county council, because of decisions made by the Conservative Government in Westminster. Local people took it upon themselves to set up their own bus company, although, granted, it was manned by volunteers. Last year, not long after I was elected, I had the privilege to open the new bus scheme and see the two brand-new buses serving the community, ensuring that people there are not stranded. Those buses are electric, so they are thoroughly in keeping with our climate agenda. \p Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about rural bus services in Oxfordshire. My seat of Reading Central has a boundary with Oxfordshire, and we have noticed in our area that the complete withdrawal of services by Oxfordshire county council was a terrible mistake. Luckily, Reading Buses, a council-run company, serves some of the neighbouring parts of Oxfordshire, near Reading, including villages like Sonning Common, but I have enormous sympathy for his residents in the northern part of the county. I offer my support to those local companies that are obviously doing a very good job. \p Sean Woodcock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.

A further example is the village of Charlbury, where there is an installation called South Hill solar farm, a community-owned solar farm providing energy to 1,200 residents. It is an incredibly popular and well-run scheme. It is in an area of outstanding natural beauty, but absolutely everybody there loves it. I mention it because this Government’s ambitions are not contrary to the ambitions of those in rural areas. This Government’s ambitions rely on delivering in rural areas, whether on housing justice, improving public health or, above all, delivering growth, which is our main focus.

However, people are being held back, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland said. They face a double whammy of poor connectivity in relation to transport—we have already touched on buses—and to access to broadband and decent communication services. My plea to the Minister, in my final remarks, is that he makes it clear to his Cabinet colleagues that people in rural areas do not want anything different to what is wanted by those in the urban seats, which may previously have been seen as the Labour heartland. People in rural areas want exactly the same as those in urban areas: access to good health services, education, jobs and affordable housing, and the same opportunities as everybody else. \p Christopher Bloore: Quite often, I do not know how to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and his thorough remarks. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on securing the  debate. I have known him for only a short time, but I know how dedicated he is to his rural constituency and how passionately he feels about these issues. I listened to his four points and the interventions.

I am very fortunate. The Boundary Commission has changed my constituency many times, but it has not changed the names of the many villages that it encompasses: Astwood Bank, Inkberrow, Harvington and Norton. Most people think of Redditch as a very urban area with some significant deprivation and economic challenges, but the challenges and the deprivation in the rural parts are often forgotten. We hear the old adage, “Don’t go knocking on those doors. They are wealthy in those areas; they have no problems.” However, some of the biggest problems in my casework folder come from rural areas where there are no transport links and no access to dental treatment or healthcare. My constituency also faces some of the most significant challenges in relation to truancy and, I have said, transport links.

This debate has provided an excellent opportunity for us to focus on issues affecting rural communities, but I ask the Minister, as the Government move forward, to ensure that we take on the challenges in areas that are deemed to be affluent but actually face some of the biggest social and economic challenges in our constituencies. \p Daniel Zeichner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). I understand that this is his first Adjournment debate, and I have to tell him that they cannot always run for as long as this—but what a brilliant debate we have had, and how splendidly he made the case for the countryside, which has been echoed in the excellent speeches from other colleagues. Let me respond briefly to some of them before turning to his main points.

I will not go into the details of the incident in Lichfield because I suspect, and hope, that a criminal case may result from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) described it as not just fly-tipping but a serious example of industrialised rural crime, and it is right to put on record the grief that has been caused to local residents and businesses. My hon. Friend and his constituents have my absolute sympathy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) characteristically and elegantly name-checked many of his local businesses, beauty spots and hostelries, but also mentioned parish councils, an extremely important level of local governance with which we need to work closely. I assure him that when it comes to supporting buying British, this Government are entirely in line with his wishes and the wishes of the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) raised a series of important points about community initiatives. Community land trusts are always important for promoting housing. I liked his points about rural transport very much, and I will say a bit more about that later. He also mentioned community solar initiatives, which showed just what can be done in rural areas with that kind of leadership and passion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) was right to refer to the aspirations of people in rural areas. There is a 19% productivity gap between the rural economy and the national average, but what an  opportunity there is for us and for people in rural areas to show just how important we can be. I will deal with his point about transport in a moment.

The Government are absolutely committed to improving the quality of life for everyone living and working in rural areas, so that we can make a real impact on their everyday lives and realise the potential to which I have referred. Given that part of my job title is “Minister for Rural Affairs”, it is my job to make sure that these matters are at the very heart of policymaking. As Members have said, it is a structural Government challenge to ensure that rural issues are taken up, and I am delighted that there are so many passionate voices on these Benches because it will make my job easier. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: National trails, which run through much of the countryside, provide vital access to the countryside both for people coming out of urban areas and for people living in rural areas, but the amount of funding for National Trails UK has not risen since 2012, and stands at just £1.7 million a year. Will the Minister commit himself to looking at that again and seeing what we can do to help out our friends at National Trails UK? \p Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the hon. Member for trying to lure me into an unfunded spending commitment. I assure him we do not do that on this side of the House, but he has made an important point, and I will of course look at it.

The Government have wasted no time in getting to work on a whole range of issues that affect both urban and rural areas. In order to pursue our growth mission, we have announced a series of planning reforms to get Britain building, removed the de facto ban on onshore wind, established a national wealth fund, announced a pensions review to unlock growth, boosted investment, delivered savings for pensioners, launched Skills England, announced a White Paper on getting Britain working, and taken the first steps to create Great British Energy. All of those measures provide opportunities for people in rural areas, and all sectors can shape and benefit from wider policy reform through the growth mission, which will create the conditions for businesses to invest and employ, and for consumers to spend with confidence. However, we absolutely recognise the specific challenges and opportunities. \p Angus MacDonald: Will the Minister bear in mind the importance of community benefits from renewables? The whole of the highlands is covered in turbines, which are built overseas and often owned overseas. We have the highest level of fuel poverty in Britain, and renewables offer the only chance for rural Britain to level up financially that we will see in our lifetimes. I greatly fear that the opportunity will pass us by. \p Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I do not share his pessimism. There are real opportunities, but it is up to us to make sure that they are realised. He makes an important point.

The Government absolutely recognise that there are specific challenges and opportunities that make rural communities and economies distinctive, and we acknowledge the need for direct support through programmes such as the rural England prosperity fund,  which provides targeted support to rural businesses and communities. We recognise that community-owned businesses play a particularly important role in rural areas by providing opportunities for communities to come together and access services, but we also recognise that there are significant challenges facing rural community businesses and that the Government have a role to play in overcoming them.

A number of my hon. Friends have talked about rural transport, which is key to those living and working in rural communities. We know that a prosperous rural economy requires improvements in rural transport and, of course, digital infrastructure. The availability of affordable housing is key, as are affordable energy and access to a healthy and skilled workforce, so a complex mix is required to get the growth that we so want to see.

We also recognise that the need for rural residents to travel further to access work, education and training, and essential services such as healthcare raises additional challenges. We know that it can be more costly and time consuming for them, and we recognise their frustrations. I was struck by the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland about what happens when services are withdrawn. We know all too well the problems that that creates for our constituents, so this Government are determined to deliver better bus services. We have set out a plan to achieve that in our Bus Services Bill, which will give local leaders the tools they need to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of the communities they serve.

My hon. Friend was absolutely right to raise the issue of digital access, particularly for those in ultra-rural areas. Digitisation is at the heart of this Government’s agenda, and we are committed to ensuring that rural communities and businesses are not left behind or disadvantaged. Through the shared rural network, which has helped to deliver 4G mobile coverage to 95% of the UK a year ahead of target, we will continue to deliver 4G connectivity to places where there is either limited coverage or none at all.

However, we are aware that rural parts of the UK still lag behind when it comes to mobile coverage, and we will continue to work with the industry to deliver new coverage to such communities via the shared rural network, enabling them to thrive. Our ambition is to go further and for all populated areas to have higher-quality stand-alone 5G access by 2030. Project Gigabit is the Government’s programme to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to UK premises, many of which are situated in rural communities that are not included in suppliers’ commercial plans. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: Some villages, including Ewelme in my constituency, successfully signed up to the previous voucher scheme but were then excluded from Project Gigabit as a result. The previous Government failed to deliver on the scheme, which meant that such villages were left with no internet at all or no fast broadband. Will the Minister commit to looking specifically at the village of Ewelme to see what he can do to include it in Project Gigabit? \p Daniel Zeichner: I will certainly ask my officials to  get in touch with the hon. Gentleman so that we can  get him an answer on that specific question. Sadly, only  85% of UK premises can access gigabit-capable broadband at the moment. Our goal is for nationwide gigabit coverage by 2030, ensuring that at least 99% of UK premises can access a gigabit-capable connection.

Turning to rural housing, access to genuinely affordable homes is essential to sustaining vibrant rural communities, and the housing shortage drives high rents and leaves some of the most vulnerable without access to a safe and secure home. We will reform planning laws so that we can build the homes that our rural communities desperately need while ensuring that we protect our green spaces and the natural environment. As part of that, the Government recently ran a consultation to reform the national planning policy framework, and we will carefully consider how best to build more homes and introduce a wider set of growth-focused interventions that will help us build those homes in the places where people want to live and, importantly, that are supported by the right infrastructure and services. \p Luke Myer: The hamlet of Aysdalegate in my constituency has no access to safe running water. This risk was identified in 2013, but now, 12 years later, it still remains. The Drinking Water Inspectorate carried out an inspection in 2023 and described the situation:

“The water from this stream is captured in a makeshift pool lined with tarpaulin and then piped to two rudimentary settlement tanks with ill-fitting handmade lids.”

Does the Minister agree that this is not a situation in which anyone should be living in the 21st century? It is typical of the inertia we saw under the previous Government that nothing was done for over a decade. I note that there is not a single Conservative MP in this place to listen to this debate today. Will the Minister commit to doing something about the water and to working with me and the parish council who represent that hamlet? \p Daniel Zeichner: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Let us speak outside this debate about that particular case; I am not qualified to comment on it at the moment.

Rising energy costs also pose a challenge to rural communities and businesses, and I am all too aware that fuel poverty rates are higher in rural communities. We also have many homes that are off grid. My party’s manifesto was clear: we are determined to lower bills, boost energy security and protect our environment by setting up Great British Energy. GB Energy will also support local and combined authorities and community energy groups to roll out small and medium-scale renewable energy projects, with the goal of increasing local generation across the whole country by up to 8 GW of capacity by 2030. \p Matt Rodda: In my constituency, there is an excellent small renewable scheme, and I wish to raise that with the Minister and perhaps point out the need for further similar schemes elsewhere. It is a low-head hydro scheme on the River Thames in the village of Caversham, where several hundred users benefit from cheaper electricity. However, there were significant obstacles to setting up the scheme. May I meet my hon. Friend to explain those issues? There are many other weirs along the River Thames. Most of them are not used for such schemes, yet almost all of them are potentially suitable sites for this type of wonderful renewable energy, which offers residents in rural areas a cheaper form of energy. \p Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend and I meet frequently, but I will very happily meet him to hear more about what sounds like an excellent initiative.

I shall turn now to another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland, which was the importance of education and skills. It is absolutely essential that we ensure sustainable improvements in skills in rural areas, and to do that we are planning to expand our childcare and early years system, drive up standards and modernise the school curriculum. We will also boost rural and agricultural skills by reforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy, giving businesses the freedom and flexibility to upskill their workforce. We will also be opening new specialist technical excellence colleges to give rural communities the chance to fit skills to the needs of their local economies and empower rural businesses to play a bigger role in the skills revolution. My hon. Friend also raised, again rightly, the challenges around rural health. \p Sam Rushworth: People from primary schools in rural areas of my constituency have come to me, and one of the challenges they face is a falling population because of the declining number of jobs. Although they have both fixed and variable costs, they lose per pupil funding as a result, and some of those primary schools are becoming unviable. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a different funding settlement for schools in rural areas? \p Daniel Zeichner: Again, my hon. Friend tempts me to rewrite the policies of the Department for Education, but I recognise the problem he highlights. I am pleased about the presumption against the closure of maintained rural schools, but he points to a very important challenge. As we all know, the survival of local schools is key to many communities, so I have sympathy with what he says.

Health was raised by a number of colleagues. We are very aware of the mental health challenges faced in rural areas, which I have discussed with colleagues   on a number of occasions. My Department has recently established a new group to look specifically at these issues, because we know it is an important challenge.

Colleagues have also talked about GPs and dentistry, which is one of the issues that consistently came up in rural communities during the run-up to last year’s general election, and it is a key challenge. We know that people in rural areas who need care are often more likely to live far from those facilities, and we are mindful of that challenge. The integrated care system will have a role in designing those services, but it will need to work closely with clinicians and local communities at neighbourhood level.

We are making significant new funding available for local government in 2025-26, which we think will help with some of the wider issues. There is £1.3 billion of new funding in the local government financial settlement, with £600 million to support the most deprived areas, including in shire districts, through the new recovery grant. There is also £233 million of additional funding for homelessness services.

There is a guarantee that no local authority will see a reduction in its core spending power in 2025-26 after taking account of any increase in council tax levels. We believe this will provide the protections required for all authorities, including district councils, to sustain their services between years. Taking into account both the money allocated to councils through the settlement and the extended producer responsibility guarantee, every council will have more to spend on planning and social care services in 2025-26 than in 2024-25. For almost all authorities, we expect that to be a real-terms increase. We are also providing a flat cash funding floor after council tax increases, which means that every council will receive as much in core spending power next year as they received this year, if not more.

This Government recognise the importance of providing accessible, high-quality services across rural communities, and we will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that they are delivered effectively.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.