debates/debates2025-02-24c conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-02-24)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-02-24c conversation_22

Rachel Hopkins:On Friday night, I joined Bedfordshire police officers on a ride-a-long to see first hand the great work they do to help vulnerable people. However, the Policing Minister knows that Bedfordshire police rely heavily on specific grants to tackle serious, violent and organised crime. Will she confirm that those grants will continue, and when we might we hear about that? \p Diana R. Johnson: I visited Bedfordshire police before Christmas, and I agree that it is an excellent force. Decisions around funding will be made in due course. \p Tim Farron: Refugees here from Ukraine under the Homes for Ukraine scheme are not eligible to indefinite leave. They have a three-year visa, which in many cases, obviously, is about to expire. They have a very short window to apply for what is only an 18-month extension. Does the Home Secretary agree that that is not long enough for Ukrainian families here to be able to plan their future, and will she reconsider? \p Yvette Cooper: I can say to the hon. Gentleman that we continue to support the Homes for Ukraine scheme, which remains extremely important—I have a family from Ukraine still living with me in Yorkshire. We will continue to support those families and will ensure that people are not disadvantaged by the deadlines that have been set. \p Tristan Osborne: Challenging violence against women and girls is an absolutely critical mission of this Government. What work is the Minister doing with the Department for Education to promote positive role models in our schools and further education colleges? \p Jess Phillips: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am literally about to go into a cross-Government ministerial meeting with the Department for Education about exactly that. Our violence against women and girls strategy will not succeed without prevention through education. \p Nick Timothy: The Home Secretary quite conspicuously failed to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) asked earlier, so I am going to have another go. Should it ever be a criminal offence for anybody to desecrate a religious text—yes or no? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not have a blasphemy law in this country, nor will we have one. \p Chris Webb: Three weeks ago, I met a nine-year-old boy in Blackpool’s asylum hotel. He cannot walk, has frequent seizures and is non-verbal. Since May last year, his family have been requesting a wheelchair, as they have to carry him everywhere they go. No child, especially one with these needs, should have to go without the equipment that gives them the dignity to live. Does the Minister agree that such hotels are unsuitable for vulnerable children, and will she personally intervene to help me to get this young lad a wheelchair? \p Angela Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention. My officials have investigated, and Serco has referred the case to healthcare partners, who are currently in the process of providing a suitable wheelchair following a thorough assessment of the child’s needs. Officials are monitoring the situation closely to ensure the family receive the support they require. \p Sarah Olney: Domestic abuse services in my area are telling me there is a specific shortage of places in shelters for men, which is a particular problem for women fleeing domestic abuse with their teenage sons. What is being done to address this problem specifically? \p Jess Phillips: Refuge accommodation actually sits within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. However, we have invested £30 million extra for councils to look at the need they have in their  area, which will include creating dispersal accommodation, as women with older boys are often not allowed into group accommodation. \p Luke Murphy: Last week, I held a summit with local businesses in the Top of Town in Basingstoke to discuss how we can breathe new life into our town centre. One of the key messages was that persistent antisocial behaviour is making residents feel unsafe and creating a barrier to businesses thriving. What reassurances can the Home Secretary give businesses and constituents in Basingstoke that this Government are making progress in restoring town centre patrols? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter, for both Basingstoke and towns right across the country. Town centres were blighted by a 60% increase in shop theft in the two years before the election, as well antisocial behaviour. That is why tackling town centre crime will be at the heart of the crime and policing Bill, introduced tomorrow. \p Richard Tice: Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be a better use of Greater Manchester police officers’ time if they actually policed the streets and prevented crime, rather than visiting grandmothers’ homes to discuss a Facebook post? \p Yvette Cooper: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed the discussion on this earlier. We have been clear that the central priority for policing set by this Government is neighbourhood policing, to tackle town centre crime, challenges across the country and serious violence, including violence against women and girls and the knife crime devastating young lives. We have made those priorities clear to police forces right across the country as part of our policing reform and our new legislation. \p Lindsay Hoyle: For the final question, Jonathan Brash. \p Jonathan Brash: Dispersal accommodation for asylum is unevenly distributed across the country. In Hartlepool, we support 50 asylum seekers per 10,000 in the population, yet a few miles up the road, the neighbouring local authority supports seven per 10,000, with local authorities elsewhere in the country hosting none. Does the Minister agree that this is unfair, and that, as we bring the numbers down, we must evenly distribute support for asylum seekers across the areas? \p Angela Eagle: We did inherit a very uneven distribution—if I could put it that way—of dispersed accommodation, often in poorer areas where, its presence puts more pressure on local communities. It is not a situation that we would have wanted, and we want to remedy it over time. \p Greg Smith: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if we will make a statement on the Plant Oxford site. \p Sarah Jones: This Government are determined to see a strong, thriving UK automotive industry. We recognise the vital role that the British motor industry plays within our manufacturing landscape, employing more than 150,000 people, with tens of thousands more working in the wider supply chain. That is why we are ploughing £2 billion into the sector’s green transition and £300 million to encourage the uptake of new, clean, green electric vehicles—a big incentive for the global automotive sector to invest in the UK. Building on this momentum, our modern industrial strategy will back automotive companies that want to invest in Britain and drive long-term sustainable UK growth.

BMW has taken a commercial decision to delay the production of two new electric Mini models at its Oxford plant. Undoubtedly, that news will be unsettling for the company’s many hard-working employees, not least those working directly on the production line, but I must stress that BMW remains committed to its investment in the UK. It is by no means unusual for a manufacturer to adjust its product line-up or production start dates for commercial reasons.

We are proud that BMW considers Oxford to be at the heart of Mini production. As a Government, we are throwing our weight behind its investment. We want big automotive brands from Britain and around the world to lie at the heart of our growth mission and plan for change, creating well-paid jobs and putting more money into people’s pockets. As part of that effort, this Government are working closely with BMW as it reviews its investment timelines, ensuring that more cars are built right here in the United Kingdom. \p Greg Smith: I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I expected the Secretary of State to hide from talk of CVs, but it seems that also applies to EVs. This weekend we saw the disastrous consequences of Labour’s rigid approach to net zero: BMW hitting the brakes on a £600 million investment in Plant Oxford. That deal, from 2023, would have secured 4,000 high-quality jobs and was a strong vote of confidence in the UK. Like other deals, it was possible only because the previous Government were willing to be pragmatic. The Conservatives made the sensible decision to delay the ban on internal combustion engine cars, bringing the UK into line with major global economies such as France, Germany, Sweden and Canada, but Labour said it knew better, restoring the 2030 phase-out date in its manifesto.

When the negative impacts of that approach became clear, the Government launched a fast-track consultation on the zero emission vehicle mandate, pitifully attempting to buy themselves time. Surely, no consultation is necessary. The effects of their puritanical ZEV obsession is already clear: Jaguar Land Rover says that the ZEV mandate is causing disruption to the market; Vauxhall has confirmed that it will shut down its Luton factory, citing the ZEV  mandate as making the plant less economically viable; and now the future of Plant Oxford—the home of the Mini since 1959—is uncertain.

Labour’s reckless policies have shattered industry confidence, with consumer demand for EVs dropping off a cliff and numbers only just about sustained by subsidised fleet sales. Will the Minister do the right thing: stop hiding behind consultations and acknowledge that the Government’s ideological approach to net zero will lead only to economic disaster for our automotive sector and consumers alike? \p Sarah Jones: It is hard to know where to start. The “puritanical ZEV obsession” was, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a Conservative policy from the last Government. The only changes made to that policy under the last Prime Minister dampened demand by changing the deadline, and hampered manufacturers by not ensuring flexibility or pragmatism in how the policy operated—it was the worst of both worlds.

By contrast, Labour and the Government are acting with pragmatism. We are listening to industry and working at pace to get this right. We are also creating the conditions in which the automotive industry can thrive. That means delivering not just the economic and political stability so lacking under the previous Government, but an industrial strategy that will deliver growth, including in the automotive industry; investing £2 billion in automotive transition through the Budget; investing in research and development; supporting and talking to our industries; and understanding the global climate.

It was really clear in BMW’s statement that there were macroeconomic global and commercial reasons why the decision to delay was made, but BMW is clear that it is still committed to this investment in the UK. I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who is liaising closely with workers and unions, as would be expected. We will continue to work to ensure the right economic and political climate, so that these industries can grow. \p Sonia Kumar: Will the Minister update the House on progress on the industrial strategy for the automotive industry? How will that support supply chains in places like Dudley and across the west midlands? \p Sarah Jones: We are working at pace on delivering the industrial strategy in the spring. There are 150,000 good jobs in the automotive industry, and we want to see those jobs grow. We have identified eight growth sectors that the industrial strategy will turbocharge. Advanced manufacturing is one of them, and that of course includes the auto industry. We have £2 billion of investment, committed at the Budget, to underpin that. We are also working in the industrial strategy on identifying any barriers to growth, so that we can ensure that the sector grows in the years to come.

The industrial strategy will give the stability that we need over the long term—over five and 10 years. It will look at the policy levers that we can control to ensure that businesses continue to want to invest in the UK. PwC has just ranked the UK the second-best place in the world to invest, so I think the future is positive. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Clive Jones: This is yet another failure in the Government’s main aim of getting Britain growing again. Zero-emission vehicles are too expensive and, it appears, too hard to manufacture in the UK. That forces us into an unfortunate reality in which we are reliant on Elon Musk for our supply of EVs, and are funnelling money into his already very deep pockets, rather than promoting a productive domestic market with good jobs. We need to show ambition and make it easier for ordinary families to buy EVs. What measures will the Government take to support and encourage consumer demand for electric vehicles? \p Sarah Jones: The hon. Gentleman talks about the Government’s policies for growing the economy. A few months ago, we held an international investment summit, at which £63 billion of investment was announced. As I have mentioned, there was £2 billion announced in the Budget for the automotive industry. Interest rates have been cut three times, wages are up, and more than 70,000 jobs have been secured in the UK since the Government came to power. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD predict that the UK will be Europe’s fastest-growing economy over the next few years. The industrial strategy was scrapped under the last Government; our industrial strategy will be the backbone of ensuring that we deliver growth.[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1WC.] (Correction)

The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing. I have already set out the stability, investment and reform that we are bringing to the sector to make sure that it can thrive. Hundreds of thousands of people rely on the automotive industry through their work in it, or in its supply chains. Those are good, well-paid jobs, and we are absolutely determined to ensure that the sector grows. \p Antonia Bance: The Minister has set out how we delivered £2 billion-worth of support for the automotive sector in the Budget. That support is both for manufacturing and for the crucial supply chains in places such as my Black Country constituency and Oxford. Is she able to set out any further details about how that money will be used to support our brilliant manufacturing? \p Sarah Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for her support for the industry, which is so important. Through the £2 billion funding, the automotive transformation fund, the exceptional regional growth fund and the advanced propulsion centre research and development fund, we have found innovative ways of supporting the industry. In January, I was pleased to hear Jatco, a company that makes transmissions for Nissan, announce that it would put its first manufacturing plant in Europe here in the UK; it is converting an old hospital building with a £50 million investment. That plant will be at the international advanced manufacturing park in Sunderland. That is the kind of opportunity that we want to create and deliver. \p Gavin Williamson: Jaguar Land Rover, which has its engine manufacturing centre based in Staffordshire, is a vital employer for people not just in Staffordshire, but right across the west midlands. That plant is pioneering the development of electric vehicles for JLR. What additional support and flexibility will there be from the Government to ensure that Great British brands continue to prosper in the west midlands? \p Sarah Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about Great British brands. We have some incredible small car manufacturers, as well as larger ones, in the UK, and there is great diversity of provision. We are supporting the development of gigafactories in the UK, so that we can make the batteries that we need. We are helping with R&D and innovation to make our cars more sophisticated and efficient, and supporting the large manufacturers to ensure that the conditions are right for them to develop in the UK. We are doing all those things through our industrial strategy and our automotive strategy. I work with the Automotive Council; we met just a couple of weeks ago to talk about the vibrant future that we see for automotives in the UK. I am always happy to talk to JLR about its plans, and have done so several times. \p Perran Moon: I know that the shadow Minister struggles with the dynamics of the automotive industry, but for the last 20 years, 50% of new vehicle sales have been fleet and business sales. Does the Minister agree that the decision taken today is a commercial decision, based around the structure of BMW’s dealer network, as opposed to an obsession with petrol and diesel vehicles? \p Sarah Jones: My hon. Friend as absolutely right to say that this is a commercial decision. As he would expect, we are talking to representatives of BMW; my officials were with them in Munich a couple of weeks ago, and I have met the UK managing director several times. We are talking to them to support the commercial decisions that they need to make. They have made it clear that there were macroeconomic, global and commercial reasons for the delay that has been announced; such delays are not uncommon. I know that BMW remains committed to this investment in the UK. \p Calum Miller: More than 300 employees at the BMW plant in Oxford live in my constituency, and this morning I met plant convenors from the Unite union to discuss the impact that the uncertainty at the plant is having on those workers and their families. Can the Minister outline exactly how the new industrial strategy will help the plant to become more competitive, in the face of severe competition from other BMW plants in the EU, the US and China? \p Sarah Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the concern that I suspect those employees feel. They have known about this change since last year. There are 3,500 people who work in the Oxford plant and many more who work at Rolls-Royce, which is owned by BMW, and in other parts of the UK. Through the industrial strategy, we are looking at a number of issues that we will use the £2 billion for, and we will use the powers that we have. Skills, energy costs and access to finance are all issues that we are having lots of conversations about, as well as the transition to electric vehicles. We are making sure that the flight path for investment in the UK is as good as possible, and that those who are already investing in the UK continue to do so. BMW has announced a £300 million investment in Rolls-Royce, which it owns. It remains committed to this investment in the UK, but I appreciate that there will be concerns among the workers to whom the hon. Gentleman has been talking, and I am always happy to meet people to discuss these matters in more detail. \p Jessica Morden: Tata’s Llanwern steelworks in my constituency produces world-class automotive steel. The Minister has acknowledged the importance of the automotive sector. Will she also acknowledge the importance of having a strong steel industry, and of plants like Llanwern making steel for EVs, and put that at the heart of the forthcoming industrial strategy—a strategy that the Conservatives never had? \p Sarah Jones: I am glad that my hon. Friend has managed, as ever, to bring steel into the debate. It is incredibly important, and that is why we will have a separate steel strategy, on top of the work that we are doing in the industrial strategy to ensure a thriving sector in the future. That will look at all the issues that we are grappling with and that she knows about, including the transition, energy prices, access to finance, access to grid connections and scrap. We will continue to ensure that the UK’s six steel producers can thrive and bring in new business. \p Sammy Wilson: In answer to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), the Minister stated that the strategy is resulting in people wanting to invest in the United Kingdom. The sad fact is that as a result of the mad net zero policies that this Government are following, we are losing investment every week; this is yet another example. Does the Minister not follow the logic? If we punish people for not wanting the cars that we produce, the companies will cut back production and jobs, consumers will not get what they want, and economic growth will be affected. When will this Government come to the conclusion that this policy of net zero and punishing people is wrong? \p Sarah Jones: I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman saw that the CBI brought out figures over the weekend showing that the net zero economy grew by 10% last year, which is significantly more than the economy as a whole. We are absolutely right to transition to electric vehicles, so that we can stick to our commitments on climate change. We are being pragmatic in how we do that. We are not following the same policy as the previous Government, because we are talking to industry and consulting. We will publish the results of the  consultation on how the flexibilities within the transition are working, and whether we need to change them in any way. \p Richard Tice: The British car industry was thriving until the Conservative party introduced net stupid zero, and now we have another car plant at risk; another business struggling and losing hundreds of millions of pounds; and hundreds more British jobs at risk. Does the Minister agree that the automotive industry in the UK will continue to decline until we scrap net zero? \p Sarah Jones: Here we go with the same old lines. The hon. Gentleman tells us that net zero is a massive con, yet he owns a company that is investing in electric car charging ports. I rest my case. \p Lindsay Hoyle: On that well-known BMW plant in Strangford, I call Jim Shannon. \p Jim Shannon: The Minister has a real interest in the matters for which she has ministerial responsibility; I want to put on the record my thanks to her. When we have had meetings on other issues relating to Northern Ireland, she has been anxious to help and support me, and I appreciate that.

The decision not to go ahead with the EV production is disappointing to say the least, but it perhaps indicates a wider issue that we face in the manufacturing industry due to rising costs. What can the Minister do to help companies attract more investment through lower energy costs, and what can the Government do to ensure that British jobs are not sent to China, and to ensure that firms that choose to relocate jobs understand that no future help will be forthcoming? \p Sarah Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I should be clear for the House that the decision has not been made to not go ahead; this is a delay and a change in timing. BMW is committed to going ahead with the investment. At the moment, its e-Mini is being produced in China. This investment will bring it here to the UK.[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 2WC.] (Correction) Lots must be done in terms of energy prices, as he says. Building a gigafactory means significant reductions in energy prices, but the wider manufacturing sector is talking to us virtually every day about these kinds of issues. Through the industrial strategy and the reforms that we want to bring in, and by spending the £2 billion that we were allocated in the Budget, we hope to deliver a thriving automotive industry well into the future. \p David Lammy: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Ukraine.

In January 2022, I visited the Wall of Remembrance of the Fallen in Kyiv with my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary. Seeing the faces of all those who had lost their lives since 2014 brought home the human cost of Kremlin imperialism—and of the Ukrainian determination to stand up to it. Indeed, some weeks later, just as British and American intelligence services had warned, we awoke to news of Putin’s full-scale invasion, launched to shatter the sovereign state of Ukraine.

Today, we mark three years of Ukrainian courage in resisting that brutal, illegal and unprovoked invasion. I have witnessed their fortitude at first hand in three visits to Kyiv over the past year—their defiant blitz spirit as Russian missiles and drones rain down night after night after night. On this grim anniversary, amid all the talk about talks, we must not forget that Russia’s barbaric war goes on, that the Ukrainian people are suffering, and that, beyond Europe, the conflict is piling pressure on the world’s poorest, too.

This debate takes place against the backdrop of intense diplomatic efforts, responding of course to President Trump’s call to bring this war to a swift end. At the G20 in South Africa last week, I listened to Sergey Lavrov. Once again, he shamelessly played the victim, rehashing the same old lies. I will say to the House what I said in response: if Russia is serious about a lasting peace that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty, Ukraine’s independence and the United Nations charter; guarantees Ukraine’s security against future aggression; and rejects imperialism, then Britain will listen. No one wants that more than Ukraine.

At the Munich security conference, I underlined that Ukraine must be at the heart of any talks about Ukraine’s future, and I said that the west must learn from our history. Vladimir Putin and his war are no historical aberration. He draws on a tsarist tradition—the imperialism and authoritarianism of Peter the Great or Nicholas I—and a Soviet tradition: he is, after all, a KGB agent who operates by deception. It was an American diplomat, George Kennan, whose “long telegram” in 1946 warned of a deep continuity in Kremlin thinking. He argued that the Kremlin would respond only to strength. That was the basis for the policy of containment, as part of which Britain contributed tens of thousands of troops to the British Army of the Rhine. It was that strength, not paper promises, that deterred Moscow from further advances west.

Today, let us look at the Kremlin’s recent record. The Helsinki Final Act of 1975—betrayed. The Budapest memorandum of 1994—betrayed. The NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997—betrayed. The Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015—betrayed. This is foreign policy by lies. We must respond by being true to ourselves and provide the support Ukraine needs to stay strong, because that is what is needed to secure a lasting peace and shape our collective security so that Putin never invades again.

The UK has a unique role in helping to make that happen. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister was in Paris last week talking to our European allies about how we step up support for Ukraine, accelerate work on security guarantees and take more responsibility for the security of our continent. In Munich, I spoke to Vice-President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio. In Brussels, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary chaired the Ukraine defence contact group, where US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that, like us, the US wants to see a sovereign, prosperous Ukraine.

Europe must shoulder its share of the burden. With the United States and its unique capabilities, we can deter Putin from attacking Ukraine again and from escalating hybrid Russian attacks in Europe into some form of direct confrontation, so this week the Prime Minister and I will be travelling to Washington DC to meet President Trump. Ukraine needs friends and allies on both sides of the Atlantic working together to achieve “peace through strength”. Both President Trump and President Zelensky have spoken of their desire to achieve that, and the Prime Minister will reaffirm to Zelensky in a call today that it is Britain’s goal as well.

That must include European countries investing more in our own defence and capabilities. Already, the UK has stepped up and sped up military assistance. We have committed £3 billion in military aid a year—every year, for as long it takes. Over the next two years, we will provide an additional £2.26 billion earmarked for military spending, via our share of the $50 billion G7 loan backed by frozen Russian assets.

In addition, as the Prime Minister has made clear, we know our Kremlin history, and that is why we are ready to contribute to future security guarantees for Ukraine in the context of a US backstop, including by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary. That would not be an easy decision—anyone in this House who has taken responsibility for the lives of British servicemen and women can attest to that—but I know the whole House recognises that Ukraine’s security is our security.

The UK also continues to set the pace on ratcheting up the economic pressure on the Kremlin. Together with our international partners, we have already denied Russia access to $400 billion. Its war economy is increasingly unsustainable. Inflation is 9.9% and rising, and that is just the official figure. Interest rates are running at 21%. This year, Russia will spend almost 41% of its budget on defence and security.

Today, we are announcing our biggest package of sanctions since the early days of the war: over 100 targets, including 40 oil tankers—our largest set of ship specifications in a single sanctions package yet—as well as third-country enablers that are pouring money into Putin’s war chest. New legislation imposes additional trade sanctions on Russia, too. That will deny Russia access to the world-leading expertise needed to maintain its war.

Today, the UK is also solidifying our historic 100-year partnership with Ukraine, which was signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky in Kyiv in January. In February, I saw for myself how much that partnership means to Ukraine, and how much potential there is for our collective growth and security. Together, we lay that agreement in Parliament for scrutiny, and I look forward to it entering into force when the process is complete—a clear sign of our confidence in Ukraine’s future.

Mr Speaker, this is a critical moment. I want to acknowledge how colleagues have stood united over these past three years, including hon. Members from all parties as well as noble Lords in the other place, the shadow Foreign Secretary, and several predecessors as Foreign Secretary. I am proud of that unity, which is a tribute to our country, proud of this country’s unwavering support for our Ukrainian friends, and proud that the United Kingdom is rightly taking on the responsibility of bringing our allies together. That is how we confront a foreign policy based on lies, and how we secure Ukraine’s future, secure Europe’s future, and face down a Kremlin dictator once again. Slava Ukraini. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: I begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. The House stands united with Ukraine on this grim milestone. Three years on from Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we all think of the innocent lives caught up in this terrible conflict: the civilians mercilessly killed in towns such as Bucha and Irpin and in the east, the young Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia, the families of brave troops who have not returned alive from the frontline, all those with life-changing injuries, and those who have lost their homes and possessions.

When the war started, the UK led global efforts to back Ukraine and, rightly, to punish Putin. From training tens of thousands of Ukrainian recruits on British soil and donating Challenger 2 battle tanks and Storm Shadow missiles, to being part of an unprecedented international sanctions response that has deprived Putin’s regime of $400 billion and one of the first countries to provide Ukraine with that multibillion-pound, multi-year funding pledge in military aid, the UK has led the way for Ukraine. Our support has made a material difference to Ukraine’s ability to hold the line.

We must never forget that the cost of this war to Putin has been catastrophic. Russia’s Black sea fleet has been pummelled, and it is likely that by summer Russia will have incurred 1 million casualties, with Putin desperately turning to North Korea for troops and to Iran for weapons. Meanwhile, as we have heard, Russia’s economy is in dire straits. There have been uprisings against Putin’s regime, and the central pitch of his leadership—that he was the great restorer of Russia’s stability—lies in ruins.

The British public continue rightly to stand resolutely with Ukraine, and they expect us as politicians across the House to do so. I thank again the many thousands who have so generously opened up their homes to Ukrainians fleeing the war, including through the Homes for Ukraine scheme. They have genuinely showed the best of our country, the best of Britain.

Although there has been much debate about the course of the conflict in recent days, the war continues to rage. I urge the Government to continue giving Ukraine everything it needs—all the hardware it needs and the diplomatic support to strengthen its hand. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary, with the Prime Minister, will do that in Washington this week. There must be no let-up whatsoever.

We welcome today’s announcement on new sanctions. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that there are no plans to lift sanctions in the future? If he discusses the use of sanctions when he goes to Washington this week, and the role of the United States in that policy, will he assure us that he will update Members on whether we should expect to see any new resources and support, in either military aid or humanitarian support, in the coming weeks?

As the Foreign Secretary has said, now is the time for Britain to lead, as we did from day one, and ensure that Ukraine is in the best possible position to decide its own future. We should be very clear that it remains ultimately for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself, to decide its own future, and that is peace through strength.

We want this terrible war to be brought to an end and, like President Zelensky, we want a lasting, reliable and just peace. However, the Euro-Atlantic community must continue to be intensely robust in the face of Putin’s aggression, because the lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more. We must ensure that an illegal invasion like this can never happen again. We need a stronger deterrent. We recognise that the Prime Minister has commented on the options and the security guarantees in recent days, and I can assure the House that His Majesty’s Opposition stand ready to engage with the Government at every single level.

We must lead our NATO allies in Europe. In the long-term, collective defence and planning must be co-ordinated to back Ukraine in its fight for freedom. As the Government know, there is already a fully-funded plan to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030, as set out by the previous Government. I strongly urge the Government to at least look at a minimum plan to match that commitment. We will work with them on how that is delivered, to set a new benchmark for other NATO countries to follow and to fire up everything we can on defence production.

The US knows that the UK has an influential role in NATO, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary will be discussing that this week. The target to spend 2.5% of GDP is not a goal in itself, but an important step on the journey to increase the strength of our defence spending. Given the threats that our nation faces, I urge the Government and the Foreign Secretary—because the issue is within his purview and Department—to review and repurpose some of the 0.5% currently spent on official development assistance to further our national defence, safety and security.

Finally, the moral and economic case for mobilising sovereign assets of Russia to support Ukraine is very clear. The Foreign Secretary has spoken about that already, but I urge the Government to do more. Mr Speaker, we stand united as one House. Slava Ukraini. \p David Lammy: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for the unity she demonstrates once again in the Chamber on the subject. I confirm for her that, of course, all hardware and military support, all diplomatic support and all humanitarian support continue. We continue to discuss those issues with our European partners, particularly at meetings at the Munich security conference and subsequentially, and we will continue to do that, to ensure that we put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.

The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned the British casualties during the last few years. Some 17 British nationals who served as members of the armed forces of Ukraine have been killed in action, and we remember them on this day.

The right hon. Lady also rightly mentioned our continued solidarity with Ukraine. We continue to discuss sanctions with our European partners. Just as we have announced a sanctions package today, the EU, following its meeting with the Foreign Affairs Council, has announced a sanctions package too, which will all bear down on Putin’s war machine. I can confirm that we continue to support Ukraine with a medical aid package for its men and women on the frontline. I am grateful to the Defence Secretary for making further funds available in relation to that.

The right hon. Lady rightly comments on defence spending. We are grateful for the unity that the official Opposition are demonstrating on the issue. As we have said, it is very clear to all that Europe must pay a bigger part of the burden. In capitals across the continent, leaders are considering these issues. We have said that we will come forward with our plans shortly, and we will. In that context, as we have seen from the Secretary-General, NATO has been very clear about the burden-sharing and burden-shifting environment that we are now in. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Defence Committee. \p Tan Dhesi: In my role as Chair of the Defence Committee, I get the opportunity to meet many ambassadors, Defence Ministers, attachés and other stakeholders, both here in London and at events and gatherings such as the Munich security conference. There is considerable consternation and anxiety among them about whether long-established and hard-earned alliances, rather than a short-term transactional approach, can still be relied on.

Given the reduced American presence, and as we mark the third anniversary of Putin’s full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine, people are looking for leadership. I feel that this is our time as a nation to take that lead on defence and security matters in our continent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it can be our Prime Minister who takes that lead in our continent while pulling together our transatlantic, NATO and other allies in the process? \p David Lammy: The UK has been ironclad in its support for Ukraine. We have been forward-leaning as Ukraine’s primary friend in Europe and across the world, under successive Governments. It is also the case that we have a special relationship with the United States, underpinned by a lot of military and defence capability and support over many, many years and, of course, a very close intelligence relationship. We bring all of that to bear in ensuring that we get a resolution to this terrible conflict, but a resolution that means we have an enduring peace in which Ukraine is at the centre of discussions. My hon. Friend should be absolutely sure that the UK intends to play its part, which is why we will meet with Donald Trump this week. The Prime Minister has also been at the centre of much shuttle diplomacy over this last period. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Today marks three years since Putin launched his barbaric full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Many people, including Putin, expected Russian tanks to capture Kyiv in days, yet Putin failed to consider the resolve of the Ukrainian people. Three years on, Ukrainians bravely continue the fight against Putin’s imperialism in defence of their sovereignty.

The UK and this House have stood together with Ukraine throughout these darkest hours. Across the country, people opened their homes to Ukrainian guests and demonstrated their opposition to Putin’s war. We must continue to support Ukrainians living in the UK, including by providing urgent clarity on what permanent options to remain the Government will introduce for them.

However, the past week has exposed the fragility of the west’s support for Ukraine. In parroting the Kremlin’s false claims that Ukraine started this war and that President Zelensky is a dictator, President Trump has shown that the US cannot be trusted to support Ukraine’s defence. That is why the UK, working with our continental allies, must step up to lead in Europe. That must include the UK committing to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as possible, and all parties working together to build a consensus on reaching 3%.

The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s suggestion that British troops could join a reassurance mission in Ukraine if a just settlement is reached. That would depend on parliamentary approval for such military deployment. We also support the Government’s announcement today of new sanctions targeting Russian kleptocrats. I urge the Foreign Secretary to add to that list the pro-Russian founder of Georgian Dream, Bidzina Ivanishvili.

The Government should also now move to seize the frozen Russian assets totalling £40 billion across the UK and Europe and channel those funds into Ukraine’s defence. As a start, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on what is delaying the release of the £2.5 billion promised to Ukraine from the sale of Chelsea football club?

This week in Washington, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary must make clear that the UK will continue to stand side by side with Ukraine for as long as it takes to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty. Slava Ukraini. \p David Lammy: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On his comments, we share President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. We know that Russia could do that by withdrawing its troops tomorrow, and President Trump agrees with us that it is important that Ukraine is at the table. When I spoke to Secretary Rubio, he was absolutely clear that there can be no peace without Ukraine. He was also clear that because of the burden of UK and EU sanctions, there cannot easily be a resolution to this conflict without Europe at the table as well.

The hon. Gentleman asked about sanctions and designations. Combined across both parties, we have now introduced more sanctions for this crime and this  terrible conflict than for any other in our parliamentary history. I cannot comment on future designations, but the hon. Gentleman will know—and will have heard in my comments—that our desire is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position. We know that Putin has turned his economy into a war economy, and there are evasions that we will continue to bear down on.

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned Abramovich and the money that has been set aside. We are redoubling our efforts to unlock that money, which could be used on the frontline to support Ukraine over the course of the next few months. \p Stella Creasy: I am sure that our Ukrainian allies will listen to the steadfast support in this House and feel heartened, and that they will also notice whose voices are absent from the House at this time. There are press reports that a deal is apparently imminent on Ukrainian mineral deposits for America as the price of continued support, so is there anything more that we and our European partners can do to stop the eventual products—those crucial metals—ending up in the hands of enemy and competitor states? Has that issue been discussed? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend asks a good question. I discussed that issue with President Zelensky when I was in Ukraine a few days ago, in the context of the 100-year partnership that we have just signed with Ukraine. That partnership is a unique document, not only in our history and Ukraine’s history, but in the history of the world, and I believe it sets a pretty good guide for how to strike a relationship across many fronts. Of course, that relationship will bring big wins for British businesses over the years ahead, but it will also bring big wins for Ukrainian businesses—we will learn from their innovation. I look forward to the discussions that Ukraine is having with the United States. It is for Ukraine to make its own judgments, but I think that 100-year partnership could be a good guide. \p Jeremy Hunt: I thank the Foreign Secretary for the robust and bipartisan approach he is taking to this crisis. In that spirit, may I say to him that if the Government came forward with plans to reduce the number of adult welfare recipients just to 2019 levels, that would save £40 billion a year? It would mean that on Thursday he and the Prime Minister could say to President Trump that we are increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP, or even to 3.4% of GDP, which is what the United States itself spends. That would secure not only the future of Ukraine, but the future of NATO, which is one of the most important challenges facing the Government. \p David Lammy: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has tremendous experience in these matters. He has put his views on the record, and I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be looking very closely at them as part of the detailed conversations that go on across Government. \p Debbie Abrahams: It is clear that the rules-based order established after the second world war is under extreme threat from  oppressors and bullies who think that they can just take what they want—and I am not just talking about Putin. A raft of sanctions were introduced in 2022; why does my right hon. Friend think that previous sanctions failed to curb Russia, and what more do we need to do to organisations that use different measures to circumvent sanctions? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend refers to the rules-based order. That order was set up not just for its own sake, but because of the tremendous bloodshed and loss of life, including the many men and women from our own country and from the United States and other allies who lost their lives across Europe. The order has served us well, and we have to ensure that we continue to protect it. She rightly refers to the evasion that we have seen with the Russian shadow fleet, and that is part of the discussions I have to have with certain states who facilitate it. It is why she will also see in the announcement that I have made more efforts to target the dual-use technology that is finding its way out of countries such as China and being used against Ukrainian men and women. \p James Cleverly: We need to recognise that the environment in which we operate has changed fundamentally, and therefore our response must change fundamentally. I very much echo the calls of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) to increase defence spending now, because we have to send a message to our friends and foes alike that we take defence seriously. I urge the Foreign Secretary to remember the commitments we made to the Ukrainian people when this full-scale invasion took place. Our support to them was not contingent on the support of others; it was absolute, and we should make good on that commitment, because we said things that encouraged the Ukrainians to put their sons and daughters in harm’s way. They have stood up their end of the bargain, and we should stand up ours. \p David Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman is right: we have been Ukraine’s foremost friend, and we will continue to do that. We have a key role to play, because of our special relationship with the United States. We understand here in Europe that, yes, we want this war to end, but we want an enduring peace. We have got a long memory in relation to the Soviet Union and tsarist history, and that guides us on how we secure that peace. \p Paul Waugh: This weekend, I joined Rochdale’s proud, long-standing Ukrainian community to mark the third anniversary of Putin’s illegal war and to remember all those who have lost their lives to Russian aggression. Our own Father Ben Lysykanych is today joining the Prime Minister in Downing Street. Does my right hon. Friend agree that President Zelensky is a democrat, not a dictator, and that the Ukrainian people can never again have their fate decided by other countries carving up their land, as has happened far too often in the past? \p David Lammy: I have met President Zelensky six or seven times over this last period, and he has always struck me as the most courageous and brave of individuals, leading his people to self-determination. That is something that we recognise right across the United Kingdom, and so we stand with him. \p Mike Martin: I was at the Munich security conference and it became clear while talking with our European allies that they no longer fully trust the article 5 security guarantee. Put simply, they do not trust the Americans. Conversations naturally turned to what collective defence looks like in Europe without the Americans. Last night, Chancellor-elect Merz said that conversations are happening at the highest levels on precisely that. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on whether the UK is included in those conversations and on their content? \p David Lammy: NATO has stood the test of time as the greatest modern-day alliance that we have ever seen, and has been strengthened further following the joining of Sweden and Finland. Of course there is a debate in Europe—there is a debate about burden sharing, there is a debate about burden shifting, and there are some who think that there is a debate about burden dumping—but NATO is a great alliance, and we work across that alliance. Successive United States Presidents, from Roosevelt to Obama and, of course, President Trump, have rightly said that Europe must do more, and that is what we now have to do. \p Derek Twigg: The question of defence spending and GDP has been raised. I think it is clear from recent events that we cannot wait until 2030 to spend 2.5%, and, in fact, we should be exceeding that percentage.

In the lead-up to any negotiations, it is essential for us to ensure that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position, including militarily. It is also essential for us to speed up our help and support as quickly as possible. I understand that the Ukrainian defence industrial base has the capacity to increase the production of weapons and equipment. Can we do more to get funding to it to ensure that that happens? Our current problem is that our own industrial base cannot gear up quickly enough. \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend has asked an excellent question about Ukraine’s industrial base. Drone technology, for instance, is improving apace around the world, and the country leading that technology is Ukraine. We have much to learn. We have signed the 100-year partnership, and capacity and capability are part of that partnership, which will please my hon. Friend, but he is right to say that we cannot wait; we have to act now. That is what was being discussed when the Defence Secretary was in Ukraine a short time ago, and it is what I was discussing with Ukraine a few weeks ago. So yes, we will accelerate the way in which our industries work together, and will allocate the funds that are necessary. \p Andrew Mitchell: The whole House will want to wish the right hon. Gentleman, and the Prime Minister, a strong and successful visit later this week. He will be able to agree with the President about the importance of all European members of NATO stepping up and playing their part in the significant increase in defence expenditure that we all now need to see, while of course never forgetting what General Mattis has said about the important part of the mix that development constitutes in national defence. However, I hope there will be no compromise in Washington on the facts of the matter, namely that a P5 member of the United Nations invaded its neighbour in an act that we  thought had gone out with the last century, has bombed and destroyed its infrastructure, and has butchered and murdered its citizens. \p David Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman has reminded the House of the seriousness, and the responsibilities, that we have as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. That seriousness is underpinned by the UN Charter, which Russia breached, and in doing so it has made a serious hole in the way the Security Council works. Let us get beyond that; but if we are to do so, Russia should withdraw and should come to the table with the central issue of peace and making amends at its heart. \p Jeevun Sandher: Keeping ourselves safe here means showing Putin that we have the resolve and the resources to defeat him, as indeed we have. In European NATO our combined GDP is about $24.5 trillion, and the GDP of the United States is $27 trillion, while Russia’s is just $2 trillion. We have more resources, and converting them into more fighting forces, tanks, guns and drones is key, but we can go further. Russian central bank assets held by ourselves and our allies amount to more than £200 billion, including £170 billion in Belgium and £26 billion here, and Putin could use those reserves in the future to rebuild his armed forces. Can the Foreign Secretary assure me that he is doing everything he can to convince our allies of the need to seize those assets to keep us safe and to fund Ukraine? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend asks a good question. If we are serious about the responsibility of burden sharing across Europe and, indeed, across G7 nations at this time, one of the issues on the table is moving from freezing assets to seizing those assets. It is a live discussion. There are other ways to find the funds, and that was a topic of discussion in Munich and at the G7, but we must now move from discussion to action. \p Julian Lewis: I will resist the temptation to ask the Foreign Secretary if he shares my feeling of disgust at the spectacle of the leader of the free world showering praise and admiration on the killer in the Kremlin. When he speaks to his counterparts, will he try to impress on them that the reason why George Kennan’s containment policy, to which he rightly referred, was so successful in preventing the cold war from turning into the third world war was that contentious territory was not demilitarised and left undefended? It worked in the case of West Germany, and it will have to be the only way that western Ukraine can equally be secured for the future. \p David Lammy: The containment strategy to which the right hon. Gentleman refers ran right through the Reagan years and beyond. In a sense, it is the conventional way to understand peace through strength, and we would do well to keep it at the front of our minds in the days and weeks ahead. \p John Slinger: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the international community must not allow the sovereign nation of Ukraine to be traded like a chess piece by powerful nations, particularly after its brave defence of freedom and the international rules-based system for itself and the wider world? If we fail, we risk another “peace in our time” moment that would sooner or later endanger other countries and even our own. \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right, and we know that Ukrainians felt let down by the Budapest memorandum. They felt brutally let down by the Minsk agreement, and they cannot be let down again. We also know that because of the unbelievable Ukrainian spirit, they would fight on, with guerrilla warfare if need be. These are the most admirable of people fighting for their self-determination, and the United Kingdom will continue to stand with them. \p Stephen Flynn: The Scottish National party has stood alongside the people of Ukraine in solidarity—not just for the last three years but for the last 10 years, following Putin’s invasion of Crimea. I will not invite the Foreign Secretary to agree with me on this in the Chamber, but I am sure he thinks that President Trump’s remarks about Zelensky being a dictator were beyond repulsive. Surely we all know that no deal can be made with Vladimir Putin that he will not break. Does the Foreign Secretary agree? \p David Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman has a point. Russia and Putin have been clear about the terms that they want for peace, which have often included the removal of 14 of NATO’s 32 members. That is unacceptable. We have seen Finland and Sweden join recently. The precondition for talks has been that Ukraine should effectively give up the territory now occupied by Russia. It seems to me that such demands show utter contempt for Ukrainian territorial integrity. The Russians will not be serious about discussions until they reconsider the criteria that we heard once again from Lavrov last week. \p Tulip Siddiq: A constituent of mine and her son moved to this country under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. She has a very stable job here and her son is doing A-levels at the best maths school in London, but she is worried that her 18-month visa extension will expire in the middle of her son’s exams. What conversations is the Foreign Secretary’s Department having with the Home Office to ensure that young Ukrainians who moved here through no fault of their own do not have their education disrupted, but can build a life for themselves? \p David Lammy: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for putting on the record the tremendous support the British people have given to Ukrainian refugees. It allows me to say that there is still a war, and there is still a need for those people to seek sanctuary in our country. It is my assessment that Putin is not showing a serious willingness to negotiate, and it may be that negotiations go on for some time. So I want to reassure her constituent that we are of course in close dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. \p Roger Gale: Some of us are old enough to remember Hungary in 1956 and some of us are old enough to remember Czechoslovakia in 1968. None of us wants to see Ukraine sacrificed on the same altar of expediency. When the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister go to Washington, they will know that they will carry with them the good wishes of—almost—all of this House. Ukraine is not for sale, and it can never be for sale; this is not a transaction. The United Kingdom will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. \p David Lammy: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the history. He will know that, in the 20th century, to the east it was only the Russo-Japanese war that stopped Russia’s imperial ambitions, to the south it was the war in Crimea, and of course to the west it was the containment strategy to which I have referred and NATO. This history is our best adviser as we approach the matter of peace. \p Mark Sewards: I start by commending the people of Ukraine for resisting the murderous dictator Vladimir Putin for as long as they have. They are heroes. Almost every Member of this House knows that, if we fold in our support of Ukraine now and give Russia what it wants, Vladimir Putin will only come back for more. Our national security is at stake. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is in everyone’s interests—Britain’s, Europe’s and America’s—to ensure that any potential peace deal includes Ukraine at the table? \p David Lammy: “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” was heard loudly of course from President Zelensky, but all Europeans recognised it. I am pleased that Secretary of State Rubio, in my conversations with him, and indeed General Kellogg have both underlined the importance of Ukraine being at the table. \p Andrew George: I very warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Although he perhaps cannot use the language I am about to use, I hope that when the Prime Minister and he meet Putin’s appeaser in the White House later this week, he will remind him that if we have a special relationship—and the Foreign Secretary keeps referring to a special relationship—it has to be based on truth, respect for democracy, respect for justice and respect for international law. \p David Lammy: In the end, the United States is leader of the free world. President Trump had an election in which 77 million people voted for him and he holds both Houses on the Hill, and as we would expect, he is of course buoyed up—as, indeed, was my party—by such a democratic mandate. We will have conversations with him over the coming days on a range of issues. Friends agree and can sometimes disagree, but I think it is definitely the case that we support his desire for bringing this horrendous war to an end. We will now play our part in Europe to ensure that we raise defence spending and that Europe steps up to the necessary burden sharing. President Trump’s analysis of the huge problems in the Indo-Pacific are correct, and we must recognise that successive US Presidents have been clear about their responsibilities in relation to the Indo-Pacific. \p Tim Roca: Despite the astonishing 10 days we have had, and we should be under no illusion that they have been astonishing, there has been reassurance to be found in the Government’s steadfast commitment to Ukraine and the leadership they have been showing. The Foreign Secretary alluded earlier to Vladimir Putin’s penchant for lying: he lied about the invasion; he lied about Ukraine’s territorial integrity; he lied about the rules of war; and he abducted thousands of Ukrainian children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only should Ukraine be at the centre of the negotiations, but that we should be clear-eyed about the character of the man we are dealing with? \p David Lammy: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the children who have been abducted. On the past two occasions I have been in Ukraine, I have met children who were viciously taken from their homes. There was an attempt to effectively brainwash them from their histories. We are supporting organisations that seek to get those children back and reunite them with their families. I also launched a children in care initiative. I was very pleased to be with Madam Zelensky, when I was last in Ukraine, supporting vulnerable children with their foster families. \p Andrew Murrison: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the 2.5% of GDP ship has now sailed, and that we and our allies have to find the resources to spend 3% within a recognisable timeframe? When he is in Washington this week, will he discuss with his interlocuters how the billions of pounds he proposes to give Mauritius for taking on the Chagos Islands could be better served by being devoted to building and re-equipping our armed forces? \p David Lammy: Ten years ago, there were just four countries meeting the 2% commitment. Today, that has risen to 23. Right across the alliance, countries are understanding that they have to do more. We will set out how we will do more very, very shortly. As the matter today is Ukraine, the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me but I will not discuss issues to do with the British Indian Ocean Territory. I am sure he will have an occasion to do so at oral questions tomorrow. \p Calvin Bailey: Just over three years ago, I flew the penultimate UK mission into Kyiv to deliver materiel essential to the defence of Ukraine ahead of the illegal full-scale Russian invasion. Since then, Ukraine has been defending European security, the UN charter and liberal democracy against Putin’s assault on those shared interests, and, in the words of the declaration of independence, the “unalienable rights” of

“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that to free Ukraine from Putin’s tyranny and imperialist ambition, and to ensure the words of the declaration of independence are realised for all, UK leadership in the co-ordination of European and transatlantic allies is essential? \p David Lammy: Yes, yes, yes, I say to my hon. Friend. I think all of us pay tribute to our armed forces and to his work in our armed forces. It is because of that work over so many years—that sacrifice—that I think the spirit of this country guides us to stand solidly with Ukraine on a cross-party basis. He is right to pray in aid those words that underpin our values, and indeed global values as underpinned in the UN charter. That is what we are fighting for and we will not give up. \p Desmond Swayne: Does the Secretary of State regret recanting the views he originally expressed in assessing Trump? When the time is right—it is certainly not any time now—can I urge him to consider following the example of Archbishop Cranmer by plunging the offending hand first into the flame? \p David Lammy: Er—[Laughter.] This is a serious debate and a serious discussion. As I have said, that is, in a sense, old news; there is so much news before us, and so much history to be forged, which requires diplomacy  and friendship and us understanding who the real threats are. Those real threats are the autocracies of the world, which could do tremendous damage over the coming years. I have always recognised that. \p Frank McNally: As has been replicated across the country, people in Coatbridge and Bellshill have opened their doors to those forced from their homes by Putin’s illegal attack. Public authorities have also stepped up: North Lanarkshire council has provided homes and supported integration for more than 200 Ukrainian families at the High Coats tower in my constituency, and has been recognised nationally for helping to deliver stability and belonging. As we continue to push for a just peace, and following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), will my right hon. Friend commit to working with the Home Secretary, devolved Governments and other key stakeholders to ensure safe harbour for the families so cruelly and viciously targeted by Putin’s barbarism? \p David Lammy: I assure my hon. Friend that that will be the case. I continue to work closely with the Home Secretary. There has been a tremendous outpouring of support across this country, which I recognise, and have seen at work in Scotland, too. \p Sammy Wilson: I welcome the robust statement from the Secretary of State today and the way he has stood by Ukraine and committed the UK to standing by Ukraine. I hope he will convey the same message to President Trump: that by giving into Putin, we jeopardise peace not only in Ukraine but across the whole of Europe.

First, what practical steps can he take, apart from the assurances he has given the House today, to ensure that Ukraine’s interests are reflected in any negotiations? Secondly, given the stretched state of our own armed forces, what long-term security commitments can we give to Ukraine? \p David Lammy: We have committed £3 billion in support to Ukraine for as long as it lasts. The Ukrainians asked for more munitions, and we supported them; they asked for particular missile capability, and we supported them. We will continue to support them because this war is being waged on the frontline; it is a war of attrition. Notwithstanding any discussions or talks, we need to be there with the Ukrainians, and I guarantee to the right hon. Gentleman that we will continue to do that. \p Melanie Ward: I was present at the Munich security conference where it felt like the world changed around us, and the consequences could not be more serious. I welcome our Government’s announcement today of fresh sanctions on Russia. Given the absence of some on the Opposition Benches, I am sure the whole House will agree that it is President Putin, and not President Zelensky, who is the dictator. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this is indeed a once-in-a-generation moment, and that the future of our security in the UK is bound up in Ukraine’s security and in the need to do what it takes to face down the aggression of Putin’s Russia? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: because of the history of Russia and the former Soviet Union, we understand deeply that our own futures are bound up in Putin’s ambitions. We also understand, by the way, that there are many valiant people resisting Putin in Russia; I met Mrs Navalny at the Munich security conference. Our fight is not with the Russian people—it is to support the Russian people. Our fight is with Vladimir Putin. \p Saqib Bhatti: When Putin invaded, he thought it would be a matter of weeks. Three years on, Ukraine is still standing. I am proud of how we as a House and as a nation stood up for Ukraine. That includes many of my constituents, for which I commend them. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary asked about sanctions, but I did not hear an answer from the Foreign Secretary, so he perhaps he can shed some light. When the Prime Minister meets President Trump, will he raise the issue of new sanctions, which I would welcome? Will we urge the US to follow suit? \p David Lammy: We continue to discuss sanctions with all our partners. I discussed that with G7 partners, including Secretary of State Rubio. We have imposed sanctions on more than 2,100 individuals and entities—the most wide-ranging sanctions imposed on any major economy. We believe that maximum pressure is required at this time. The United States has indicated that it would be willing to impose further sanctions on Russia. That issue remains under discussion. \p Luke Myer: I welcome the important statement from the Foreign Secretary and the comments from the shadow Foreign Secretary. This entire House should be united in our support for Ukraine. As others have said, it is rather a shame that one party has not shown up.

Ukrainians who have come to the UK since the war have made such an important contribution to our country. I met Olha, a Ukrainian Teessider, over the weekend. She shared with me that many Ukrainians face great uncertainty, partly because they are unable to access work and study because of the lack of a Ukrainian GCSE. Will the Foreign Secretary discuss this issue with the Department for Education to ensure that Ukrainians are able to access study and work? Will he recognise at the Dispatch Box the importance of the contribution that Ukrainians have made to our country? \p David Lammy: There has been a history between us and Ukrainians, as they were making a contribution across Europe and in our country long before this war began. My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the Ukrainian language. I have admired many Ukrainians for the way that they have quickly learned the English language. I will take his recommendation to the Education Secretary. \p Ben Lake: I join others in commending the Ukrainian people for their bravery in the face of Russian aggression, and the Government’s steadfast support for the nation’s sovereignty. The Foreign Secretary referred in his statement to the need for European nations to contribute more to future security guarantees for the Ukrainian people. Does he envisage more bilateral and multilateral agreements between  European allies playing a part in that endeavour, much in the vein of the Lancaster House treaties or, latterly, the Trinity House agreement? \p David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right that the UK has sought to forge strong relationships with key partners across Europe. Once the new Government are formed in Germany, we look forward to signing an updated Lancaster House treaty with our German friends. He is right that, bilaterally, that is important. I believe that NATO is the central underpinning of European security, but we need to work together across Europe to increase our industrial defence capability, and we need to find more funds to increase our defence spending right across the European family. He will hear more about that in the coming weeks and months. \p Jonathan Brash: The Foreign Secretary was right that if Russia is serious about a lasting peace, it must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, but given that it has shown absolutely no sign of doing that, will he reiterate that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine no matter what? Will he further reiterate, even for the Members who have not chosen to be here for this statement, that this country does not appease fascists but opposes them? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, since February 2022, the United Kingdom’s total military, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine has amounted to £12.8 billion. That is our commitment to Ukraine so far, and that commitment will continue. \p Monica Harding: I am proud that more than 600 Ukrainians have been hosted in my constituency through the Homes for Ukraine programme. Three years on, my constituents stand with Ukraine. They know that Ukraine has protected Europe’s frontline for three years. They know that Ukraine’s fight is one that affects us all, and that if Ukraine loses, Europe loses, and they know that Ukrainians are fighting for the values of our forebears: the British values of democracy and freedom. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to stand by Ukraine steadfast, even when others do not? In his meetings in Washington tomorrow, will he ensure that he points out the folly and the danger of the US Administration’s new approach to Russia? \p David Lammy: The UK, of course, supports the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deters Russia from future aggression and ensures that Ukraine is at the table as we negotiate that peace. That is the issue that we will be discussing with President Trump, just as President Macron is discussing that issue today. I am quite sure that our assessment that Putin is not ready, really, to negotiate on proper terms stands, but I admire the efforts to bring that about. Of course, the US plays a central role in achieving that. \p Kevin Bonavia: Today, we pay tribute to the people of Ukraine fighting not only for their own freedom but for the freedom of all Europe. The Foreign Secretary said that we must learn from history. Over 80 years ago in Munich, this country and others talked away the future of Czechoslovakia without it being there and stripped it of its vital resources; we all know  the tragic consequences. Today, there can be no peace without Ukraine, and there can be no enduring peace without the security that this country and other NATO allies can give to it. \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend puts his remarks well. I agree with him. \p Alec Shelbrooke: I can barely believe that I have got to say this to the Foreign Secretary, but he will be unaware that in past moments the United States has just voted against the UN resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine.

I understand fully the position that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are in and the approach that they have got to take in Washington this week, but we know that President Trump listens to the people who last spoke to him. Can I therefore ask the Foreign Secretary to outline two important points? First, European military assets—not NATO assets—are often used to support American operations in the Indo-Pacific, and the American military really appreciates how we put our shoulder to the wheel. It is not the Americans only ever supporting Europe; we also help the Americans.

Secondly, last week, I and several hon. Members and noble Members were at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Brussels, where it was made clear that what will be presented at the Hague summit is what is actually needed for European defence rather than just GDP targets. May I also ask the Foreign Secretary to advise the Prime Minister that it will be important that he takes a position with the President of the United States that if those demands add up to more than 2.53% of GDP, our country will set itself on a path, within the time targets, to achieve those? \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Can I remind Members that if we are to get everybody in, shorter questions—and shortish answers, please—would be helpful? \p David Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman mentions the Indo-Pacific, and it is important that we remember AUKUS and our critical partnership with Australia and the United States in relation to that. He quite rightly mentioned defence spending, on which much has been said in this Chamber—and much, I am sure, will be said when we go to the United States. \p Chris McDonald: I thank the Foreign Secretary for a strong statement. He said that Ukraine’s security is our security. Does he agree that this is a fight for democracy where we need to tackle misinformation both at home and abroad, and where we need to maintain our steadfast commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that, because there is hybrid warfare taking place as we speak. Countries such as Moldova are at the forefront of it, with sabotage and constant attacks on its infrastructure and its internet services. This is hybrid warfare, and of course it is taking place against our own country, so he is absolutely right: this is not just a hard war and a hot war; it is a hybrid war, and we have to be vigilant. \p Adrian Ramsay: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. It is indeed important that we have cross-party support across this House, standing in solidarity with Ukraine and being clear that Ukraine must be front and centre of the peace talks that must take place, but it is deeply disturbing to hear some of the comments from President Trump, including the absurd claim that Zelensky is a dictator and the ridiculous suggestion that Ukraine started the war. Therefore, when the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister go to Washington later this week, will they make it clear to President Trump that Ukraine must be at the centre of these peace talks and that the Ukrainian people have an absolute right to self-determination? \p David Lammy: Yes. There must be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine. As I have said, we have seen very little sign that Putin is abandoning his goal of subjugating Ukraine. Russia has continued to escalate this war, including through deploying Democratic People’s Republic of Korea troops and through daily barbaric attacks on innocent Ukrainian civilians and their infrastructure and energy supplies. \p Josh Dean: On Saturday, I joined Ukrainian families and residents in Bishop’s Stortford to remember those who had lost their lives and suffered throughout this conflict, ahead of the third anniversary. This was a reminder that in my constituency and across the country, we stand firmly with the Ukrainian people. As we mark the third anniversary, will the Foreign Secretary reiterate to the Ukrainian families who have found safety in my constituency, and indeed to all Ukrainian people, that this Government will continue to advocate for Ukraine’s sovereignty and for it to be given a seat at the table right at the heart of any future negotiation? \p David Lammy: I know my hon. Friend’s constituency well, and I am very pleased to give his constituents that affirmation. \p Jim Allister: No Member of this House should be in any doubt as to who the aggressor is in this situation, who the dictator is, or who started this war. No one should give cover to the dictator who started this war. The Prime Minister has said that, if there is peace, he anticipates a post-peace situation where there will be British troops on the ground in Ukraine, with what he termed “a US backstop”. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the prospect of a US backstop would be greatly enhanced if the European nations began more thoroughly to shoulder the financial burden that has been shirked in recent years? \p David Lammy: Yes, I do. There was complacency in the post-cold war period across the European families, and at this Dispatch Box we have lamented the fact that the United Kingdom has fallen to 2.3% of GDP, so the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. This is the time to step up and to demonstrate peace with strength, and the Baltic nations are very clear about the responsibility at this time. \p Jonathan Hinder: Like the Foreign Secretary, I am incredibly proud of the role that the UK has played in supporting Ukraine, and  especially proud of the role that my constituents have played in welcoming Ukrainians into their homes and into our community, but if we are to stop Putin, Britain must get real on defence. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must now urgently rearm, well beyond the existing 2.5% target, so that, with our European allies, we can protect our precious democracies? \p David Lammy: As I said, we will set out further defence spending shortly. \p Claire Young: NATO countries bordering Russia are understandably stepping up their defences without waiting for others to take action. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the discussions he has had with those countries? \p David Lammy: I met the Polish Foreign Minister at the Munich security conference and Baltic colleagues to discuss those issues. The hon. Member is absolutely right that those countries have been aware of the threat for some time. Her question allows me to say that when we talk about security guarantees for Ukraine, it is important to recognise NATO’s eastern flank. When it comes to the effort to get US security guarantees, many countries on that flank would have to know that they were supported. That is why the US backstop is so important. \p Colum Eastwood: Last week, along with other Members of this House, I met Ukrainian parliamentarians at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Vienna. The opposition MPs from Ukraine made it clear that they do not support Donald Trump’s call for an election in Ukraine while they are defending against Russian aggression. In his conversations with the US Administration this week, will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that there is only one dictator in this conflict, and his name is Vladimir Putin? \p David Lammy: Yes, of course. \p Chris Law: On the third anniversary of Putin’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I welcome the United Nations having just passed a resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine. However, in the last 15 minutes—this will shock the House —it was opposed by Russia and the United States. It was said in the press that

“This isn’t appeasement by Trump. It’s a direct stab in the back.”

Will the Foreign Secretary condemn what has just happened in the United Nations, where the United States has joined Russia in not signing up to the resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine? \p David Lammy: We are proud to have co-sponsored the General Assembly resolution, proposed by Ukraine, in support of a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. It is in line with the UN charter. The UN voted for it, and we will stand forever with Ukraine. \p Andrew Lewin: Yesterday, Ukrainians in Welwyn Hatfield came together in sober recognition of the third anniversary of the Russian invasion. I pay tribute to them for their bravery and resilience, and for how they are going about rebuilding their lives as valuable members of our community.  I told them that in this House, I would speak the truth, and stand up for them as best I could. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we need to say loud and clear from the Dispatch Box that one person was the aggressor, one person is responsible for the death and destruction, and—we should say it emphatically—one person started this war, and his name is Vladimir Putin? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I was in Kyiv, I saw that close to President Zelensky’s office is an apartment block that was blown up a few weeks ago. A couple asleep in their bed were killed. That is the awfulness of this war. Of course, my hon. Friend will recall that when the Prime Minister visited, Putin sought to fire missiles into Ukraine. It is grim and unbelievable brutality, and of course we must continue to stand up to it. \p Wendy Chamberlain: In response to the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), the Foreign Secretary said that Russia does not respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. On his comments on the Ukraine defence contact group, the US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth says that the US wants to see

“a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine”,

but given the news that we have just heard about the UN resolution, how confident is the Foreign Secretary that the US will respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine? \p David Lammy: I am very pleased that the US has attempted to bring this horrendous war to an end. That does require conversations with Russia. Those are hard conversations, and I am not sure that the Russians are ready to properly negotiate, but I admire the attempt to try. It is important that Ukraine is at the table; it is important that Europe steps up with burden-sharing and increases its defence. Those are issues that we will discuss with President Trump in the coming days. \p Paul Davies: Online propaganda from the Kremlin has become a disturbing reality. Social media, especially platforms such as Facebook and X, have been flooded with the claim that Ukraine is solely responsible for the war—it is extraordinary. What measures are being taken to combat the propaganda being spread by Governments to blame the Ukrainian people for the conflict? \p David Lammy: Those are important issues that I know preoccupy my hon. Friends in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. They are looking further at those issues and at what more we can do. \p Robin Swann: The Prime Minister said this morning that Russia does not hold all the cards. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement of further sanctions. Will he work at national and international level to ensure that President Putin does not get a new hand that allows him to proceed with bluff, bluster and bullying that could bring the Ukrainian people to their knees—something that we have not seen to date? Will he assure the House that the Government stand resolutely with the people of Ukraine? \p David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why I met G7 Foreign Ministers, and we issued a joint statement on Ukraine 10 days ago. It is why I discussed this issue at the G20 in South Africa last week. I am proud of the work of our diplomats in the UN General Assembly today, where many countries have come together in support of Ukraine, with a resolution that had to be passed. \p Helen Maguire: Today of all days, we must remember that over 1 million people have been killed or wounded in Ukraine since the illegal invasion. I have just come from talking to a group of individuals who support Ukrainian veterans. Although they welcome the medical expertise that the UK has provided in Ukrainian military hospitals, there are also thousands of civilian casualties, so they ask that the UK provide medical expertise in civilian hospitals as well. Will the Foreign Secretary look into whether the UK can provide that support too? \p David Lammy: I am very pleased about the decisions that I and the Defence Secretary have made to support Ukrainian armed forces at this time with medical support. I am happy to look at the issues facing civilians, which of course we discuss in a pan-European context. The hon. Lady is right to raise those issues. \p Seamus Logan: Surely it cannot be right to leave those with no real care or concern for Europe’s wellbeing the sole voice in negotiating the future of Ukraine—and by extension the future of Europe. Will the Foreign Secretary convey, in his discussions with President Trump, the  point that Ukraine must be present at the table when negotiations take place, and will he convey the disgust of this House at the fact that the US voted alongside North Korea and Russia against the Ukrainian resolution at the UN today? \p David Lammy: We have been clear: nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. The Ukrainians must have a seat at the table; it is their destiny that is in the mix in any discussions that take place. \p Jim Shannon: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s strong words, commitment, strength and fortitude. I will always welcome the end to war, but I am unable to forget the mass murder of Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war by Russian armed forces during the fight for and occupation of the city of Bucha three days after the invasion started. To remind the House, girls as young as eight and women as old as 80 were raped; three Baptist church pastors were murdered; and nine children under the age of 18 were murdered. They were all put into a basement, had petrol poured over them and were burned alive. I and the people I represent want any deal to include the accountability of those who committed those dreadful, dreadful war crimes, and so many others that are still unknown. \p David Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the massacre at Bucha. I had the privilege of visiting Bucha and spending time with the community there—with families, victims and loved ones. The massacre was an horrendous act. It was criminal, barbaric and inhumane. He is right that we in this country have led on the issue of justice and accountability, and we will not let that go. \p Bridget Phillipson: With permission, I will make a statement updating the House on the Government’s work to deliver free breakfast clubs and give every child the best start in life. This is a Government who act on their principles, deliver on their promises and drive the change that the country needs—change that is felt in our villages, towns and cities; change that will help families with the cost of living; and change that lifts the life chances of our children across the country. Change begins and the biggest difference can be made during those early years of life, and on into primary school, when the possibilities still stretch out.

Our action is urgent. Far too many children growing up in this country are held back by their background and denied the opportunity to go on to live happy and healthy lives, with the bad luck of a tough start weighing down their life chances. I will not stand by while those children are let down, because I believe that background should not mean destiny. Every single child deserves the very best start in life. To achieve and thrive at school is the right of all children.

Our manifesto outlined the action a Labour Government would take, and now, not yet eight months on from the election, we are delivering change in early years, change in primary schools and change in our country. I am delighted to update the House today that I have confirmed more than 750 schools as early adopters of our free breakfast club scheme. That is a promise made, and a promise kept. I will always act to protect working families’ livelihoods for children and their parents. It is for them that we are working tirelessly to deliver change, and it is for them that we will introduce free breakfast clubs in every primary school in this country. That is what we said we would do in our manifesto, and it is exactly what we are doing now.

Evidence shows why this matters so much. When schools introduce breakfast clubs, behaviour improves, attendance increases and attainment grows. That is no surprise when we are giving children the gift of a calm, welcoming start to the day, filled with friends, fun and food. It is the foundation for success that every child needs. This is about parents as well as children. Our new breakfast clubs will save families up to £450 a year, putting money directly back into parents’ pockets. That is why we are moving ahead with such energy and urgency, for children and for parents.

We are working to cement the clubs in legislation through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Thousands of schools have applied to take part—an indication of overwhelming demand, and a spur to act. From this April, free breakfast clubs will begin to reach more than 180,000 children, and 70,000 pupils from schools in the most deprived parts of the country will be able to take part. Our early adopter schools are drawn from all kinds of places: cities and villages, north and south, east and west, affluent areas and more disadvantaged communities, big schools and smaller schools, mainstream schools and special schools for children with special educational needs and disabilities. They include schools that have had a club before and those that have not; schools in which parents have had  to pay for breakfast clubs in the past; and schools in which places are limited. That variety is key. It gives us a representative sample, so we can see what works, when, where, why and how, guided by the best evidence. That is how we will maximise the impact of the full roll-out, bringing the benefits to children across the entire country.

We are taking a new approach—the challenges we face demand it. Breakfast clubs are one part, but we are going further and delivering more change for children. We are a mission-led Government, bringing meaningful change that is felt in our towns, our cities, and our communities, and I am proud to be leading our mission across Government to break down the barriers to opportunity. In December the Prime Minister unveiled our plan for change, and within that plan lies a vital milestone: a record proportion of children starting school, ready to learn. That is crucial to closing the opportunity gap; all children arriving at school, ready to achieve and to thrive gets right to the heart of what it means to have the very best start in life.

I believe that delivering the best start in life is about families—parents and children. Breakfast clubs are one piece of the puzzle, but our action starts earlier in life, with great early education and childcare. It is something that I have spent many years in this House fighting for, but that our childcare system has denied families. There are areas underserved with childcare places yet overwhelmed with demand; additional hours are offered nationally, but they are unavailable to families locally. The Opposition’s failure to keep their promises is the reason their party suffered such an emphatic defeat at the last election. A promise made but not acted on is not a promise at all, and a pledge without a plan to deliver is meaningless. That is why this Government are committed to delivering the entitlements that parents were promised before the last election. As a result of this Government’s hard work in making that pledge a reality, families can now access 15 hours of Government-funded childcare a week from when their child is nine months old. From September, that will increase to 30 hours a week, matching the offer for three and four-year-olds.

This Government have matched the pledge with a plan—a promise now backed by funding. In the next financial year alone, we will invest more than £8 billion in early years entitlements, an increase of more than £2 billion. On top of that is a new £75 million expansion grant to support the sector to provide the extra places and staff needed. We will use those 30 hours a week to combine childcare with great early education, and to give children the very best start in life. I want to double down on support for those children who need it most, in the areas that need it most. That is why I introduced the biggest ever uplift to the early years pupil premium. Childcare delivers for parents too. Just like breakfast clubs, the entitlements give parents power, choice and freedom over their lives, enabling them to go back to work if that is what they want to do—work choices for parents; life chances for children. These are the steps we are taking and the promises we are keeping to support families.

I am determined to see the change through, but it is not a shot in the dark. The value of giving children the best start in life, and the power of spreading breakfast clubs across the country, is as clear as day and there for all to see if we know where to look. On the northern edge of St Helens sits Carr Mill primary school. Children at  Carr Mill can come in before the school day starts and eat breakfast with their friends in the school bistro. When they reach year 5, they are invited to become bistro leaders. Those young leaders help their peers to get a good breakfast, but they also learn about responsibility, caring for their classmates, and what it means to be part of a community. Parents see the change in their children, who are more confident and eager to go to school in the morning, and the younger ones look up to the bistro leaders.

It is not just the breakfast; it is the club too—helping children to settle, showing them that they belong in school, getting them ready to learn, and shaping not just the students of today but the citizens of tomorrow. It sets children up for success in school and in life, because that wider goal we are chasing of giving every child the best start in life means giving them the best start to their school day, each and every day, week after week, year after year. That is how we are breaking the link between background and success, and how we are delivering the change that parents voted for. That is how we are driving the change that the children of this country deserve. I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Neil O'Brien: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. The previous Government substantially expanded access to breakfast clubs in primary and secondary schools, and crated the holiday activities and food programme. The national school breakfast programme has been running since 2018, and 85% of schools now have a breakfast club, with one in eight having a taxpayer-funded breakfast club. In March 2023, the previous Government announced £289 million for the national wraparound childcare funding programme, some of which is being used to fund breakfast clubs. That was part of a much wider expansion of free childcare that saw spending on entitlement to free childcare more than double in real terms between 2010 and 2024.

I was struck by the comments made by Mark Russell from the Children’s Society during the evidence sessions for the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Given the resource constraints, he said taxpayer money should be focused on rolling out free breakfasts to a greater number of deprived secondary schools, rather than providing a universal offer in primary schools. He said:

“I would like to see secondary school children helped, and if the pot is limited, I would probably step back from universality and provide for those most in need.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 55, Q122.]

With that in mind, I want to draw attention to the uncertainty created by the Government’s refusal to commit to funding the existing free breakfast provision in secondary schools beyond next year, and likewise the holiday activities and food programme. A number of charities have called for Ministers to guarantee that funding beyond next year, and I join them in asking the Secretary of State to give that guarantee. Getting rid of the existing free breakfasts would mean a cut in provision for deprived children at secondary schools, so will the Secretary of State guarantee to continue them?

According to a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year:

“Based on the experience of the national school breakfast programme, the estimated annual cost today would be around £55 per pupil participating for food-only provision and double that (around £110) for a ‘traditional’ before-school breakfast club. Labour’s manifesto offers £315 million overall in 2028; this could be enough to fund all primary school pupils under a food-only model, or 60% of pupils if the party plumps for a traditional breakfast club with some childcare element.”

Will the Secretary of State respond to that point made by the IFS? Do the Government plan food-only provision? If not, how does she plan to close that funding gap?

Paul Bertram, headteacher at Buxworth primary school in Derbyshire, told Schools Week that he had to pull out of the pilot scheme as it left him with a £9,000 funding shortfall. The charity Magic Breakfast said:

“if it is expected that 100 per cent of people can access a traditional breakfast club setting, with the appropriate staffing, then the Government is many, many millions away from the budget that we would expect that would require.”

Will the Secretary of State say how many schools applied to be part of the pilot, but subsequently pulled out? A number of journalists have asked that question. How many of the schools chosen to take part in the pilot already have a breakfast club, and how many already have a free breakfast club? Looking at the first 100 on the list, 71 have a breakfast club and 13 have a free breakfast club, but what are the numbers overall? If pupils need to have a one-to-one teaching assistant, how will funding for that work?

Ministers say that the policy

“will save parents up to £450 a year”.

The Secretary of State said that again today, but Ministers used to use a figure of £400. To give £450 to all 4.5 million pupils in primary schools would cost over £2 billion a year. In contrast, the pilot will cost £33 million. Labour’s manifesto said the programme will spend £315 million by 2028, which would mean a spend of £70 per primary school child, not £450. Will the Secretary of State explain the discrepancy between the planned spend and the much larger benefits that Ministers are claiming?

Parents on lower wages are bearing the brunt of the £25 billion increase in national insurance; as the Office for Budget Responsibility and the IFS have pointed out, that increase will directly hit wages, which even the Chancellor has now acknowledged. The biggest losers from that tax increase are those earning less than £15,000 a year. People who are among those most affected by the £25 billion tax increase may not feel better off from the £315 million of planned spending, so it is vital that we are clear about what Ministers are really claiming and on what basis.

I mentioned that 85% of schools already have a breakfast club. The new requirement to offer free school breakfasts in all primary schools will interact with that existing provision in different ways. Many school breakfast clubs currently run for an hour on a paid-for basis, and I hope most will continue to provide at least the period they are providing now. However, if the breakfast club is provided for, say, an hour or more, the school will have to charge for the first 30 minutes of that hour, but not for the final 30 minutes, which is likely to give rise to considerable complexity. Will Ministers agree to report  on the length of time that clubs are running in these schools, and on any reduction that this change may inadvertently bring about?

Taxpayer-funded breakfasts for those who really need them are helpful, but there are a number of questions about Ministers’ plans and their claims about the scheme, so I look forward to the Secretary of State’s answers. \p Bridget Phillipson: The shadow Minister asks a number of questions, but at no point did he welcome the massive investment and the benefits that this provision will bring to children across our country, including in his own constituency—not a word of support. I hope when the breakfast club in his constituency opens, he might take time to visit that school and see the massive benefits being delivered to children and families.

Before I respond to the number of detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked, I note once again how disappointing it was that the Conservatives voted to block the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Let us remind ourselves what that would have meant. It would have completely stopped the roll-out of free breakfast clubs we are announcing today; they will be rolled out across England subject to the progress of the Bill. It would have stopped us limiting the number of branded uniform items that schools can demand, which again will save families hundreds of pounds at a time when we know that they are under real pressure. Most shamefully of all, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that it would have stopped dead some of the most far-reaching child protection measures in a generation, just so that the Conservatives could grab a cheap headline.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the national school breakfast programme and the investment there. That programme is an online platform from which schools can order food. It covers 75% of food only; it does not cover wider costs, and schools are required to contribute the remaining 25%, so there is a significant difference in what we are setting out. One in seven of the schools in the pilot scheme that we are announcing today have no before-school provision. The rest have a mix of paid-for provision or, in many cases, school breakfast clubs where caps are in place and the numbers are limited. The breakfast clubs we are introducing will be free and available to every child and every parent who seeks to take them up. That is why it is estimated that parents will save £450 a year.

When it comes to evidence of the roll-out, the hon. Gentleman has said on many occasions that he is interested in evidence-based policymaking. The evidence is very clear that the impact is greatest at primary school level, and we would think that he would recognise that.

The purpose behind the early adopters is not simply to demonstrate to parents the difference that a Labour Government are bringing and a real difference to children’s lives; they also allow us to test really effectively what works ahead of a full national roll-out. That is why we want to work with school leaders as part of this programme to ensure that all children are able to benefit from universal free breakfast clubs across our country, including children with SEND.

The Conservatives have no plan for education except preserving the tax breaks for students in private schools, whereas we have a plan to give every child the best start  in life. If they are going to spend the next five years defending their record, we will get on and deliver the change that this country voted for. We made a promise to the people of this country, and today we are delivering on the promise we made. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Education Committee. \p Helen Hayes: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement today. I welcome the news that St Luke’s Church of England primary school in my constituency will be one of the early adopters of a universal breakfast club under the programme.

All too often, children with special educational needs and disabilities are excluded from extracurricular activities, and it is the parents of children with SEND who often find it the hardest to access childcare. It is essential that children with SEND have equal access to breakfast clubs in both mainstream and specialist schools. What steps are being taken to ensure that that is the case, that schools have the capacity to provide specialist staff where needed and that any additional home-to-school transport costs, which are often essential in enabling children with SEND physically to access a breakfast club, will be met? \p Bridget Phillipson: Some 754 schools have been selected to take part in the early adopters scheme, of which 704 are mainstream schools and 50 are special schools and alternative provision settings. That is important, because we want to make sure that all children in time are able to benefit from the roll-out of breakfast clubs. We will work closely with schools and sector experts to develop the programme as we intend to roll it out. I really want to learn through the early adopter schools how we can best create a truly universal and inclusive breakfast school provision.

I recognise that delivering breakfast clubs may be particularly challenging for special and alternative provision schools. We have invited them to take part in the early adopters scheme so that we can make sure that, as we roll out across the country, including in mainstream schools, the needs of all children are properly catered for as part of the programme. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Munira Wilson: With three in 10 children growing up in poverty, any measure to tackle child hunger is to be welcomed to enable them to learn and flourish, so I congratulate the 750 schools selected as breakfast club early adopters. The learnings from those pilots will be absolutely critical as the Government seek to scale up the programme.

A number of questions that I have previously put to Ministers still stand, and I hope that the Secretary of State will address some of them. Many school leaders have raised concerns about the proposed funding rates, which are reportedly around 60p per child per day. If the pilots clearly show that those rates are insufficient, will Ministers commit to reviewing and increasing them? Schools simply cannot afford to make savings elsewhere, such as in teaching budgets.

Will Ministers review school food standards to ensure that breakfasts are specifically addressed, as the recent House of Lords report on childhood obesity recommended? What consideration has been given to how the 30 minutes of universal free childcare provision will interact with existing breakfast club provision? Most commuting parents need more than 30 minutes of childcare in the morning.

The Child Poverty Action Group has highlighted that breakfast clubs will probably secure only around 40% take-up. The most vulnerable children, especially those in temporary accommodation who travel long distances, may not make it to school in time for breakfast. The Children’s Society has argued, as have the Liberal Democrats, that where money is scarce, we should target resources at those who most need them. As such, why will the Government not prioritise expanding eligibility for free school meals—a hot, healthy meal in the middle of the day when children are guaranteed to be in school —so that all children in poverty, whether in primary or secondary, are being fed? Is it not high time that Ministers introduced automatic enrolment into free school meals for all children?

Finally, on the Secretary of State’s childcare announcements, can she confirm how much of that money will go into plugging the gap left by the rise in employer national insurance contributions, which will put significant pressure on providers and push up costs for parents? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. Turning first to the question of funding, there has sadly been some misunderstanding about the funding rates, so I will set those out for the benefit of the House. In the summer term, funding will be paid in two parts: an up-front, one-off payment of £500 to cover initial set-up costs and, alongside that, a lump sum payment of £1,099 to cover fixed staffing costs for the summer term. That is in addition to the per pupil funding rates that exist in both mainstream and specialist provision; of course, rates will be higher in special schools, recognising the additional needs and staffing requirements that exist there. Schools will receive support to manage the requirements of the scheme, and will be provided with opportunities to learn from one another.

On food standards, we always seek to keep all those areas under review. We want to make sure that all the food served in our schools is healthy and nutritious, so that children are well fed and ready to learn. The school food statutory guidance, which regulates the food and drink provided in schools, already applies to breakfast. We want to ensure that healthy meals are offered as part of breakfast clubs, and we will continue to keep these areas under review.

The hon. Lady is right to ask about existing wraparound provision. We expect the two offers to be complementary; schools will be able to provide a paid-for offer alongside the 30 minutes of childcare and food through the universal offer. I note her concerns about child poverty, and strongly agree that there is a need for further action to tackle the shocking rates of child poverty we see in our country. That is why, together with the Work and Pensions Secretary, we are leading work across Government as part of the child poverty taskforce. We look forward to setting out further findings from that work in due course, including to this House. We are considering a   range of measures and ways in which we can support children out of poverty—the shocking legacy left behind by the last Conservative Government.

The hon. Lady asks about the additional investment going into the sector. The big investment that we are putting into the early years pupil premium and the expansion grant will be crucial to providing the support that the sector needs to deliver the places and staffing required ahead of September. I look forward to continuing to work with her to make sure we get this right. \p Jennifer Craft: I warmly welcome today’s announcement of the breakfast club pilot areas, including the two schools in my constituency, which will make a massive difference to the lives of many working families. However, on the subject of breakfast clubs, as an SEN parent I would like to issue the plea, “Don’t you forget about me.” Too often, SEN parents and their children find that policy moves ahead without them, and there is a risk that we could be slightly overlooked in this area. What measures has the Secretary of State put in place to make sure that disabled children and those with additional needs can fully take part in breakfast clubs? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important area. She is right that breakfast clubs must be fully inclusive and take account of the needs of all children, including children with SEND. That is why, as part of this process, we have announced 50 special and AP schools that will be taking part in the early adopters scheme. They will receive a higher funding rate of £3.23 a pupil, in addition to support for set-up costs and termly payments. I recognise the need to ensure that breakfast clubs operating in mainstream schools can cater to the needs of a wide range of children. That is why we are developing a toolkit for providers of wraparound care, including breakfast clubs, so that the provision that is put in place is inclusive for all children. \p Simon Hoare: The Secretary of State makes a compelling argument on the merits of breakfast for many of our young children and the benefits that it has for learning. Can she say a word or two on two points? First, will she answer the question being raised in the secondary sector about future funding beyond the agreed time period? Secondly, what incentives can she put in place to encourage schools to procure foodstuffs that are produced locally? That would give good support to our local food producers and our farmers. \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of supporting local providers where that is possible and the fantastic contribution of British food and wider produce. I just observe that it is my understanding that his constituency is set to benefit from the early adopters scheme. I hope that he will be able to see the fantastic benefit that it will bring to children and families in his constituency. The national school breakfast programme will continue for the next year, but that covers only 75% of food. Schools are required to fund the additional 25% of costs. Our new breakfast clubs will be about more than just food; they will be about the wider opportunities that children in primary school will have at the start of the school day, and the costs will cover staffing, delivery and food. \p Darren Paffey: I warmly welcome this statement and the firm actions that my right hon. Friend is taking to make sure that we can level the playing field and boost attendance and attainment for children in Southampton Itchen and beyond. I am particularly delighted that St John’s primary and nursery school will get this investment from the Government as part of the early adopters programme. Will the Secretary of State detail what conversations she is having about how the monitoring will work, so that the national roll-out can be based on the best evidence? Ahead of perhaps 749 other invitations, may I invite her to visit St John’s to see the breakfast club in action? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am delighted to hear about the good news for St John’s. I am sure that the Minister for Early Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), and I will receive lots of invitations to visit fantastic breakfast clubs across our country. We will do our best to service those invitations, but with more than 750, it might be a bit of a stretch. We will try our very best. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) is right to identify the need to develop learning and understanding about what works across the early adopters. That is why the schools taking part in this pilot cover a range of settings and serve communities with a range of different needs—both rural and urban—and of different kinds, so that we can ensure a fully representative sample ahead of full roll-out. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement. As a child brought up on free milk and free school meals, I very much welcome and support the Government’s plans to set up universal breakfast clubs in all primary schools. However, concerns are reported among headteachers, unions and charities that the plans will not be properly funded and will lack the flexibility required to be successful. This weekend, the independent publication Schools Week highlighted how some headteachers in primary schools, while enthusiastic about the aims, refused to take part in the early adopters pilot scheme as volunteer schools, because only 60p was being provided by the Government per pupil. The budgets of schools in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, as well as those across the country, are already stretched beyond breaking point. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that adequate funding for healthy foods, as well as the necessary flexibilities, will be provided to all primary schools for the breakfast clubs? Will she guarantee that schools will not be left out of pocket? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am confident that the funding being made available to schools will be sufficient to deliver on this programme. The hon. Gentleman quotes the daily per pupil funding rate, but alongside that, as I set out earlier, there will be start-up costs, as well as lump-sum payments to cover the costs of running breakfast clubs, alongside a higher daily funding rate for special schools and a higher daily funding rate based on the proportion of FSM6 pupils at the school. \p Sureena Brackenridge: First, my congratulations go to Pool Hayes primary school in Willenhall for being one of the 750 early adopters. Will the Secretary of State outline how the free universal roll-out of breakfast clubs, alongside  capping the number of branded items of uniform and expanding funded childcare, will help families in Wolverhampton North East with the cost of living? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency is part of the early adopters programme. Our breakfast clubs scheme is all about making sure that children get a great start to their school day—a welcoming space that provides them with valuable opportunities to play, learn and socialise. However, as she identifies, the measures we are setting out to the House today on the early adopters scheme, as well as the measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, will also make a big difference to parents. They will put more money back into their pockets by limiting the costs of school uniform and providing more support around breakfast clubs. That is the difference a Labour Government make. \p Jim Shannon: I welcome very much the Secretary of State’s commitment to the scheme. I know it is an England scheme, but we have a similar scheme in Northern Ireland. Every one of us as MPs has attended Kellogg’s events in the House, and we understand the commitment that Kellogg’s can make. Has the Secretary of State considered whether other companies could do similar to what Kellogg’s does in relation to schools? For instance, bakeries and those who make jam or marmalade could do something. Indeed, we know that the superstores dump their food out or dispose of it within 24 hours. That is good food going to waste. There might be better ways. Perhaps she can help us to achieve that. \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is always more that we can do, and I note that many companies already involve themselves in important charitable works in this area. He names one company. It would be remiss of me, as a north-east MP, not to give a special plug to Greggs, which does fantastic work in this space, too. Alongside the national roll-out of breakfast clubs that we intend to deliver, we continue to believe that there is an important role for organisations such as Magic Breakfast, Greggs and Kellogg’s in supporting schools and children. \p Mark Sewards: I welcome the introduction of free breakfast clubs for all primary schools, including Robin Hood primary school in Leeds South West and Morley. Such clubs provide £450 of savings to parents and extra childcare, and we know that children should not have to start the day hungry. What can the Secretary of State tell the primary schools in my constituency about the full roll-out? When can they expect to see breakfast clubs in their schools? \p Bridget Phillipson: We intend to deliver the roll-out as soon as possible, because we know it is urgent, and we know the difference it will make to children’s lives. Free universal breakfast clubs will also mean that every primary school child, no matter their circumstances, is well prepared to learn. That is why we believe in that important provision being universal and available to all children. Today is an important step forward, and Robin Hood primary school will be an important part of how we develop and understand how to roll out the programme nationally. \p Florence Eshalomi: I agree with the Secretary of State that every single child deserves the best start in life, but if we are honest, we know that not every child has that. This programme will make such a big difference to so many children, including children at Van Gogh primary school, Henry Fawcett primary school and Crawford primary school in my constituency. The Secretary of State is always welcome to come and visit any of those three.

We know that this programme will make a big difference for many parents, too. One of the other pushes behind the free breakfast clubs is that they are really good for children’s attainment and attendance. The early adopters start in April. What is the timeline for reviewing them, especially in light of some of the funding concerns that other Members have raised? \p Bridget Phillipson: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the need to ensure that every child has the best start in life. I am grateful for her generous invitation, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Early Education Minister and I will consider it along with, no doubt, a great many other invitations.

We intend to test and learn as we go along to ensure that the scheme is being rolled out effectively. This is a crucial part of ensuring that all children have opportunities at the start of the school day to play, to learn, to socialise and to benefit from that softer start. My hon. Friend was right to mention evidence from the Education Endowment Foundation which demonstrates the impact of breakfast clubs on attendance, attainment and behaviour, affecting not just the children who benefit but the whole school community. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Stories of children arriving for lessons hungry are far too common in my constituency and across the country, and the issue was exacerbated by the massive rise in child poverty under the last Government. Because of the actions of this Labour Government, however, my constituency will see pilots in Cornholme junior, infant and nursery school, Scout Road academy, Elland Church of England junior, infant and nursery school, and Luddenden Church of England school. Will the Minister confirm that the child poverty strategy, when it is delivered, will build on that and make the scandal of children missing meals a thing of the past? \p Bridget Phillipson: It is a privilege to co-chair the child poverty taskforce with my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary. We have heard evidence across the country as a result of visits to Northern Ireland and Scotland—and will visit Wales shortly—to understand the challenges faced by so many families throughout the United Kingdom, and what is required to bring down the number of children growing up in poverty. We are considering a range of measures because of the dreadful record left by the Conservative Government: we have seen countless thousands of children grow up in avoidable poverty. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, can shake his head all he likes, but that is a fact. \p Peter Dowd: I welcome the statement, and it will also be welcomed by the families of children attending St Monica’s Catholic primary school and King’s Lander primary academy. We look forward to  the extension and expansion of my right hon. Friend’s proposals. Does she agree that they are food for thought in the most literal and practical sense of the term? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am delighted to hear about the schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency that are taking part in the scheme. They will play a crucial role in how we find the most effective way of delivering this on a national basis. I believe it is essential for all children to arrive at school ready to learn, with full bellies and hungry minds. \p Nesil Caliskan: Parents and teachers in my constituency will welcome the statement, as will, in particular, Monteagle and Richard Alibon primary schools, which are part of the early roll-out. The Secretary of State referred briefly to the evidence-based relationship between those who attend breakfast clubs and attainment; that is particularly important in my constituency, where 19% of children are frequently absent. Can she give us some more details about the evidence of a link between attendance at breakfast clubs and long-term school attendance? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the significant challenges relating to attendance. Breakfast clubs are an important part of support for children in respect of behaviour, attendance and attainment, and the evidence is very clear in that regard. I pay tribute to the school leaders and staff who will be involved in this important endeavour to support children at the start of the school day: their efforts will allow us to effectively roll out a national scheme that will benefit children the length and breadth of our country, and I am grateful for their contribution. \p Matt Rodda: I thank the Secretary of State for her important policy announcement, and I thank her in particular for the investment in Caversham Park and St Anne’s Catholic primary schools in my constituency. Can she give any further details of the evaluation of the programme over time? \p Bridget Phillipson: We will update the House to ensure that Members are aware of the continuation of the roll-out and its progress, but also so that we can learn how it is progressing as quickly and effectively as possible. I am delighted to hear about the schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency. \p Perran Moon: Gwinear Community primary school is one of the 750 early adopters, and I am extremely pleased that they have joined in. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is part of an overall strategy to ensure that all children can gain access to the education that they deserve—a strategy that has been profoundly missing for the last 14 years? \p Bridget Phillipson: As my hon. Friend says, breakfast clubs are an important part of ensuring that all children are set up to succeed and every child has the best start in life, but we need to go much further, and, indeed, we are doing so as a Labour Government. We are seeking to break the link between background and success, so that more children than ever—a record proportion—are school-ready at the age of five. As we all know, the evidence points to the fact that children who slip behind at that crucial moment suffer later in life, and I want to ensure that every child in the country has the chance to get on. \p Rachel Hopkins: I am delighted that Denbigh primary school and Someries infant school are two of the first schools to benefit from Labour’s universal free breakfast clubs. We know that a balanced, nutritious breakfast will set children up for the school day and improve attendance and attainment. Does the Secretary of State agree that Labour’s delivery on its manifesto commitment, through our plan for change, is clear evidence that we are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and ensuring that all children have the best chance in life? \p Bridget Phillipson: I do agree with my hon. Friend. The need for action is urgent. We know that far too many children are not achieving all that they can, and are held back by virtue of their backgrounds. We are determined to turn that around, and the announcement I have made today shows the determination of this Labour Government to ensure that background is no barrier to success. I am delighted that we have made such rapid progress, with more than 750 early adopters from April. \p Adam Thompson: I welcome the statement, and I am very glad that Chaucer infant and nursery school in my constituency signed up to the early adopters scheme. When I had the great privilege of visiting the school recently, Miss Dawley gave me an excellent tour and I had a fantastic discussion with the smart school council about its priorities for our community. Free breakfast clubs will provide a real financial boost for families in my constituency, who have struggled greatly as a result of the cost of living crisis. Will the Secretary of State say more about how they will improve the opportunities available to children in Erewash? \p Bridget Phillipson: I send my best wishes to Miss Dawley and to the whole school community. They are clearly doing fantastic work to support children in my hon. Friend’s area. Of course breakfast clubs in primary schools bring benefits to parents at the start of the school day, giving them choices and flexibility at work, but, critically, this is about boosting children’s life chances. The evidence is very clear about the impact on attendance, behaviour and attainment. This is a crucial part of ensuring that background is no barrier to getting on in life. \p Tulip Siddiq: The Secretary of State will be well aware of the impact of covid on the wellbeing and attainment of children who are now at primary school, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This welcome intervention will make a massive difference to that covid cohort, but may I press the Secretary of State on the next steps for them, in terms of attainment but also mental health? What is her Department doing to ensure that there is more mental health provision, especially in primary schools? \p Bridget Phillipson: I think we all recognise, both as constituency Members and from the work that we see taking place across the country, the serious impact of the pandemic on young people and their mental health and the long waiting lists for specialist support from child and adolescent mental health services. I am working closely with the Health Secretary to ensure that we roll  out more mental health support throughout our schools so that children have access to the support that they need at the earliest possible point. \p Alex Baker: I am delighted that four schools in my constituency are taking part in the scheme—The Ferns primary academy and Farnborough Grange nursery/infant community school in Farnborough, and St Joseph’s Catholic primary school in Aldershot. What is my right hon. Friend’s message to parents in my constituency who are eager for their children’s school to join the scheme so that they can benefit from Labour’s plan for change in Aldershot and Farnborough? \p Bridget Phillipson: My message to parents in Aldershot and across our country is that this Labour Government are on their side and delivering better work choices for them, and more support for their children at the start of the school day, when it comes to breakfast clubs and the early adopters scheme. We are also taking action to cut the cost of school uniforms—an area that I know many parents find a real pressure—and expanding childcare and early years entitlement, so that parents across our country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, are able to take up the places that have been promised. \p Alistair Strathern: As a former teacher and local authority children’s lead, I got to see at first hand the transformative impact that breakfast clubs can have in driving up attendance, attainment and young people’s wellbeing, so I am delighted that not one, not two, but three local schools will benefit from the Government’s early adopters scheme. As excited as I am for primary-age pupils at Meppershall, Shefford lower and Etonbury academy in Stotfold, I want to make sure that even more can benefit. How will the Government make sure that we learn the lessons of the pilots as quickly as possible, so that every pupil in my constituency and across the country who is eligible for the commitment can benefit from it? \p Bridget Phillipson: The schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency will play an important role in determining how we can roll out this commitment right across our country. Of course, the early adopters in his community will make a really meaningful difference to parents and children, but they will also give us the opportunity to test and learn as we go and, crucially, to demonstrate the impact of a universal breakfast club offer. We know that that is the way we can make sure that we reach some of the families that might find it more difficult to access such provision, because it is a less stigmatising way of reaching those in greatest need. \p Pippa Heylings: I thank and congratulate the headteachers and staff at Meldreth, Great Wilbraham and Stapleford primary schools in my constituency. Will the Minister explain to them how important it is that the learning that takes place in those schools will ensure the roll-out of breakfast clubs to all schools in my constituency and across the country? \p Bridget Phillipson: I pay tribute to the schools in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and to the workforce there, for the fantastic efforts that they have made in order to take part in this scheme. I look forward to seeing the impact it has in schools in her community and in  constituencies across the country, so that we can make sure that when we roll out this scheme nationwide, we do so on the basis of the best available evidence, taken from a range of different contexts in different constituencies across England. \p Josh Simons: As a newly elected Member of this place, I try to visit a school in my constituency every week. Time and again, parents tell me, as they did last week at Hindley All Saints primary, that having a child in this country is too expensive and too exhausting, which is why I really welcome the programme that the Secretary of State has set out today. In a few weeks’ time, I am hosting a coffee morning at the family hub in Hindley, where parents are coming to discuss the issues that they face, particularly dads, who often do not show up to these things. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that she will tightly monitor the timeline for rolling out this fantastic programme beyond the early adopters and to other schools that will benefit, including those in my constituency? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work in his community to support families. He is right to suggest that all parents experience challenges at different points. Being a parent is a wonderful job, but it can also be a very challenging job at times, and the Government are determined to make sure that support is always available to families. We want to ensure that as we roll out this programme across the country as quickly as we can, we learn the lessons about what works in different parts of our country. I give my hon. Friend my commitment that the action that we are taking as a Government will benefit families right across his constituency. We are taking action on school uniform costs, rolling out childcare and early years entitlements, and making sure that children have more early and timely access to support in areas like SEND. \p Richard Quigley: Does my right hon. Friend think that a breakfast club might have helped the attendance on the Opposition Benches and, indeed, the Conservatives’ grasp of basic maths? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Barton primary school in my constituency of Isle of Wight West has taken an important step forward in improving the outcomes for all its pupils, and that this is one of the many important first steps that she is taking to fix an education system that has been ruined by the previous Government? \p Bridget Phillipson: Attendance has been a bit slim on the Opposition Benches this afternoon. In my response to the shadow Minister, I said that one would think that Members from across the House would welcome the difference that breakfast clubs will make to communities the length and breadth of our country, because they have been selected in a range of different constituencies to ensure that we learn from what is effective and what works. I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency will be part of this scheme. The work that school leaders, teachers and staff will carry out in this important endeavour will allow us to roll out breakfast clubs, making a real difference to children across our country. \p Lewis Atkinson: I know that my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Secretary of State, is personally committed to delivering the best start to life for children in Sunderland, and I warmly welcome the fact that the Richard Avenue,  Hudson Road, St Joseph’s and Dame Dorothy schools in my constituency have been announced as early adopters. Will she say a little bit about regional variation in the availability of early years staff, which, as she knows, is a particular challenge in our city? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend is right to identify the variation that exists across our country, including when it comes to early years places and provision. We have almost doubled the early years pupil premium to make sure that providers are supported to create places in communities that are in greatest need, but where places do not currently exist in the way that we would wish.

When it comes to the staffing of breakfast clubs, I am delighted that schools in Sunderland Central will benefit. It will be for schools to determine how best to use the funding to staff breakfast clubs, and there is no expectation that it should be carried out by teachers. Existing breakfast clubs use a mixture of provision, which will continue, and the early adopters will allow us to test and learn, and to strengthen delivery, as part of a national roll-out. \p Julie Minns: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for giving families in Carlisle not one, not two, but seven reasons to be cheerful today. Those seven reasons are the schools of Yewdale, Inglewood, Blackford, Hallbankgate, Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Castle Carrock and Brook Street. These seven schools represent the full breadth, potential and diversity of Carlisle and north Cumbria, from the inner-city school of Brook Street, where many families have English as a second language and where opportunity is all too often denied to the children, to village schools such as Castle Carrick and Hallbankgate, where dropping off at school time can mean that parents cannot take advantage of the opportunities that exist in the city. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the opportunity that will be unlocked for parents as a result of today’s announcement? \p Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that the early adopters scheme covers schools serving a wide range of settings and communities. We have sought to ensure that there is a representative sample—large and small—of those serving communities with higher levels of deprivation and those with lower levels. The early adopters scheme that we are introducing will have real benefits for parents in Carlisle, including by offering the flexibility at the start of the school day to drop off children a bit earlier, and to take on more hours at work or to get to work. The scheme will make a difference to children’s life chances too, because the evidence is so clear that a softer start to the school day makes a big difference to children’s attendance, their behaviour and, crucially, their attainment at school. \p Alice Macdonald: I welcome today’s announcement, and I am very pleased to see that St Williams primary and Kinsale infant school in my constituency of Norwich North will be among those that benefit from the early adopters programme—they are two of the 12 schools in Norfolk that will benefit. Will the Secretary of State expand on the “test and learn” principle? As we feed that in nationally, how will we feed it back to schools on an ongoing basis so that they can make improvements, and are there opportunities for schools to join up locally in areas such as procurement? \p Bridget Phillipson: We will provide the opportunities that my hon. Friend outlines to ensure that schools work with one another to develop best practice, to learn from what works in similar settings, and to make sure that breakfast clubs in those schools are as effective and accessible as they can be. We know that breakfast clubs make a really big difference to children and their life chances, and I am delighted that the Government have been able to move so rapidly in starting the roll-out across our country. \p Alison Hume: It is shameful that after the last Labour Government lifted 1.1 million children out of poverty, years of neglect by Conservative Governments saw an increasing number of children going to school hungry, which limits their learning and life chances. I warmly welcome the announcement that four schools in my constituency will be able to offer a free breakfast club from April: Ruswarp and Fylingdales, as well as St Peter’s and St George’s over in Scarborough. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these breakfast clubs show how this Government are not only supporting working parents, but delivering on our promise to tackle child poverty? \p Bridget Phillipson: Opposition Members never like to have it pointed out to them that on their watch we saw rising levels of child poverty in our country, which have scarred the life chances of a generation and have left families struggling. As a Labour Government, we are determined to make a difference and to ensure that background is no barrier to getting on in life. I am grateful that my hon. Friend is such a champion for her constituents in making sure that where people are from does not determine everything they can go on to achieve. The fact that we are delivering on our commitments, not even eight months into this Labour Government, demonstrates the difference that voting Labour makes. \p Sojan Joseph: I welcome this announcement, under which my constituents in Ashford will benefit from free breakfast clubs in three schools: Downs View infants school, Kingsnorth primary school and Chilmington primary school. Giving children a chance to settle down and start their day at a club with friends will have a positive long-term impact on their mental health. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this needs to be rolled out to every primary school as soon as possible? \p Bridget Phillipson: I agree, and we will do so as quickly as we can. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important benefits that breakfast clubs deliver by enabling children to socialise and play at the start of the school day. I have seen so many fantastic examples of breakfast clubs already in operation that make such a profound difference to children by giving them a chance to spend time with friends, play and learn ahead of starting the school day, as well as the crucial boost that having a healthy breakfast delivers. \p Andrew Cooper: I am delighted that five schools in my constituency—Hartford Manor, Over Hall, Winsford High Street, Victoria Road and St Joseph’s—will be among the first to offer breakfast clubs. I pay tribute to the leaders of those schools, who, by putting forward their schools, will ensure that children  in my area start the day ready to learn. The evidence suggests that this will improve attainment, increase attendance and enhance wellbeing, while boosting those children’s overall life chances. To ensure that all children can benefit from free breakfast clubs, can my right hon. Friend tell me what steps are being taken to ensure that breakfast clubs are inclusive and accessible for children with SEND? \p Bridget Phillipson: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the school leaders in his community, who will be a part—a very important part—of our early adopters scheme. I thank them for their contribution. He is right to highlight the important need for all breakfast clubs to be inclusive, including for children with SEND, which is why, through this process, we will be able to learn from what works. It is also why, alongside announcements about breakfast clubs in mainstream schools, we are announcing specialist provision—alternative provision schools will be a part of this—so that we can learn from the best practice that exists in the specialist sector and ensure that mainstream schools can also develop it. \p Tom Collins: There is no doubt that this Government’s introduction of free breakfast clubs will be transformative for many families. Worcester has always been a pioneering city, and as a city that trains teachers, we are a hub for education, so I am particularly pleased at today’s announcement that no fewer than three of our local schools—Oasis, Red Hill and Riversides—have been selected as early adopters of breakfast clubs. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on how this pilot contributes to ending poverty and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to thrive, achieve and succeed? \p Bridget Phillipson: The children and families at my hon. Friend’s schools in Worcester will benefit directly from the early adopters programme, but they will also be an important part of how we roll out this scheme nationwide, allowing us to develop best practice. I pay tribute to the schools and their leaders in his community for taking part in the scheme. He is absolutely right that we want to ensure that all children are set up to succeed at the start of the school day, so that they can achieve, thrive and succeed in every way possible. \p Jim Dickson: Parents and families of children at Knockhall primary school in Greenhithe in my constituency will be delighted to hear that it is a breakfast club early adopter. This will ensure that pupils start their day well fed and ready to learn, and it will save families money. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about how the learning, nutritional and cost-of-living benefits will be evaluated? \p Bridget Phillipson: Through the early adopters programme, schools will be able to take part in a peer-to-peer support network, so that they can work together to share expertise and approaches at a regional level, which will be crucial to the work we take forward on the national roll-out. The school in my hon. Friend’s constituency will not just play a role in supporting families locally; it will be an essential part of how we learn what works and what is most effective. We want to ensure that best practice is spread across the country as we roll out breakfast clubs nationwide. \p David Baines: I am delighted that three schools in my constituency—Ashurst primary, Garswood primary and PACE—are part of this initial roll-out, and I am delighted for them. I was also delighted to hear Carr Mill primary school in my constituency get a mention by the Secretary of State in her statement. I congratulate Mr Maley, the headteacher, and all the staff on the outstanding work they are clearly already doing—I know they are doing it, because I used to work there, and it is a great school.

Like many Members, I have already been contacted today by other families and schools to ask when they can be part of this scheme. Can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that the Government will work as quickly as possible to roll it out to all primary schools? Can she also assure my constituents who are concerned about school funding that schools will be properly resourced to deliver this, as well as everything else they have to do? \p Bridget Phillipson: I can say to my hon. Friend’s constituents and those across St Helens that we will ensure that schools have the resources they need to deliver the roll-out of breakfast clubs, both for early adopters and beyond. As we get this initial phase under way, it is essential that we learn what works ahead of the national roll-out. We are determined to roll out breakfast clubs nationwide as quickly as possible, but the fact that we can announce the early adopters scheme starting from April demonstrates the difference that a Labour Government make. \p Luke Myer: I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I cannot tell her how delighted I am that four schools in my constituency, with over 1,300 children, will be early adopters under this scheme. I pay tribute to the leaders of Skelton primary, Lockwood primary, Pennyman primary and St Bernadette’s primary for their leadership. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, as far as children of working families are concerned, this Government are on their side and focused on making sure they have the best start in life and the best start to the school day? \p Bridget Phillipson: I am delighted that four schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency are taking part, and I look forward to all primary schools across Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland benefiting from the roll-out of breakfast clubs across our country. This Labour Government are on the side of working parents, putting more money back into parents’ pockets, supporting parents at the start of the school day and cutting the costs of the school day. That is the difference that a Labour Government bring, and that is the difference that electing my hon. Friend to this place brings. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. \p Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I should declare a non-pecuniary interest as a freeman of the City of London. A constituent has raised with me the concern that the City of London is seeking by means of a private Bill—the City of London (Markets) Bill—the ability to sell and redevelop without replacement the historic meat market of Smithfield and the fish market of Billingsgate. A petition against this proposal with many hundreds of signatures has been denied an audience and blocked by the corporation on the grounds that the petitioners do not have a direct interest in the proposed legislation. Smithfield and Billingsgate have for centuries provided meat and fish that is consumed throughout the country, and it is therefore fair to argue that every citizen of the United Kingdom has a direct interest in these markets, for which the corporation has acquired and prepared alternative sites that it is now seeking to abandon. My question to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is: is it correct, proper and orderly that the petition against this Bill should not be heard? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the right hon. Member for giving prior notice of his point of order. The right of petitioners to be heard before a Committee on a private Bill is not a matter for the Chair. None the less, he has put his point on the record, and hon. Members who wish to object to the Bill will have an opportunity to do so when it returns to the Floor of the House on Report. \p Perran Moon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today is the third anniversary of the start of the war in Ukraine. During the Ukraine statement, several Members were asking where certain other Members were for that vital debate. Up to now, the House has been rock solid in its overwhelming support for Ukraine. It may interest Madam Deputy Speaker to know that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is not actually in the United States, and he is not in Clacton-on-Sea. He is 290 miles away, in my constituency, holding a rally. Should he not have asked me first? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I assume he has notified the hon. Member to whom he is referring. \p Perran Moon: indicated assent. \p Caroline Nokes: The document called “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” deals with this matter. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on a purely private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. That guidance also states that failing to do so is regarded by colleagues as “very discourteous”. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee \p UNKNOWN: “(1) Within two years of the day on which this Act is commenced, the Treasury must have completed a transfer of the responsibility of the management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government.

(2) The Treasury may by regulations make provision about the transfer of the responsibility of the management of the Crown Estate in Wales relating to reserved measures as it considers necessary or expedient, including—

(a) in the interests of defence or national security,

(b) in connection with maintaining and developing telecommunications and wireless telegraphy, and

(c) in connection with maintaining and developing the transmission or distribution of electricity or the provision or use of electricity interconnectors.

(3) The Treasury must by regulations make provision to ensure that the employment of any person in Crown employment is not adversely affected by the transfer of responsibility under this section.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsections (2) and (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Llinos Medi.)

This new clause places a duty on the Treasury to transfer management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government within two years of the commencement of the Act and take measures by resolution to secure arrangements for reserved matters such as defence and national security, telecommunications, and the national grid, and to ensure that employees of the Crown Estate are not adversely affected by the transfer.

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Llinos Medi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Caroline Nokes: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Marine Spatial Planning: coordination—

“In relation to any decisions made about marine spatial priorities, the Crown Estate must—

(a) ensure that the decisions are coordinated with the priorities of the Marine Maritime Organisation, and

(b) consult any communities or industries impacted by the plans, including fishing communities.”

Marine plans guide marine use and regulation for sustainable development, balancing the environment, economy, and society. This new clause ensures the Crown Estate collaborates with DEFRA's Marine Spatial Prioritisation through the MMO, using its expertise to inform decisions, preventing conflicts of interest from its new borrowing and investment powers.

New clause 3—Sustainable development: community benefits—

“(1) Before making any investment decision, the Commissioners must assess—

(a) plans for community benefits for local communities, and

(b) plans for community benefits for coastal communities of offshore activities.

(2) In section 3(1) of the Crown Estate Act 1961, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Commissioners must transfer at least 5 per cent of all net profit generated from the Crown Estate’s activities to local communities impacted by those activities.’”

This new clause would require the Commissioners to ensure their activities benefit local communities, including coastal communities, and that 5% of any profits would be transferred to local communities.

New clause 4—Devolution of Crown Estate powers to Wales—

“(1) The Crown Estate Act 1961 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 7 (powers of Minister of Works in Regent’s Park) insert—

‘7A Commissioners’ functions in Wales

(1) The Treasury must set out a scheme to transfer all the existing Welsh functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners (“the Commissioners”) to the Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers.

(2) The existing Welsh functions under subsection (1) are the Commissioners’ functions relating to the part of the Crown Estate that, immediately before the transfer date, consists of—

(a) property, rights or interests in land in Wales, and

(b) rights in relation to the Welsh zone.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations set a date to implement the scheme under subsection (1) to the transfer of functions to the Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’”

This new clause would require the Treasury to devolve Welsh functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers.

New clause 5—Limit on the disposal of assets—

“After section 3 of the Crown Estate Act 1961, insert—

‘3A Limit on the disposal of assets

(1) The Commissioners must inform the Treasury if the disposal of assets of the Crown Estate will be of a value totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets in a single year.

(2) The Treasury must approve of any disposal of assets above the threshold in subsection (1) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report before Parliament within 28 days of being notified by the Commissioners.’”

This new clause requires the Crown Estate Commissioners to notify and seek HM Treasury approval for the disposal of assets totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets.

New clause 6—Partnership agreement: the Crown Estate and Great British Energy—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy.”

This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy.

Amendment 1, clause 1, page 1, line 26, at end insert—

“(3) The Treasury must by regulations limit borrowing to a net debt to asset value ratio of no more than 25 per cent.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would limit the amount the Commissioners may borrow by regulations.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 26, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must limit borrowing by the Crown Estate under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument, and these regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(4) The first set of regulations made under subsection (3) must limit borrowing to a net debt to asset value ratio of no more than 25 per cent.”

This amendment would limit the amount the Commissioners may borrow by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments.

Amendment 2, clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(3B) Any framework document published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Crown Estate and the Commissioners must define ‘sustainable development’ for the purposes of this Act.

(3C) The definition under subsection (3B) must include reference to a climate and nature duty.

(3D) A ‘climate and nature duty’ means a duty to achieve any targets set out under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 or under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021.”

This amendment would ensure that this act’s Framework Agreement must define “sustainable development”, and that the definition must include reference to a climate and nature duty.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(3B) In pursuit of the objective under subsection 3A, the Commissioners must assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities.”

This amendment would require the Commissioners to assess the protections against coastal erosion in areas where landfall is made for offshore projects.

Amendment 5, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(3B) In keeping the impact of their activities under review, the Commissioners must have regard to―

(a) the United Kingdom’s Net Zero targets;

(b) regional economic growth; and

(c) ensuring resilience in respect of energy security.”

This new sub-section would require the Crown Estate Commissioners, in reviewing the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development, to have specific regard to the United Kingdom’s Net Zero targets, regional economic growth, and resilience in respect of energy security. \p Llinos Medi: New clause 1 transfers the management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government within two years of the commencement of the Act. The principle behind it is simple: the people of Wales should control and benefit from their own natural resources. For much of Welsh history, that has not been the case, with resources often exploited for the benefit of others. From copper in Amlwch in Ynys Môn, slate in Gwynedd, steel in Port Talbot and Newport, to the coal across the south-east valleys, the rivers of wealth that flowed from those industries were sucked out of our communities—and those communities have since been ravaged by poverty.

Wales is blessed with natural wealth and brilliant people, yet we are also a nation afflicted with deprivation, following years of extraction. Shocking new figures show that child poverty in Wales is set to reach 34.4% by the end of the decade. That is the legacy of our past, in which wealth generated was not used to benefit the Welsh economy or communities. Today, in 2025, that extractive pattern is being repeated with Wales’s green wealth.

Wales has immense renewable energy potential in our windy seas and long coastlines—we can see that demonstrated in the Morlais project on Ynys Môn—but the seabed, along with thousands of acres of land, is controlled by the Crown Estate. Renewable energy projects using these resources are expanding rapidly and delivering profits. We see that in the value of the Crown Estate, which sky-rocketed from £96 million five years ago to £853 million in 2023. However, all profits generated by the Crown Estate in Wales are transferred to the Treasury. This green wealth, just like the wealth from coal and other minerals in the past, is being sucked out of our nation. Millions of pounds generated on the Welsh Crown Estate is taken out of Wales each year, away from our communities who have borne the brunt of decades of economic decline.

In 2017, Scotland gained control over the Scottish Crown Estate and ensured that all profit was kept in Scotland. Devolution has generated millions for the Scottish public purse, with funds going directly to deprived communities such as those in the highlands. Why do the Scottish people get the benefit from their own water, wind and sea resources, but the people of Wales cannot? It is simply not credible for the Government to continue to say that devolution is too complicated, too costly and too time-consuming. These are all issues that can be addressed with proper planning and resourcing. Scotland’s Crown Estate was devolved in 2017. It is ludicrous to say that the Welsh Crown Estate cannot be devolved in a similar way. In Scotland, interim measures were put in place to ensure a smooth transition from the point of devolution until the implementation of a long-term framework for managing assets. New clause 1 takes a similar pragmatic approach by introducing a transition period. It worked in Scotland; it can work for Wales, too.

Throughout this whole debate, the Government have still not addressed the principle of control, so I would like the Minister to answer directly: do his Government believe that the people of Wales should have democratic control over their own natural resources? The people of Wales certainly believe so. Polling shows that majority support among the Welsh public for the devolution of the Crown Estate is higher than ever. It is also supported by the Welsh Labour Government. A majority of councils in Wales have passed motions in support of devolution; Wrexham council did so just last week, with the support of its Labour group. More councils will follow suit, and we may very likely have all councils in Wales declaring support for devolution in the near future. There is a mandate from right across Welsh society for devolution. Members of Parliament would do well to remember that they are here to serve and represent the people, and that the people of Wales have clearly made their views known on this matter.

In closing, I return to the principle that I outlined at the beginning of my speech. Do Members of this House believe that the people of Wales should, after centuries of exploitation, finally be given the right to control and benefit from their own natural resources? If they believe in that principle, I urge them to join me in the voting Lobby. \p Henry Tufnell: We live in uncertain times, and as a nation we face many challenges ahead. For one, there is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The impact on our domestic energy prices has  shown the extent of our reliance on the international oil and gas markets. Since 2022, gas prices for households across the country have spiked, and the cost of living continues to bite. Putin’s boot is on our throat.

Another challenge is the result of rapid deindustrialisation across the UK since the 1980s, and too much economic focus on London and south-east England. We have seen massive job losses at Port Talbot; we face an uncertain future at Grangemouth; and we still bear the scars of the loss of the mining industry. Regional inequality is stark, and in my constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire, the rate of child poverty is steadily increasing.

And of course there is our climate crisis: wildfires in California, torrential rain in Spain, and extreme heatwaves and longer droughts. Even walking through the village of Angle in Pembrokeshire with members of the local community council, it is all too easy to see the increase in frequency of flooding, not to mention its damaging impact on residents and local farmers.

Prior to the general election of 4 July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out her economic vision of securonomics: we would make, sell and buy more in Britain, and so deliver energy security and create good, well-paid jobs while tackling the climate crisis. My Labour colleagues and I stood for election on that manifesto, and it is time to deliver. At a time when the challenges are so great and the need for leadership is so acute, it is vital that the Crown Estate has greater scope to rise to those challenges and do its part for the revitalisation of our great nation.

The provision in clause 3 that commissioners at the Crown Estate

“must keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom”

is therefore to be welcomed. That amendment was hard fought for by the noble Lords in the other place, and I commend them for it. However, it is our duty in this House to provide clarity about the meaning and scope of “sustainable development”, and about the mechanism for enforcing that provision. Maintaining transparency and accountability is critical for an organisation as big and influential as the Crown Estate. Allowing the estate to define “sustainable development” and report annually is a move straight out of the environmental, social and governance playbook. Given the financial firepower that this House is granting the Crown Estate, allowing it to effectively self-regulate on an issue of national importance is a dereliction of our democratic duty.

Under amendment 5, the commissioners must have regard to net zero, regional economic growth and energy security. It would not impede the independence of the Crown Estate, but would provide unambiguous purpose and direction on an otherwise undefined and unexplained term. It should therefore be welcomed. \p Jim Shannon: Of course, a key issue for all of us in the United Kingdom, and certainly for us in Northern Ireland, is the fishing sector. Any net zero development, such as a wind farm—wind farms have been proposed for my constituency in the past—could have a direct impact on the fishing sector there. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the fishing sector could be impacted by measures that take away  the opportunity to fish in the seas around this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to the detriment of those in the sector, and their families? \p Henry Tufnell: The fishing industry has a great history in my constituency, and it is vital that the Crown Estate takes on board the issues in the fishing industry when it looks at leasing and consenting. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

I am grateful also to the Minister for his assurances in Committee that the public framework document will give context to clause 3, on sustainable development. However, no text has yet been shared with this House, nor will any be shared until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. This reduces scrutiny and will encourage a retrospective review, rather than a proactive approach. Furthermore, relying on a public framework document reduces this House’s ability to ensure that the clause is properly enforced. What is the mechanism for enforcement in the event of non-compliance? What if the Crown Estate failed to report in good faith—what would the penalties be?

Off the back of Labour’s resounding victory last July, we know there is democratic consensus across the nation on our economic vision, which promotes energy security, regional economic growth and net zero, yet the Crown Estate appeared to be relying on the window dressing of ESG standards to obfuscate its desire to maximise its 12% of profits, at the expense of our nation. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument, and I share his concern for communities such as Milford Haven, in which renewable development will be critical in future. I am sure he will also agree that devolution of the Crown Estate would be a key way to make the best use of supply chains, and to ensure that money stays as local as possible, particularly in Wales. \p Henry Tufnell: I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. I sometimes feel, though, that the ideas of her party are slightly for the birds. The idea of devolution—where is their plan? There is no plan. What are the practicalities? \p Ben Lake: I thank my friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. The plan is quite simple: we could look at what is happening at this very moment in Scotland. \p Henry Tufnell: The issue, though, is the practicalities. Is the hon. Gentleman going to draw an artificial line in the Celtic sea? What about the issue of consenting? What would that do for the leasing rounds, when certainty of investment for the private sector is so critical at this stage?

Furthermore, other Government agencies and Departments have to take account of this economic vision. In its latest contract for difference round, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero set a criterion of achieving shorter supply chains, in order to ensure that manufacturing facilities, installation firms and ports are located in areas of deprivation. It also adheres to science-based targets, which are goals that businesses set to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in line with obligations under international treaties, so that we can reach net zero by 2050.

The national wealth fund has an overall goal of increasing investment in resilient and sustainable infrastructure to support the UK’s net zero transition, and to contribute to improved local economic opportunity and productivity. In partnering with the private sector and local government, the national wealth fund has two clear strategic objectives: to tackle climate change and to support regional and local economic growth.

Great British Energy facilitates, encourages and participates in the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improvements in energy efficiency and measures for ensuring the security of energy supply.

In providing clarity of purpose, this House is not overreaching and dictating individual organisational decisions; instead, it is setting out a broader direction of travel, based on the democratic will of the people of this great country. In my constituency, people are desperately in need of that radical intervention to address the high levels of social deprivation and bring back economic prosperity.

To be clear, I support the Bill. However, in order for this Government to deliver on their election manifesto, the Crown Estate must be given clear purpose and direction that are directly aligned with the Prime Minister’s plan for change. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p James Wild: It is a pleasure to speak on Report, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will focus on amendment 4 and new clauses 5 and 6, which I tabled.

The Bill was developed under the previous Conservative Government to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete by providing a broader power to borrow, in order to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. The assets managed by the Crown Estate, which total £15.5 billion, are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate; they are held in right of the Crown. Appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate is therefore essential, which is what the amendment and new clauses I have tabled seek to ensure. Over the past decade, the Crown Estate generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances, and it believes that the measures in the Bill will enable it to generate an additional £100 million in revenues to the Treasury by 2030, which is a prize worth seeking.

Before speaking to the measures in my name, I turn briefly to new clause 1, which proposes devolution of the Welsh functions of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) has support from businesses for this change, as splitting the Crown Estate at this time would introduce risk for assets and revenue streams. In Committee, we heard about the potential problems and complexity of licensing of the Celtic sea, to which the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) just referred. \p Ben Lake: I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s arguments against devolving the administration of the Crown Estate to Wales. The previous Government—  his Government—devolved those same powers to Scotland. Can I ask him, very simply, why it works for Scotland, but is too complicated for Wales? \p James Wild: We are dealing with the Bill in front of us today. To do so at the moment would be too complex for the licensing reasons and other reasons set out in Committee, which could undermine the returns that would be made for taxpayers, whether in Wales or other parts of the country.

The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire spoke to amendment 5, a version of which was moved in Committee on his behalf. We recognise that the amendment has been revised. However, as I said in Committee, we are cautious about putting more obligations on the Crown Estate than clause 3 already does; there is danger of the overreach that he spoke about. I am sure he will be listening to the Minister’s speech with some interest.

The kernel of the Bill is the expansion of the power of the Crown Estate to borrow, but there is a lack of parliamentary oversight on borrowing levels. Amendment 4, which appears in my name, would limit borrowing to a net debt-to-asset value ratio of no more than 25%, which could be amended by affirmative regulations. That would, I believe, be a proportionate check on this new borrowing power. When pushed in Committee, the Government again stated that limits on borrowing are best set outside legislation in a memorandum of understanding, but a memorandum of understanding is all too easily altered at the stroke of a pen—a point the Minister did not address in Committee. Will he give an undertaking, at the very least, that any changes to a memorandum of understanding would be reported to Parliament?

Given that Parliament is being asked to remove the restriction on borrowing and that the Government agree there should be a limit, I struggle to see why the cap should not be set in legislation, with the ability to amend it. Borrowing more than 25% carries risk, which could ultimately affect the sustainability of the estate. That is why the Government themselves have accepted that there should be a limit. As this new power affects assets held on behalf of the nation, it should be subject to control. This would be a perfectly reasonable check, and I hope Members will back it.

New clause 5 would require the Crown Estate to seek Treasury approval for disposals amounting to 10% or more of its total assets, and then to lay a report before Parliament. Disposal of assets has been an important part of the discussions throughout the proceedings on the Bill, both here and in the other place. Indeed, clause 5 was introduced after pressure to require Treasury consent before disposing of any of the Crown Estate’s rights or privileges in relation to the territorial seabed. That is a welcome safeguard, but can the Minister conceive of any circumstances in which the Government would approve of such a sale? Can he give a commitment that national security would be at the fore in any consideration of such a proposal? Would Ministers come to the House before agreeing to any such disposal?

In Committee, the Minister stated that the current process dictates that the Government will be consulted on any potential sale of a nationally significant asset. How does he define nationally significant? He also argued that requiring Treasury consent for large disposals  would undermine the flexibility that the Crown Estate needs to operate commercially, but the proposed new clause simply requires Treasury consent to be sought and then reported to Parliament. The Crown Estate will not suddenly decide tomorrow to dispose of an asset; it will go through its internal processes and business cases. A version of those papers could be provided to Ministers and, depending on the Ministers, there could be a very rapid approval process that does not compromise flexibility but ensures accountability. These assets are held for the benefit of the nation, and we should ensure some form of transparency and scrutiny.

New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. That is fundamental, as without being able to see details of the agreement, we do not know what has been agreed. There is a lack of clarity over how this new partnership will work. We are still concerned that it has been created for political rather than economic reasons. The Opposition are sceptical about what the Government say about GB Energy, because during the election Labour claimed that GB Energy would cut energy bills by £300, but bills are going up. The chairman of GB Energy has refused to say when people can expect £300 off their energy bills. We know that GB Energy will spend £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, but will not generate any energy, be an energy supplier or save families £300.

We are concerned that at all stages the Government have resisted greater transparency. When pushed on Second Reading and in Committee, the Exchequer Secretary said that while the partnership agreement itself will not be published since it will be commercially sensitive, the Crown Estate is committed to publishing information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report. However, the provisions to include that in an annual report could result in a considerable lag after such an agreement becomes operational and in only limited detail being published. Frankly, that is not good enough, which is why we have tabled new clause 6.

Transparency is important because we do not know how much the Crown Estate may invest in GB Energy’s projects. We do not know what level of funds from this borrowing power could be used for that purpose. When I asked the Crown Estate how it would decide between projects that GB Energy favours and others that may have a higher rate of return, I was told that there would be a business plan for the partnership. That shows a further lack of transparency, as I assume the Minister will not place that before the House. I also asked about decision making for the partnership, and the response was:

“The intention is that both parties will seek agreement on investment decisions whilst retaining their own independence. The Crown Estate will not be compelled to agree to anything which it does not wish to agree to in fulfilment of its statutory duty.”

I note the use of “intention” and “compelled”.

There is a lingering concern that Ministers may pressure GB Energy and the Crown Estate to invest in the Energy Secretary’s pet projects. Clearly, the chairman of GB Energy is very close to the Labour party, and nominating a Labour party donor as the chairman of  the Crown Estate adds to this concern. Publishing the agreement could help allay concerns about the Government’s intentions.

If the Minister contends that the agreement, which does not yet exist, is too commercially sensitive, will he consider making a redacted version available? As I said in Committee, will he consider providing the agreement to the Public Accounts Committee on a confidential basis? As a former member of that Committee, I know of a precedent for that: in January 2018, the Cabinet Office provided a risk register of strategic suppliers to Government—a very sensitive document—to that Committee, which provided assurance on behalf of the House. I remain concerned about political pressure being put on the Crown Estate and urge Members to support our new clause 6, which would simply require the Chancellor to lay the partnership agreement before Parliament.

The Crown Estate Bill will deliver the modernisation of the Crown Estate. Our amendments and new clauses would ensure appropriate oversight and transparency as it delivers on its primary duty to maintain and enhance the value of the assets and the return for taxpayers. \p Matt Rodda: It is a pleasure to contribute this evening. I will speak in favour of the Bill and address some of the amendments and new clauses, although there probably is not time to address them all. The Bill is an important and necessary step to help the Government take speedy action to tackle the climate emergency, and to help ensure energy security. It modernises the management of the Crown Estate, as we have heard, which potentially is a sleeping giant of green energy provision. The estate is responsible for vast amounts of coastal land and seabed, which have enormous potential to deliver wind power and other renewables.

Tackling the climate emergency is a significant challenge, but it is achievable. However, we need to step up to the challenge, and the Bill is part of a wider transformation of Government policy to do exactly that. As we heard in Committee, the Bill is urgently needed because although the Crown Estate has enormous potential, the rules governing its management are unduly restrictive. For example, the Crown Estate Act 1961, which governs the estate’s management of its resources, sets out rules that would now be deemed inappropriate for holding very large cash balances. That makes it difficult for the Crown Estate to work with private investors to develop new wind energy and to transmit urgently needed new power to the grid. There is a clear need for these measures. I hope that, after sufficient debate, it is time for the Bill to make further progress.

I would like to support the Minister by briefly pointing out the inherent errors of some of the new clauses and amendments. New clause 5 seeks Treasury approval for the disposal of more than 10% of the Crown Estate’s assets. Clearly, that would reduce flexibility for the Crown Estate in managing its estate and business. New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy before Parliament. However, as we have heard, partnership agreements are normally commercially sensitive, and there could be a risk to further business if that was carried out.

Let me turn briefly to the amendments. Amendment 3, which in my opinion is misconstrued, would require the commissioners to assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities. However, the UK already has a whole series of dedicated statutory bodies in each of the devolved Administrations that are tasked with exactly that activity.

Equally, amendment 5 is unnecessary. It would ask the Crown Estate when reviewing the impact of its work to consider the impact on net zero targets, regional economic development and energy security. However, it is clear that the whole Bill is intended to tackle the challenge of addressing and eventually reaching net zero. Referencing specific targets risks further complicating what is already an important Bill that has had considerable discussion in Committee.

As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said at an earlier stage, this is an important Bill to help the UK achieve our climate targets, and it is a significant step forward in helping us retain energy security. It is time for the whole House to support it. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Pippa Heylings: I extend my thanks to colleagues in the other place, the Public Bill Office staff and those in this House who served on the Bill Committee. Their efforts have been invaluable in scrutinising and refining the Bill. I support the Bill. However, the Liberal Democrat amendments seek to ensure that it delivers for both people and the planet. While the Bill presents opportunities—it aims to enhance energy security, create new jobs and bring us closer to achieving our climate targets—we must not lose sight of the need for financial accountability, proportionate borrowing caps, the duty to protect nature in the marine environment and the necessity of taking communities with us and providing them with clear, tangible benefits.

It is important to note that our discussion coincides with the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its consequences not only for the Ukrainians suffering the war, but for families here in the UK with volatile, skyrocketing energy prices due to our reliance on fossil fuels from authoritarian regimes like Putin’s: a stark reminder of the need to secure the production of our energy here in the UK. The last Conservative Government set the UK back both in meeting our climate targets and in seizing the opportunity to be global leaders in green energy due to indecision and broken pledges. We have the chance to be global leaders in offshore floating wind, which is why the Bill is so important.

I speak to amendment 2 to clause 3, which I hope we will vote on tonight. It would ensure that sustainable development was clearly defined in the Crown Estate’s framework agreement, explicitly including a reference to a climate and nature duty. The Crown Estate plays a crucial role in managing our land, seas and natural resources. It is central to offshore wind expansion, biodiversity conservation and sustainable land use. Given its influence, merely requiring its commissioners to “keep under review” their impact on sustainable development is insufficient without a clear definition and accountability of what that entails, as the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) mentioned. That is key to ensuring that there are social and economic  considerations in all investments and that the costs and benefits—in particular to local communities and local economies—are taken into consideration.

The amendment builds on Baroness Hayman’s concession in the other House. She said:

“What matters is the impact we have and how much we have shifted the dial in terms of what the Crown Estate achieves in support of the Government’s climate and nature objectives.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1448.]

By clearly defining sustainable development in the Crown Estate’s framework agreement, the amendment would establish a benchmark for accountability in line with existing legislation. In contrast with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire, this amendment mentions nature, too, and builds on the agreements in the other House. It seeks to enshrine the assurances given to the Lords, ensuring that the framework agreement would indeed include a climate and nature duty, aligning the Crown Estate’s responsibilities with the UK’s legally binding climate targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and nature restoration goals under the Environment Act 2021. It is about more than environmental stewardship; it is about future-proofing the Crown Estate’s decisions against the economic risks of climate change and nature loss.

I strongly support new clause 3, which would ensure that the Bill brought local communities along with it. That is essential. We tabled the new clause to guarantee that coastal and rural communities would see real benefits from Crown Estate activities. It would require a proper assessment of community benefits before investment decisions are made, and mandate that at least 5% of net profits be reinvested in affected areas.

Coastal communities need to see both jobs and a fair financial return from large-scale developments around them and off their shores. The Crown Estate generates billions from offshore wind, marine industries and land developments, yet local people often see little direct benefit. The new clause would redress that imbalance, ensuring that such communities impacted by change actively benefit from it. It is about fairness and economic regeneration. If the Government are serious about levelling up, they should back the new clause, which would ensure that the Crown Estate’s success was shared by all, not just a privileged few.

We have other amendments, too—we were busy in Committee. New clause 2 focuses on marine spatial planning co-ordination and would ensure that the Crown Estate duly collaborated with the Marine Management Organisation, which has the mandate to make decisions about marine spatial planning, and that fishing communities were fully consulted. That aligns with work going on for years as Liberal Democrats have called for comprehensive land and sea use frameworks to resolve conflicts, determine priorities and improve co-ordination. With growing pressures from offshore wind, marine conservation, fishing and tourism, decision making must be joined up. Marine plans balance economic, environmental and social interests.

The Crown Estate must work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ marine spatial prioritisation framework and the MMO’s expertise, as well as other relevant consultees such as heritage. The Government amendment requiring ministerial approval for seabed sales is an important and positive step, recognising its national importance. However, that highlights the broader need for transparency and oversight  in marine planning. The new clause seeks to avoid potential conflicts of interest in prioritising and decision making arising from the Crown Estate’s new borrowing and investment powers.

Members may have noticed a theme running through the Liberal Democrats’ amendments: that of ensuring that local communities both benefit from and have a real say in decisions that will affect them as a result of the Bill. That is why we have also tabled new clause 4. While the appointment of commissioners for Wales, England and Northern Ireland is a positive step, Wales still lacks the legal and financial control over the Crown Estate that Scotland enjoys. Welsh communities must also stand to benefit from the changes introduced by the Bill.

I hope that the Government and the Opposition will join the Liberal Democrats in supporting amendment 2 to ensure that sustainable development within the Crown Estate’s framework agreement is clearly defined and includes a climate and nature duty. The Bill presents a trident of opportunity—it can enhance energy security, create jobs and bring us closer to achieving our net zero targets—but we cannot afford to lose sight of the need for financial accountability, the duty to protect nature, and the need to ensure that all communities are included in the crucial journey to net zero. \p Sureena Brackenridge: The Bill is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet. Ultimately, for my constituents, it is about jobs, opportunities and a better future for places like Wolverhampton North East. Right now, the Crown Estate is held back by outdated rules that limit its ability to invest. It is forced to sell assets just to raise capital. That is not sustainable, and it is stopping us from reaching our full potential.

The Bill changes the game, giving the Crown Estate the power to borrow, invest and back long-term projects that deliver real benefits for our communities. Wolverhampton North East is ready to seize those opportunities. With our forthcoming green innovation corridor, world-class manufacturing industry and skilled workforce known for its true graft, we are perfectly placed to drive the UK’s green economy.

The Bill means more funding for renewable energy, more investment in advanced manufacturing and more demand for the products we make in Wolverhampton and Willenhall. More investment means more jobs, more apprenticeships and more chances for young people to get the skills they need to build a career in the industries of the future, whether in engineering, fabrication or high-tech manufacturing. The Bill will help us to build more, make more and sell more in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, right in the heart of the Black Country.

The unprecedented £60 billion partnership between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate will supercharge offshore wind development, creating huge opportunities for our local businesses. This is not just about turbines on land or at sea—we know that Wolverhampton and Willenhall are not geographically suitable for offshore wind—but about the supply chains, the manufacturing and the innovation that we can drive in towns and cities like Wolverhampton and Willenhall. \p James Naish: Just this morning, the CBI has said that Britain’s net zero economy is booming. The sector is growing three times faster than the overall UK economy, the average salary in the net zero sector is £5,600 higher than the national average and productivity in the sector is nearly 40% higher than in the wider economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an industrial opportunity for this country that we cannot afford to ignore, and that this Bill will help us to realise this opportunity and make it more achievable? \p Sureena Brackenridge: I absolutely agree. This is an example of how this Government will respond to the changing world that we live in. This Bill is about backing British industry, investing in local communities and making sure that places such as Wolverhampton North East lead the way in the UK’s future success. \p Christopher Vince: Does my hon. Friend agree that removing these outdated restrictions on the Crown Estate will allow a greater return for the public purse and benefit all our constituents across the country, including her own in Wolverhampton and mine in Harlow? \p Sureena Brackenridge: I do agree with my hon. Friend, and based on the make-up of our constituencies, we come from a different angle from other Members who have raised important points in the debate. For us it is about jobs, apprenticeships and our local economy, so I back this Bill and I hope that the House will join me in doing so. \p Steffan Aquarone: I want to speak to amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), which deals specifically with coastal erosion. My constituency plays host to a whole load of energy infrastructure that is vital to our security and our renewable transition. We have the Bacton energy hub, which is on track to make the exciting transformation from being a key asset in national gas to hydrogen production and carbon capture. It is one of my constituency’s largest employers, but it is also of national significance because of the role it plays in our energy ecosystem. It is therefore understandable that, a few years ago, a £20 million sandscaping scheme was welcomed. It gave protection not only to the energy terminal but to the villages of Bacton and Walcott that surround it. One local business owner spoke of how such a scheme means he no longer feels “trepidation” when he checks the weather forecast.

Just down the coast in the village of Happisburgh, the Norfolk Boreas and the Norfolk Vanguard wind farms make their landfall. Happisburgh has been at the frontline of the coastal erosion suffered in north Norfolk, with 40 homes already lost to the ever-encroaching North sea. This is a village battling the real-world impacts of climate change, and it is doing its bit to fight back by hosting renewable energy infrastructure, but it has had no additional protections. This double standard seems deeply unfair. It is in our interest to protect the renewable energy infrastructure we are building, but it is also in our interest to protect the communities that live alongside it.

People in Happisburgh have lived with the looming threat of coastal erosion and frequently feel left behind or forgotten about, and it seems as though this is just another example of this happening. I am sure that if  there were an erosion risk of this scale in central London or the south-east, the Government would move heaven and earth to take action, but in North Norfolk, right at the eastern edge of our island nation, people feel despondent about the situation they are facing. Our amendment seeks to right this wrong. We believe that when these reforms to the Crown Estate allow for new renewable energy products, efforts must be made to secure the coastline where they make landfall. Renewables are our future, and we have to make sure that the communities that host key infrastructure have a future too.

I am aware that the Minister did not support this amendment in Committee. I am not expecting the recess to have led him to a Damascene conversion, but I hope that he can provide some reassurance today on how the Government will look at this double standard for energy products and what steps they will be taking to provide protection to villages such as Happisburgh that are doing all the right things but feel they do not get their fair share back. I would also be happy to welcome him and any of his Government colleagues to Happisburgh to see the situation for themselves. I honestly believe that bearing witness to the way that our coastline is being ravaged by climate change, meeting the people it affects and understanding what we are set to lose will spark anyone into supporting radical action to stop this coming to pass. I would be delighted if the Government could back our amendment today, but if they are unable to do so, I hope that the Minister’s team will be able to provide promises of progress for the residents of Happisburgh and all the other communities who live with the existential threat of coastal erosion. \p Jayne Kirkham: I was on the Bill Committee and I have followed the Bill throughout, mainly because I represent Truro and Falmouth, which has huge potential to benefit from floating offshore wind, with Falmouth docks and our position in the Celtic sea. If the build-out in the Celtic sea is done quickly and done well, our young people will benefit from good, well-paid jobs in a strong local supply chain. I also want to mention the CBI report published today, which shows how the green economy has grown three times faster and has higher wages than the national average across the board. We in Falmouth could really do with some of that, so I welcome this Bill.

The changes to the powers of the Crown Estate will enable it, in partnership with GB Energy, to invest in ports such as Falmouth without selling its assets, as well as mapping the seabed and front-loading the leasing rounds and local supply chains. As I said in an earlier debate, when a college in my constituency was struggling to get funding for a level 2 course on floating offshore wind engineering for local 14 to 16-year-olds, the Crown Estate stepped in with a year’s funding to allow it to go ahead on a pilot scale. Now, with these changes, more positive interventions like this could be made, which would be really welcome in places such as Truro and Falmouth, where further education colleges are struggling to get the go-ahead for these kinds of courses.

New clause 2 deals with marine spatial planning. We need a spatial strategy for the ocean that links energy, fishing and nature restoration, and that has to be done in consultation with all the industries and with environmentalists, but this Bill is not the place to do that.  New clause 3 deals with community benefits. Communities will benefit so much from the economic boost that this Bill will enable, with training and education, good jobs, supply chains and investment in our ports.

Amendments 2 and 5 cover issues that we discussed in the Bill Committee. I would simply ask the Minister to give an assurance that the public framework will have regard to environmental, regional and economic growth, and social value benefits, and to confirm that this reform will enable the Crown Estate to invest in a wider range of high-impact projects across the UK, strengthening floating offshore wind, nature recovery and benefits to those regional economies.

The partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy has real potential to be a huge force for good—we really feel that down in Cornwall. It will spearhead the development of offshore renewable energy in a speedy but sustainable way, investing in energy production initially and laying the groundwork for our energy security of the future, as well as building our local communities, our infrastructure and our supply chains in some of the most left-behind and deprived parts of the UK. \p David Chadwick: I rise to speak in support of new clause 4 and to express my party’s frustration with the Government’s refusal thus far to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales. It is the firm view of the Liberal Democrats, both here in Westminster and in the Senedd, that this decision is wrong for Wales and its economy. Under the current system, the profits generated from Wales’s vast natural resources flow directly to the UK Treasury, offering no benefit to the communities where that wealth is created.

The Crown Estate in Wales is set to generate millions annually from offshore wind energy leases in Welsh waters. If this money were kept within Wales, it could contribute an estimated additional £50 million to the Welsh Government’s budget at a time when public services in Wales are crumbling. It is nothing short of outrageous that the Labour Government in Westminster seek to deny Wales these vital sources of income, which could help to address the crisis in our public services, economy and infrastructure. The Labour Government’s refusal to devolve these powers further entrenches the outrageous notion by Labour and the Conservatives that Wales is a lesser nation than Scotland.

While Scotland has controlled its Crown Estate since 2017, Wales, despite having vast Crown Estate assets within its borders, has been left without those powers. The benefits of devolution for Scotland have been clear, with the Scottish Crown Estate generating over £103 million for the public finances since 2017. The excuses we have heard from the UK Government for failing to put Wales on an equal footing simply do not hold up. Patronising comments from Ministers about how devolving the Crown Estate would not be in Wales’s “best interests” or would be a “waste of time” are frankly an insult to the people of Wales.

This Government claim to support growth, but they seem determined to keep Wales from reaching its full potential. Instead of empowering Welsh communities to harness the benefits of their own resources, profits continue to flow directly to London. That is not the vision of growth to benefit local communities or level up left-behind communities; it is a continuation of the  Conservatives’ failed economic model, which prioritises centralisation and investment in the south-east of England over everywhere else. It would be a great mistake if those in power in Westminster were to deny Wales the opportunity to build a better future for our communities. I hope the Government will change their mind. \p Jim Allister: I wish to primarily address new clause 7, tabled by the hon. Members for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), and to express opposition to it. It very much reflects what is in new clause 1, in terms of seeking devolution of the Crown Estate, but in this case to the Northern Ireland Executive in respect of the assets there. I oppose that for a number of reasons. It presently is a reserved matter, and I strongly believe that is how it should stay. I say that not because that is right ideologically, but because practically it is beyond belief that the current Stormont Executive could ever handle the controversies that come with the Crown Estate.

This is an Executive in Stormont that have been in existence for almost 13 months and still cannot agree a programme for Government. If we were to hand them something as controversial as control of the Crown Estate, we all know what the outcome would be. Why is it controversial? For one specific and historical reason. Lough Foyle is controlled and owned by the Crown Estate. It is a piece of water that separates County Londonderry, which is in Northern Ireland, from County Donegal, which is in the Republic of Ireland, but the entirety of Lough Foyle since last we had a King Charles rests under British control. In 1662, Charles II gifted Lough Foyle, the surrounding waters, the seabed and the waters within it to the Irish Society. The Irish Society was a conglomerate of various companies from the City of London, which did a great deal to develop and build the city of Londonderry; and as part of that, I presume, it was gifted control over Lough Foyle. In 1952, the Irish Society conveyed Lough Foyle to the Crown Estate.

A divided Executive in Northern Ireland would be hopelessly incapable of resolving the issues that flow from the somewhat controversial aspect of the entirety of Lough Foyle, right up to the coastline of County Donegal, being properly, legally and in perpetuity in the control of the Crown Estate. Therefore, devolving the Crown Estate to the Northern Ireland Executive would be disastrous for the good management of the lough and for the uncontroversial continuance of its ability to be developed. That might be a particular situation, but it is in addition to my opposition from an ideological point of view and my belief that the Crown Estate is a national asset that should continue to be of a reserved category. I think the proposition in new clause 7 would be the utmost folly; I trust that the Government will resist it and that the House will reject it. \p Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate; I will follow on from what the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) seeks. I want to make a specific request, which I did when I intervened on the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell).

My issues with the provisions primarily relate to the fishing sector and the impact on fishing fleets around the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but particularly in Strangford for Portavogie, and Ardglass and Kilkeel in South Down. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on an issue that affects Crown Estates in the entirety of the United Kingdom.

As the Library briefing outlines, the Crown Estate focuses on activities that align with wider national needs, including energy security and sustainable economic growth. It manages the seabed and much of the coastline across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, playing a

“fundamental role in the sustainable development of this national asset, including the UK’s world-leading offshore wind sector.”

I am not against wind turbines and the green energy they produce, but I am concerned about the impact on the fishing sector. I want to state my concerns and express my support for the fishing fleets at Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel, where fishing is an important economic sector, providing jobs and investment. That has been happening for hundreds of years, and I want to see that tradition maintained. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will reassure fishing communities that any development will not be to the detriment of the fishing sector. \p Jim Allister: Does the hon. Member agree that one of the problems in this territory is that we do not yet have the definition of what is meant to be sustainable? On reading the Bill, it appears that the whole focus of what sustainable will be is on the green energy side, rather than what will sustain the fishing industry. \p Jim Shannon: That is the thrust of where I am coming from. I am not against the idea of green energy, but I want to ensure the sustainability of the fishing sector over the years. It has been sustainable and still provides jobs in Kilkeel and Ardglass, and I want it to continue to do so. That would be my concern as well.

The fishermen in my area are well aware of the limitations brought about by Crown holdings on the coastline, and concerns have been expressed to me regarding the partnership announced by the Government for the Crown Estate and Great British Energy—the very issue that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim refers to—to bring forward new offshore wind developments. I wholeheartedly welcome renewable energy and attempts to harness the reliable energy of our vast seas and loughs, but only inasmuch as they do not stop the fishing sector from operating and being successful. That must always be the key consideration. If we were to lose one of our primary sectors in fishing and to gain wind turbines and green energy, that would be something that the Government would have to consider sensibly.

Similarly, the regeneration and development department in my local Ards and North Down council has highlighted the additional red tape that comes from leasing or altering existing leases to the Crown Estate. That being said, the council is also thankful for the open doors and accessibility when needed. However, it has been seen that there is a willingness to consider the national needs when requests are made for alterations, and that is appreciated. When we look at the national needs, we want to ensure that they do not take away from the local needs of those in Strangford, in Ards and North Down and in the fishing fleets and those who own land and farms around the Irish sea and Strangford lough.

During 2023-24, the Crown Estate generated a net revenue profit of £1.1 billion. Over the past decade, it has returned £4.1 billion of net revenue profit to the Treasury. We must ensure that the Crown Estate is being run at ultimate capacity and is bringing money into our coffers, but also that it has a socially conscious operating model and that it is being used to do good for everyone, including the fishing sector in my constituency.

I was very much inspired, as we probably all were, by the Prince of Wales’s scheme on homelessness, and by the fact that he is using his personal estate, the Duchy of Cornwall, to build 24 homes to help tackle homelessness. The construction of the first homes in Nansledan, Newquay, is due to be complete in autumn 2025. That good work should inspire us all to ensure that a Crown Estate operated by a team appointed by the Prime Minister attempts where it can to make such an impact for the common good.

My understanding is that the Bill would broaden the scope of activity that the Crown Estate can undertake to support the delivery of its core purpose to include activities across net zero, nature recovery, economic growth—that covers the fishing sector—and more, so that it can generate returns for the public purse. The Bill will also enable the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively. If that is the case, I will support the Bill, as long as we remember our obligations to existing businesses and partnerships, including in the fishing and industrial sectors. I welcome the appointment of a commissioner who will have an eye over Northern Ireland. Will the Minister reassure me, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and other affected Northern Ireland Members that elected representatives can have direct contact and discussion with the commissioner on any fishing sector issues that come to our attention?

I welcome the progress of the Crown Estate, and recognise the benefit that will come from improvement, but none of that can be done on the back of existing relationships. The Minister is an honourable man—we know that. He has set out to help us and reassure us on many things—although, for the record, there has not been too much reassurance lately. I seek assurances for the fishing sector in Strangford, and in South Down. Given that the Member of Parliament for that constituency does not even attend Parliament, I find myself with the duty to work on behalf of the fishing fleets in Ardglass and Kilclief. The fishing fleets are all in the boat together—to use a pun—and all need help. If the Minister can reassure us, he may go some way towards reassuring the fishing sector, which is not quite sure yet about what is happening. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Minister. \p James Murray: I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and provided further detail about their amendments or concerns.

I start by making it clear that the Government have carefully considered all amendments throughout the passage of the Bill. Where we have agreed with the intent behind an amendment, we have worked hard to  find an appropriate way forward. That was evidenced in the changes made by this House to ensure appropriate protections for our seabed. As a result of changes made to the Bill, the Crown Estate will now be required to seek the approval of the Treasury for any permanent disposal of the seabed. I thank the Opposition for a constructive debate on that matter. Alongside that, further changes made in the other place have helped to strengthen the Bill, including changes to require the appointment of commissioners with special responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland; a reporting requirement in respect of activities with Great British Energy; and a requirement relating to sustainable development. In that spirit, I have considered the amendments that are before us.

I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for tabling new clause 1, under which, within two years of the day on which the Act commences, the Treasury must have completed the transfer of responsibility for management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government. It would allow the Treasury, by regulations, to make provision about the transfer relating to reserved matters as necessary, and would require it to ensure that no person in Crown employment has their employment adversely affected by the transfer of responsibility.

I also thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for tabling new clause 4, to which her colleague, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), also spoke. It would require the Treasury to set out a scheme for transferring all Welsh functions of the Crown Estate commissioners to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers. The Welsh functions would consist of the property, rights or interests in land in Wales, and rights in relation to the Welsh zone. As I set out in Committee, the Government believe that there is greater benefit for the people of Wales and the wider United Kingdom in retaining the Crown Estate’s current form.

New clause 4 would most likely require the creation of a new entity to take on the management of the Crown Estate in Wales—an entity that, by definition, would not benefit from the Crown Estate’s current substantial capability, capital and systems abilities. It would further fragment the UK energy market by adding an additional entity and, as a consequence, it would risk damaging international investor confidence in UK renewables. It would also risk disrupting the National Energy System Operator’s grid connectivity reform, which is taking a whole-system approach to the planning of generation and network infrastructure. Those reforms aim to create a more efficient system and reduce the time it takes for generation projects to connect to the grid. \p Ben Lake: I am grateful to the Minister for outlining his concerns about devolving the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government—he listed a number of them. Am I right in saying that he believes that the devolution of powers from the Crown Estate to Scotland has fragmented the market, and is in some way to the disbenefit of people in Scotland? \p James Murray: The matter that we are considering today, through the two new clauses that I have mentioned, is the proposal by Opposition parties for devolution to Wales. We are not analysing what may have happened in Scotland, historically; we are looking at the proposals put to us in those new clauses, which I am addressing.

To be clear, the cumulative impact of the changes that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn is suggesting in her new clause would likely be to significantly delay the pathway to net zero. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: The Minister said that the Bill would be beneficial to the people of Wales as it stands. Could he quantify that benefit, please? \p James Murray: If the right hon. Member waits just a moment, I will come to some of the direct benefits for the people of Wales of retaining the Crown Estate in its current form.

It is important to emphasise that the Crown Estate’s marine investments are made on a portfolio-wide basis across England and Wales. Devolving to Wales would disrupt existing investments, as they would need to be restructured to accommodate a Welsh-specific entity. To devolve the Crown Estate at this time would risk jeopardising the pipeline of offshore wind development in the Celtic sea, which is planned for into the 2030s. The Crown Estate’s offshore wind leasing round 5 is spread across the English and Welsh administrative boundaries in the Celtic sea. It was launched in February last year and is expected to contribute 4.5 GW of total energy capacity—enough to power 4 million homes.

In addition to energy, the extensive jobs and supply chain requirements of round 5 will also likely deliver significant benefits for Wales and the wider United Kingdom. Lumen, an advisory firm to the Crown Estate, has estimated that manufacturing, transporting and assembling the wind farms could potentially create around 5,300 jobs and a £1.4 billion boost for the UK economy. Devolution would also delay UK-wide grid connectivity reform. The Crown Estate is using its data and expertise as manager of the seabed to feed into the National Energy System Operator’s new strategic spatial energy plan. On Wales, the Crown Estate is working in partnership with the energy system operator to ensure that its pipeline of Welsh projects—the biggest of which is the round 5 offshore wind opportunity in the Celtic sea—can benefit from this co-ordinated approach to grid connectivity up front. \p David Chadwick: If devolution presents such enormous barriers, why are the Government choosing to put the headquarters of Great British Energy in Scotland? \p James Murray: GB Energy is for the benefit of the whole of the UK. It is absolutely right to locate its headquarters in Aberdeen, given the strong connection between Aberdeen and use of the assets of the North sea to generate power for the entire United Kingdom. In fact, the hon. Gentleman’s example underlines my point, which is that when different parts of the United Kingdom work together, we can achieve more than we can separately. I thank him for endorsing my point.

It would not make commercial sense to introduce a new entity, with control of assets only within Wales, into a complex operating environment in which partnerships have already been formed. Furthermore, the Crown Estate’s assets and interests in Wales are fundamentally smaller than its assets in England, and would likely not be commercially viable if their costs were unsupported  by the wider Crown Estate portfolio. The Crown Estate can take a longer-term approach to its investments and spread the cost of investments across its entire portfolio. A self-contained, single entity in Wales would not have the same ability; neither would it benefit from the expertise that the Crown Estate has developed over decades of delivering offshore wind at scale. A devolved entity would be starting from scratch. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: The Minister has just told the House that Wales is too small and poor to benefit from the devolution of the Crown Estate. That is an extraordinary argument, and I am sure that the Welsh Government will share my amazement. Has he discussed that with his partners in Welsh Labour? \p James Murray: I think the right hon. Member has misunderstood the point I was making. If we were to have a devolved entity, it would be starting from scratch midway through a multimillion-pound commercial tendering process, just at a time when the Crown Estate is undertaking critical investment in the UK’s path towards net zero—something I am sure she is keen to support.

The commercial viability of all three 1.5 GW floating offshore wind project development areas in the Celtic sea, which straddle the English and Welsh administrative boundaries, benefited from the Crown Estate’s significant investment of time, expertise and capital, which enabled their entry into the market. UK floating offshore wind, an emerging offshore technology that the Crown Estate is supporting, would be particularly vulnerable to market disruption.

It is important to underline that income generated by the whole Crown Estate benefits the people of Wales. As I have noted, the Crown Estate pays its entire net profits into the UK Consolidated Fund each year. That means that much of the revenue already supports public services in Wales, either by supporting UK Government spending in reserved areas or through the funding provided under the Barnett formula and the Welsh Government’s block grant funding. \p Llinos Medi: As I mentioned in Committee, the Barnett formula is not a fair formula for Wales. In the Scottish model, £10 million was taken out of the block grant, but those communities received £103 million back. I think that is a fair exchange. Does the Minister not agree? \p James Murray: The hon. Member has highlighted that the changes made in Scotland led to a reduction in the block grant to Scotland.

The focus of the new clauses is the proposal to devolve Crown Estate capabilities to Wales. As I am setting out, that would not make commercial sense when it comes to advancing greater energy capacity, or when it comes to increasing the Crown Estate’s net profit, which is of course reinvested in public services right across Wales and other parts of the UK.

I draw Members’ attention to the fact that in the other place, the Government supported the inclusion of clause 6, which requires the appointment of commissioners responsible for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That will ensure that the Crown Estate’s board of commissioners continues to work in the best interests of Wales. \p Jim Shannon: I seek assurance that the ambitious net zero targets will not detrimentally affect the fishing sector. I remember some years ago there was talk of a wind farm just off the coast of Kilkeel, and the fishermen were concerned that it would be in one of their prime fishing sectors, where scallops were plentiful. If that continued, the fishing sector could lose out because the Government decided to push for net zero. I sought reassurance that Northern Ireland MPs would be able to contact the Northern Ireland commissioner directly, but I ask specifically for a wider assurance about the fishing sector in Northern Ireland—for Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel. \p James Murray: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention about the impact on the fishing sector, and I can reassure him that the Crown Estate is committed to the sustainable management of the seabed. As with any developer, the Crown Estate’s proposals go through the standard planning approval process, which includes the relevant environmental assessments. Under the Crown Estate’s strategy, it has an objective to take a leading role in stewarding the natural environment and biodiversity. Key to delivering on that aim is managing the seabed in a way that reduces pressure on, and accelerates recovery of, our marine environment. Of course, the Bill will not impact directly on how much commercial fishing takes place in areas managed by the Crown Estate.

I pointed out that the inclusion of clause 6 in the Bill in the other place provided for the appointment of commissioners responsible for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The requirement to give advice to the board about Wales will be alongside the commissioners’ existing duties. That change will strengthen the Crown Estate’s ability to deliver benefits for the whole UK.

Hon. Members may not agree with the points I have made, but I hope that I have set out clearly why the Government believe that the existing structure remains the best approach, and I hope that hon. Members will feel that they do not need to press their new clauses to a vote.

New clause 2, which was tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, would require the Crown Estate to ensure that any decisions about marine spatial priorities are co-ordinated with the priorities of the Marine Management Organisation, and to consult any communities or industries impacted by the plans, including fishing communities. I confirm that the Crown Estate and the Marine Management Organisation already have well established ways of working together to ensure effective collaboration for marine spatial planning and prioritisation.

The Crown Estate’s collaboration with the Marine Management Organisation and other relevant statutory bodies is governed by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The Act establishes the framework for marine planning and licensing in the UK, and it requires the Crown Estate to have regard to marine policy documents, such as marine plans, in its decision making. The work of the Crown Estate is also governed by the habitat regulations, which require it to conduct plan-level habitat regulation assessments for leasing or licensing activities.

Furthermore, in 2020 the Crown Estate and the Marine Management Organisation jointly agreed a statement of intent, which is reviewed periodically to provide a focus on priorities and opportunities for alignment. That statement of intent complements a memorandum of understanding agreed in February 2011, which sets out a framework to encourage co-operation between parties in relation to the sustainable development of the seabed and rights managed by the Crown Estate. \p Pippa Heylings: We will not be pressing this new clause to a vote, but the new investment and borrowing powers change the context for the 2020 memorandum of understanding. I ask for reassurance that we might seek a new memorandum of understanding between the Marine Management Organisation and the Crown Estate. \p James Murray: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. As I said, the Crown Estate and the Marine Management Organisation agreed the statement of intent in 2020, and it is reviewed periodically to focus on priorities and opportunities for alignment. That may provide an opportunity for review in due course to ensure that it meets current aims.

In addition to the Crown Estate’s relationship with the Marine Management Organisation, there are various regulatory requirements on developers who lease areas of the seabed from the Crown Estate to engage with the Marine Management Organisation themselves. Those include requirements through marine licensing. Developers must obtain marine licences from the Marine Management Organisation for activities that could impact on the marine environment. That process involves consultation with statutory bodies and adherence to marine plan policies.

As part of a marine licence application, developers must conduct environmental impact assessments for projects that could significantly alter the environment. That includes consultation with the Marine Management Organisation and other relevant authorities. Developers are furthermore encouraged to engage with local communities, statutory bodies and other stakeholders throughout the planning and development process to address concerns and ensure compliance with marine plans. I welcome the indication from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that she feels able to withdraw the new clause, and I hope I have gone some way to addressing the points that she made.

New clause 3, which was also tabled by the hon. Member, would require the commissioners to assess plans for benefits to local communities and coastal communities in respect of offshore activities before making any investment decisions. It would also require the commissioners to transfer at least 5% of the Crown Estate’s net profit to local communities impacted by its activities. As I set out in Committee, local communities benefit economically from onshore and offshore developments—for example, through job creation and increased business for local suppliers. Local communities will also benefit in the long term as the country transitions away from volatile fossil fuel markets towards clean, domestically produced power, enhancing Britain’s energy independence and security.

As I highlighted in Committee, the Crown Estate has specifically designed the leasing process for its offshore wind leasing round 5 in the Celtic sea to require developers  to make commitments to deliver social and environmental value. Tender bidders must think about how their developments can encourage healthier, more resilient and more prosperous communities, creating lasting benefits that extend beyond the lifetime of wind farm leases. Those commitments will be monitored, reported on and enforced throughout the lifetime of the relevant round 5 developments.

As I have laid out before, the Crown Estate is committed to proactively working with local communities and partners to enable employment and skills opportunities. As I mentioned in Committee, it has invested £50 million through the supply chain accelerator to stimulate green jobs and develop a green skills pipeline. It is supporting development in the skills we need for the future, through measures that range from a GCSE in engineering skills for offshore wind, seed-funded by the Crown Estate and developed with Cornwall college, to a post-16 destination renewables course with Pembrokeshire college. It is also partnering with the employment charity Workwhile to create green construction apprenticeships.

The Crown Estate already works closely with communities, charities, businesses and the Government to ensure that its skills initiatives are sensitive to market demands and emerging technologies. While I respect the concerns reflected in new clause 3, the Government consider it important that the Crown Estate retains flexibility in how its skills initiatives are funded and delivered. That enables it to contribute to skills training in the best possible way, while—importantly—not conflicting with its statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire feels able to withdraw the new clause.

New clause 5 seeks to limit the ability of the Crown Estate to dispose of assets without Treasury approval, by requiring it to seek consent for disposals of assets totalling 10% or more of its total assets in a single year. It would also require the Chancellor to lay a report before Parliament within 28 days of being notified of disposals above that threshold. As the Government have set out both in Committee and in the other place, in our view imposing a limit on disposals would undermine the flexibility needed to enable the Crown Estate to operate commercially and meet its core duties under the Act. It is important to emphasise that the Bill is not intended materially to alter the independence of the Crown Estate. Requiring the Treasury to approve the Crown Estate’s ordinary business transactions, which may well be caught by the new clause, would encroach on the independence of the Crown Estate. That is inconsistent with the Government’s vision for the Crown Estate.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) has concerns that the Crown Estate could choose to sell off critical or significant assets—indeed, he raised that point in Committee. I reassure the House that strong safeguards are already in place to ensure that the Crown Estate maintains and enhances the estate. The first is a legislative safeguard, namely the statutory duty on the Crown Estate to maintain and enhance the value of the estate, and the returns obtained from it, while having due regard to the requirements of good management. Those are set out in the Crown Estate Act 1961 and will  remain unchanged by the Bill. The second is a requirement set out in the framework document that governs the relationship between the Treasury and the Crown Estate. That document is clear that the Crown Estate should inform the Treasury of any matters concerning spending, income or finance that are novel, contentious or repercussive. The Government’s view is that that captures any proposed sales of nationally significant assets—a point the shadow Minister raised. I recognise that he may not agree, but I hope he understands the Government’s position on the matter and, as a result, feels able to withdraw his new clause.

The shadow Minister also tabled new clause 6, which would require the Chancellor to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy. As I made clear in Committee, partnership agreements are highly commercially sensitive. It is therefore right that any agreement is not made public or laid before Parliament, as to do so would likely prejudice the commercial interests of the Crown Estate or Great British Energy. I hope the hon. Member feels that he does not need to push the new clause to a vote.

I will consider amendments 1 and 4 together to try to make progress as speedily as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker. They would impose a legislative limit on the amount of borrowing that could be undertaken by the Crown Estate, and both would require the Government to introduce affirmative regulations, setting out a borrowing limit of no more than a 25% net debt-to-asset value ratio. I thank hon. Members for their contributions on this matter. The Government recognise that borrowing controls are an important consideration for the Bill. As such, the Government made available the Crown Estate’s business case, as well as the underpinning memorandum of understanding, which sets out the guardrails that will protect against uncontrolled or excessive borrowing. The key principle is whether a specific limit should be set in legislation. As I have set out previously, it remains the Government’s view that limits on borrowing are best set outside of legislation in a memorandum of understanding.

I have listened to the point made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk that a limit outside legislation can be easily changed, but I reassure the House that the Bill has been carefully drafted to include strong controls, specifically the requirement for Treasury consent. Alongside that, the existing requirement for the Crown Estate to maintain and enhance the value of the estate, while having due regard for the requirements of good management, is maintained. Taken together, those elements provide clear guardrails around the ability of the Crown Estate to borrow.

Amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, would require any framework document published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Crown Estate or the commissioners to define “sustainable development”. That definition would be required to include a reference to a “climate and nature duty”, which would mean

“a duty to achieve any targets set out under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 or under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021.”

As I set out in Committee, the Government understand the intention behind amendment 2, but a key purpose of the 1961 Act was to repeal various detailed statutory  provisions that had built up over the previous 150 years, which were hampering the effective management of the estate. By focusing the commissioners’ duties on enhancing the estate’s value and the returns generated, the commissioners have a clear objective on which they can be held to account. It is an important principle that giving an organisation too many objectives will make it far less effective than giving it clear and focused priorities, and, as I set out in Committee, the Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from Government, that operates for profit. That mandate is unchanged by the Bill—[Interruption.]

I am getting vibes from the Whip, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I might not respond as fully as I had hoped to some of the remaining amendments. However, I will address amendment 5, which I know matters to several Labour Members who have spoken to it. Amendment 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), would require the commissioners, when keeping the impact of their activities under review with respect to clause 3, to have regard to the UK’s net zero targets, regional economic growth and resilience of energy security. I thank my hon. Friend for the discussions that he and I had on this topic both before Committee and last week. A version of the amendment was debated in Committee. I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for engaging with me on this matter, and setting out so clearly what is important to them in the constituencies they represent.

Although I understand the sentiment behind my hon. Friend’s amendment, it is perhaps helpful to set out the context behind clause 3. The clause was supported by the Government in the other place, as it sought to clarify and enhance the accountability of the Crown Estate to deliver on environmental, social and economic outcomes. Clause 3 will require the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. I emphasise that the public framework document, which governs the relationship between the Crown Estate and the Treasury, will be updated in light of that clause, and will include a definition of “sustainable development”, as I have set out several times. The Crown Estate will continue to include information on its activities in its annual report, which is laid before Parliament. The Government’s intention throughout the passage of the Bill has been to ensure that it can stand the test of time without need for regular updates. That, in part, is why the term “sustainable development” was adopted.

I hope I have addressed some of the concerns raised by hon. Members, although I regret I was not able to address all the amendments with quite the level of detail I had hoped. As I made clear earlier, the Government have carefully considered all amendments throughout the passage of the Bill, and I hope that hon. Members will understand the approach we are taking. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), for Harlow (Chris Vince), and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for powerfully setting out the benefits that the Crown Estate and measures in the Bill will provide to people in their constituencies and across the country. I hope all hon. Members will understand  the approach we are taking, and support our targeted and measured changes to ensure that the Crown Estate is able to operate independently, commercially and in the national interest. \p Llinos Medi: Diolch, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. The Government have tried to explain how devolution and the creation of a Welsh Crown Estate would undermine investor confidence, but that has not been the case for the devolved Scottish Crown Estate, which has raised £700 million from offshore wind investments since 2022. A devolved Crown Estate could lead to greater alignment and integration with the economy in Wales, as has been the case in Scotland. With a well-managed transition, there is no evidence that disruption would occur. Devolution would also offer opportunities to strengthen the role of the local supply chains to be used and to actually see the 5,300 jobs that the Government claim will be created for the people of Wales.

I remind hon. Members that it is projected that child poverty numbers will reach 34.4% in Wales in five years’ time, at the end of this decade, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that the forecast in Scotland is 19.8%. I refer hon. Members to the words of a former Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Peter Hain. He recently said that opposing devolution of the Crown Estate

“reflects old, centralised, conservative, anti-devolution Whitehall thinking.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2024; Vol. 840, c. 18.]

Labour promised us that a Labour Government in Wales and a Labour Government in Westminster would benefit the people of Wales. This Labour Government do not show any ambition for the people of Wales, and I ask every Member who wants to see the best for Wales to join me in the Aye Lobby.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 59, Noes 316.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: “The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy.”—(James Wild.)

This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 312.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 4, page 1, line 26, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must limit borrowing by the Crown Estate under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument, and these regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(4) The first set of regulations made under subsection (3) must limit borrowing to a net debt to asset value ratio of no more than 25 per cent.”—(James Wild.)

This amendment would limit the amount the Commissioners may borrow by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 316.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(3B) Any framework document published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Crown Estate and the Commissioners must define ‘sustainable development’ for the purposes of this Act.

(3C) The definition under subsection (3B) must include reference to a climate and nature duty.

(3D) A ‘climate and nature duty’ means a duty to achieve any targets set out under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 or under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021.”—(Pippa Heylings.)

This amendment would ensure that this act’s Framework Agreement must define “sustainable development”, and that the definition must include reference to a climate and nature duty.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 61, Noes 316.

Question accordingly negatived.

Third Reading

King’s consent signified. \p James Murray: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Crown Estate is an independent commercial business with a varied portfolio of assets across London, and with marine, rural and urban holdings. It operates for profit and competes in the marketplace for investment opportunities. However, it is governed by legislation that has not changed since 1961. That is why the Bill is focused on modernising the Crown Estate by removing limitations that, if unchanged, would hamper its ability to compete and invest as a commercial business.

The central aim of the Bill has been to ensure that the Crown Estate has a sustainable future for decades to come. Through these targeted and measured changes to its founding legislation, particularly in respect of its  investment and borrowing powers, the Government are building on the Crown Estate’s strong track record of success in creating long-term prosperity for the nation. The changes will ensure that the Crown Estate has flexibility to support sustainable projects and preserve our heritage for generations to come. Crucially, the measures will unlock more long-term investment, helping to drive growth across the UK.

The Bill has been strengthened and improved in its passage through both Houses. It has been amended to require the Crown Estate’s board to include commissioners with special responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That will ensure that the Crown Estate continues to work in the best interests of the UK. There have also been changes to strengthen its transparency and accountability, for example through the requirement for the Crown Estate to report on its activities under the partnership with Great British Energy, and the requirement to keep its activities under review with regards to the achievement of sustainable development.

I thank all hon. Members and all noble Lords in the other place for their thorough consideration and scrutiny of the Bill, and for the many and varied amendments that have been tabled and debated. I also thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage, including my colleagues in the Treasury, Members from across the House who took the time to provide scrutiny, all the parliamentary staff who worked on the Bill, and the officials in my Department who have put in a significant amount of time and effort. I am grateful for the broad support for the Bill from across all Benches. It will ensure that the Crown Estate can operate successfully for many more decades to come. I commend the Bill to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p James Wild: I thank hon. Members from across the House, and my noble Friends, who have worked hard to scrutinise this important legislation. I also thank the Exchequer Secretary for the constructive approach he has taken throughout these proceedings, as did the Financial Secretary, particularly on seabed protections, as well as the Public Bill Office, and everyone who has helped to scrutinise the Bill.

There is support across the House for the aims of the Bill, which will deliver the modernisation that the Crown Estate needs, and should generate greater returns for the Exchequer. We are disappointed, however, that the Government have resisted our proposals for greater transparency and appropriate parliamentary oversight, including on borrowing. Similarly, the Crown Estate is about to embark on a novel partnership with GB Energy, and the lack of clarity around that partnership—notwithstanding the limited transparency through the annual report—is a concern. It raises concerns about the political pressure that may be brought to bear on the partnership to persuade it to fund the Energy Secretary’s costly plans. Notwithstanding those concerns, we support the legislation. However, we will be watching carefully to ensure that the primary purpose of the Crown Estate—to maintain and enhance its assets for the benefit of the nation, as well as the income derived from it—is protected.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 9 January, be approved.—(Jeff Smith.)

Question agreed to.

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

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 9 January, be approved.—(Jeff Smith.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before it has been read a second time.—(Lucy Powell.) \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That Sammy Wilson be a member of the Environmental Audit Committee.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jeff Smith.) \p Simon Hoare: We now have the enjoyable prospect of an Adjournment debate lasting an hour and a half, which I know will fill the Minister with joy. I can see the boyish smile on his face—he just cannot contain himself. I do not intend to take an hour and a half, although a number of colleagues from across the House have indicated that they wish to intervene.

I am very pleased to have secured this debate. It is clear that our banking world is going through a period of transition. There are changes in technology; there is the move—some would say at too high a speed—towards a soon-to-be cashless society; and there is the cost of running branches, which includes insurance, business rates, staff costs and the like. I know full well that the closure of a high-street bank hits an area hard, whether the area is urban or rural. However, North Dorset is a rural constituency, and the thrust of my thesis is that the impact is felt disproportionately harder in rural communities than in an urban setting.

Why do I say that? I do not believe that North Dorset is unique in how it operates. [Interruption.] Heckling from the cheap seats. Our market towns operate on a hub-and-spoke model: the market town grows, and the villages are magnetised towards it, which is good for businesses large and small across the sectors, as we all recognise. It is also good for community cohesion at a time when we are all rightly concerned about rural exclusion and isolation; it brings people together. Our rural areas, by accident rather than by design, contain a disproportionately high number of retired or elderly people. \p Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Simon Hoare: I will, although the hon. Gentleman is neither retired nor elderly. \p Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman is very kind. I commend him on bringing forward this debate. He is right to highlight elderly people. Social isolation is an issue for many people, not just those who are elderly or vulnerable, and it is worsened by the loss of basic banking. The hon. Gentleman told me before the debate that he has lost 14 banks. I have lost 11 banks in my constituency in Northern Ireland, which means that going to the bank becomes an all-day job, taking buses and making connections. Does he agree that there is a moral obligation on banks to ensure that they look after their customers? Indeed, if the banks do not do it under a moral obligation, does he think it is time for the Minister to make legislation to make it a legal obligation? \p Simon Hoare: I agree. I will certainly come on to what I am asking the Government to consider, but the hon. Gentleman is right to talk about social isolation. We have lost 14 banks in my constituency since 2015. In 440 square miles, we have five banks remaining. We have had a fall of 74%. Across the county of Dorset, which includes the major conurbations of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, we have had a decrease of 68%  overall, with 101 branches closed and only 48 remaining in the whole of the county. Eight parliamentary constituencies are served by just 48 banks.

My constituent Deborah Jones made a good point in response to a recent announcement by Lloyds that it is closing its branch in Blandford Forum, a market town in my constituency with a large village hinterland. With the exception of Nationwide, it now has no proper, traditional high street branch. \p Wendy Chamberlain: The hon. Member mentioned Nationwide. My understanding is that 142 towns in the UK do not have a bank, and many are left only with a building society. It seems that the banks have exited while the building societies have stayed behind. I would appreciate his thoughts on what that says about the lack of community cohesion as a result of losing those banks. Often we are losing post offices at the same time. \p Simon Hoare: The hon. Lady is right. She allows me to pause to pay tribute to the Post Office and to members of the Association of Convenience Stores, which have stepped in to provide some level of service in those areas where the banks have gone. That brings me to one of my key asks of the banks, and the Minister as well. Yet again, a rubric seems to be used to argue in favour of closures that is blind to whether it is an urban or a rural setting. That differential needs to be taken into account. \p Karen Bradley: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Simon Hoare: I will, but I just want to make the point that was well made by my constituent in her email. She is a customer of Lloyds in Blandford and she does online banking, but during the storm, her digital services were down. She needed to do some important banking and had no way of doing it. She asks how her 92-year-old mother-in-law, who no longer drives and does not use the internet or have a mobile phone, is to contact her bank. At the moment, she is taken into Blandford every Wednesday for shopping and can pop into the bank. What will she do? She is a very independent lady and not ready to hand over all her affairs to a family member just because they have internet access. A number of organisations have drawn attention to that issue, such as Age UK in 2023. But before I get to that, I give way to my right hon. Friend. \p Karen Bradley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In Leek in my constituency we are about to lose our last two banks. We will be left with a building society with a cashpoint and the post office, yet Link has done a review suggesting that we do not need a banking hub because there are sufficient branches 9 or 10 miles away. That does not take account of rurality. We are a market town with, as he rightly described, a hub-and-spoke model, and it simply is not possible for elderly people to get to those other bank branches that are not easily accessible and are not on bus routes. Does he agree that rurality and topography are incredibly important and should be considered when deciding on banking hubs? \p Simon Hoare: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. When a bank closed in my constituency on an earlier occasion, I remember it telling me, “If customers need to talk to an actual person, they could use the branch in Poole.” I explained that that was right, but it would take two days out of the week, because those customers would have to get a bus to Poole, book a hotel, stay over and get the return bus the following day. It did sound a little bit nonsensical. I am therefore grateful to my right hon. Friend for underlining the point that I am seeking to make: there must be rural-proofing of the rubric for these decisions in the first instance and a better understanding of the geography of our rural areas as well as of the lack of public transport or other connectivity between the two places.

It is easy—dare I say it—if one represents Ealing, where the Minister is from. There are plenty of buses and tubes, and heaven knows what else, that I have no doubt will take the people around Ealing. North Dorset does not have those things, and nor do many of our rural areas, but I just do not think that point is recognised by the banks. \p Bernard Jenkin: rose— \p Luke Myer: rose— \p Simon Hoare: Let me make a little progress and I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Gentleman.

At the heart of everything this place does, we must think about social inclusion and trying to deliver services that meet the needs of a wide range of our population. According to Age UK, four in 10 adults over the age of 65 do not bank online, and three quarters of those who are over 65 have expressed the very clear desire that they wish to bank in person. The over-80s, people with disabilities and those on low incomes disproportionately want physical facilities, and yet they are being denied them.

As the Royal National Institute of Blind People points out, in my constituency alone there are, I think, 4,170 constituents who are either blind or partially sighted. They are unable to conduct banking online. Why are we excluding them from the personal management of their financial affairs? \p Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this debate, which has attracted a large number of colleagues; he has touched a nerve. May I enter a plea on behalf of coastal towns such as Harwich, which suffer exactly the same difficulties as somewhere like Blandford Forum? In Harwich, the TSB has closed down and the Halifax has closed down, and that is affecting business in the town. Businesses need a banking hub. The Government have really got to come up with a solution, and a single hub representing all these financial institutions must be able to provide some kind of efficiency. I very much look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s proposals. \p Simon Hoare: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His constituency, and indeed a lot of our coastal communities, will have that profile of constituents that is older and  more settled, and they will want to see things delivered in the way that they are used to. That does not mean that they shun change completely, but they do have a legitimate expectation.

Let me take the House briefly through the timeline narrative of justification, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, as part of that great Tory intake of 2015—those were the days; it is nearly 10 years—will remember being told that there would never be a town without a bank. \p Gregory Stafford: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point? \p Simon Hoare: Let me just finish this point.

That was the first promise, but it seemed to disappear quite quickly. Then the Post Office came in, and then there seemed to be an over-reliance on building societies. I notice that Nationwide—I think it is Nationwide; I could be wrong—is saying in its television advertisement that it pledges not to close a branch before 2028, but it is under exactly the same cost and other pressures as its high street competitors.

Then we were told that the answer to the maiden’s prayer was going to be the banking hub, but there has been quite a lot of disappointment surrounding that. I suggest to the Minister that that is in part to do with the erroneous conflation of access to cash and access to banking services. Link has assessed, perfectly properly, that in Blandford there are ATMs at the local Tesco, at the local Morrison’s and at Nationwide, but just try asking an ATM to amend or set up a standing order or direct debit. A small businessman or businesswoman who wants to extend their line of credit or has a question mark over something cannot ask an ATM those questions. Saying that there is access to cash, as important as that is, is far too blunt an instrument when trying to assess the impact of these closures. \p Luke Myer: North Dorset is quite far away from the north-east, but many of the issues the hon. Gentleman is talking about are issues that I am encountering in my constituency as well. The rural side of my constituency in East Cleveland contains many villages and towns with high deprivation and high rurality, and I am endeavouring to get a banking hub in one of those towns that has lost access to banks over many years. Does he agree that deprivation needs to be included as a metric alongside rurality? \p Simon Hoare: I agree absolutely. A more sensitive and refined definition of the hub-and-spoke model is also needed. If we look at the resident catchment of a market town, we can construct a compelling argument that a proposal for a hub does not stack up, but we must add in the thousands of people who live in the villages that look to it and are magnetised to it, and who will spend more money in those businesses, and the businesses themselves—not just individuals—who use those businesses. \p Helen Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Simon Hoare: Let me give way to my hon. Friend from Surrey and then I will give way to the hon. Lady. \p Gregory Stafford: I would not like to claim that I am the Member of Parliament for the whole of Surrey. My Hampshire residents would not be pleased about that. Just last Friday, the Barclays bank in Farnham closed, leaving the whole of my constituency of 101,000 people with just one bank, Santander, and one building society, Nationwide. We are lucky enough to have a banking hub in Haslemere, and we are going to get another one in Whitehill and Bordon—Liphook does not have one—but given that there are only 100 banking hubs across the country and that the Government say they are going to put forward 350, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are going to have to turbocharge those banking hubs, not just for access to cash, but more especially, as he mentioned, for proper banking services for residents in rural constituencies? \p Simon Hoare: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend who represents Surrey and part of Hampshire.

I would be happy for the Minister to write to me on this point if it is easier, but it strikes me that there is scope for a little bit of wiggle room with regard to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. The Act did not give the Financial Conduct Authority powers to reflect on and assess wider banking services. The Minister’s party, when in opposition, was very keen that it should do so. When my party was in government, for some unknown reason we resisted amendments to that effect, and Labour, then in opposition, did not push them to a Division. I just think that there is too gaping a lacuna in all of this, in that it is only access to cash that is assessed, and not access to banking services. \p Harriet Cross: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Simon Hoare: Let me give way to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), then I will give way to my hon. Friend. \p Helen Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech outlining the issues. In North Shropshire, four of my five market towns have lost all their banks and only two of them will get a banking hub. Does he agree that we need to look at a much wider area to make those banking hubs work, because people who work in small hamlets and villages without access to public transport simply cannot access one that is maybe 20 miles away? \p Simon Hoare: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Again, I hope that any of the banks or regulators who may listen in or read the report will understand that this is not an issue that divides by party; it affects constituents across the country irrespective of which party represents them in this place. The key point is to have a proper assessment of rurality and the differential of living in a rural area compared with an urban area.

I commend the Government for their support for hubs, but they need to be more physical and robust in driving them forward. It is almost as if the banks are marking their own homework as to whether the argument in favour of a hub stacks up. As Sarah Coles of Hargreaves Lansdown commented a year or so ago:

“The closure of bank branches is a vicious circle. The more that close, the more people move online”.

Of course, by definition, the more people move online, the more that almost hollows out the argument to justify creating a hub.

I understand that initially the banks were slightly reticent, just as the mobile phone operators were about shared masts—that somehow clients would be pinched and all the rest of it—but the hubs are a shared facility jointly financed by the banks. Those banks need to remember that they are still in business principally due to the good will of the British taxpayer and the Exchequer during the financial crash of 2008, who keep our banking sector afloat. They owe a little bit of payback, as a number of my constituents have been keen to point out.

The hubs seem to work and fill that gap; but as I say, marking one’s own homework and setting the rubric to decide whether a hub will work is not right. The Treasury could take a more engaged and proactive leadership role on the matter. \p Harriet Cross: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important and timely debate. I certainly spent a lot of my recess looking at banking hubs, especially in a town called Ellon in my constituency, which has recently lost its last bank. Ellon is a large town of over 7,000 people, and if the surrounding villages are included, it is getting up towards 11,000 people. However, it does not qualify for a banking hub. Link has not given its permission to have a banking hub, saying that there are not enough businesses in the town. It does not take into account, for example, the farming businesses, and the rural nature of the area, as we have touched on, is not taken into account in the criteria set out by Link.

I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the importance of “rural-proofing” the conditions that Link looks at to deliver a banking hub. I hope that this debate and the Minister’s response will put some pressure on Link to look more holistically at the rural environment when it comes to considering hubs, because places like Ellon need a banking hub. \p Simon Hoare: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because again she enhances and underlines the argument that I have been deploying, and for which colleagues across the House have been kind enough to add their support.

I suppose my annoyance is that the people who write the policies, whether they are the regulators or those in the bank boardrooms, do not know what living in a rural area is like. If they are in the Square Mile, they are not part of a rural community. They may have a getaway weekend retreat that they dash off to in their personalised number-plated Land Rover or Range Rover, in which they take their food down from Waitrose, before coming back to London on the Sunday, but that is not living in a rural area. That is not running a business in a rural area. \p David Smith: rose— \p Simon Hoare: I give way to the hon. Member for North Northumberland, which really is a rural area. \p David Smith: I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. He mentioned the Square Mile there. In my constituency of North Northumberland—the third largest in England—there are eight branches in 2,100 square kilometres. That has gone down by 64% since 2015.

I want to highlight a point raised elsewhere in the debate. Banking hubs are important and, like other Members, I am pushing for them in my constituency; but again, the role of the Post Office in those banking services is key. We had to fight together as a community to secure Wooler post office. I must give credit to Glendale Gateway Trust for securing that. Does the hon. Member agree that post offices are absolutely vital and part of the solution to this problem? \p Simon Hoare: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In many respects—[Interruption.] I am beginning to get paranoid; I hear voices. He is absolutely right to make the point that he does. I pay tribute to how the Post Office has stepped up. Very often, in providing that sort of transactional bank service, it has supported the continuance of rural post offices, which can often be marginal and fragile businesses themselves. Again, I think it an easy crutch to lean on to say, “Well, of course, the post office does this.” We can all applaud what post offices do, but customers cannot use them to talk to someone from their bank to discuss their overdraft, loan, mortgage, business credit card maximum or whatever it may happen to be.

I say to the Minister that we want our local businesses and small and medium enterprises to flourish—small, micro and family-owned businesses are very much the hallmark of a rural economy—and they have the greatest need, on a more regular basis, for that relationship with their banks. Then, the banks know the nature of the business and its long-term viability, and they can build that relationship. \p Wendy Chamberlain: Will the hon. Member give way a second time? \p Simon Hoare: For a second time, of course. \p Wendy Chamberlain: I am grateful to him for giving way a second time. He is making an important point. One of the things that I have always found interesting is that when a bank has closed in North East Fife, it offers to deliver not an access-to-cash service but some kind of pop-up banking advice service in the constituency. That suggests to me that banks know very well that giving banking service advice is important. Instead of doing it as a sop for a number of months before giving up, they need to do it on a more regular and permanent basis. \p Simon Hoare: The hon. Lady is again absolutely right. Surely it makes good commercial sense for high street banks, as we used to call them—increasingly, they are not particularly high street banks—to be able to tout their wares to existing or potential customers. That is how to generate business: by having a presence. A hub makes a very good presence for them all, but they seem to move at the speed of the slowest, and if one is not particularly convinced, the whole thing sort of seems to fall down. I know that the Government are trying to do more on that, but I think they could do even more to turbocharge it. \p Jayne Kirkham: Falmouth is to have a banking hub. We are losing our last bank; Lloyds is going at the end of the year. The interesting thing about that is that the banking hub will be open 9 to 5, five days a week—and potentially even  more—whereas the banks were very slowly cutting their opening hours after covid, and it was hard to find a bank outside school hours. That of course did not help rural businesses, which could not get there in time. \p Simon Hoare: The hon. Lady is right. The cynic might suggest that the opening hours were set in order to try to deliberately reduce footfall—possibly. That might be hugely cynical, and if it is, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will plead guilty as charged. \p Karen Bradley: Will my hon. Friend indulge me a second time? \p Simon Hoare: Who could refuse? \p Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend is so very generous to indulge me a second time during his excellent speech. I am struck by the impact on charities. As any trustee of a charity will know, trustees quite regularly have to prove their identity at the bank that the charity chooses to bank with. When it is simply not possible for trustees to get to a branch of the bank to prove their identity, the impact on rural charities will be devastating. \p Simon Hoare: I admire my right hon. Friend’s perseverance in ever trying to change the signatory on a charity bank account. People have died of boredom and exasperation trying to do it. A 60-year-old has to turn up with their great grandparents, their first cat and everything else to prove who they are. The fact that the bank has known them as a private customer for years seems to pass it by.

I hope I have made my points to the Minister, but let me rehearse them very briefly in bullet point form. One concerns the rubric to defend a bank closure. The assessment of access to cash needs a rural dimension, and there needs to be a much more granular understanding of the hub-and-spoke geography of a rural economy, which is very different from an urban one. We need to move away pretty quickly from merely assessing as satisfactory access to cash as defined by access to an ATM.

We need to turbocharge the delivery of hubs and bring pressure to bear on the banks, and there are a variety to do that. It can be carrot and stick, through tax and other policies, to try to nudge them to move at a faster pace. I hope, however, that the Government will take the lead on social inclusion for our rural areas, reflecting the fact that they have far more small, independent shops and businesses, and that the population is disproportionately older and/or retired and dealing with disabilities, infirmities, frailties and so on. Those things should be taken into account, and I remain to be convinced that they are.

I think an opportunity exists to amend the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 to give the FCA greater powers to look at wider banking services, not just cash. Our rural communities struggle. Our economies are fragile, and wages are usually lower than in urban counterparts. Another bank closure is not just another bank closure in a rural market town. \p James Naish: Although I welcome banking hubs, I am increasingly concerned that banks see them as an excuse to accelerate the closure of core services. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that pressure needs to be applied, first and foremost, to the banks to  keep branches open on the high street, and that banking hubs should remain as an infill as opposed to being seen as the solution? That is the danger when we, as a collective, talk so frequently about banking hubs. \p Simon Hoare: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I think the trend has been pretty clear, and the goalposts have moved. From late 2008 or 2009 through to about 2015 or 2016, I think the Government could and should have been much tougher and more exacting, but we are where we are. I take his point and I understand it, but let us not let the delivery of the good be sacrificed in pursuit of the excellent, which seems unattainable.

I think the trend in what the banks are doing is pretty well set, and it is probably irreversible. All sorts of things play into that. What I think is arrestable is the attitude of, “We will pull out even if we are the last branch open, and somebody else will pick up the slack”—principally the Post Office—or “We expect our customers to travel great distances to find a bank that is open and can help them.” That may require a number of visits in the case of something like an overdraft.

That is where the idea of a hub comes in. I understand that we are due to have our first hub in Dorset at some point this year—in Sherborne, in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello)—but North Dorset needs one as well. I will certainly be campaigning for one in Blandford. I would value the support of the Treasury Bench to emphasise to the banks that they have a duty of care to their customers, and they cannot just cut them adrift and say, “Make your own way. Find an alternative. Beat a path to another branch. It is terribly inconvenient for you, but that is what we are telling you to do, because we have no social responsibility at all.”

For the sake of our rural communities, economy and businesses, for charities and the farming community, and for a host of other people who want that personal interaction because they do not have access to the internet, or do not want to use online banking or an app and so on, there should be a bank teller, as we used to call them, from a bank, in a hub at set times, to help their customers. By so doing they will not damage our rural and market town economies as much as many of us fear, and as many hon. Members have attested to in this short debate. \p James Murray: I commend the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for securing this debate. He has ensured that the views and concerns of his constituents have been heard by Ministers this evening, and he has set out the particular dynamics of the role of banking hubs in rural communities. The fact that he received so many interventions from other hon. Members underscores how important this issue is to constituents across the country, and I thank him for securing this important debate.

It might be helpful if I outline some of the context around this issue. In recent years, people across the UK have reaped the benefit of the transformations of the UK’s banking sector, particularly the enhanced accessibility and convenience afforded by remote banking. For example, in 2017 40% of UK adults regularly used a bank branch, but by 2022 only 21 % of UK adults did so, and almost  nine in 10 banked online or used a mobile app. Notably, that includes 65% of the over-75s. However, the Government recognise that those changes have presented considerable challenges for others.

Bank branch closures can have a particular impact on rural communities given the distances to alternatives—indeed, we heard examples of that from the hon. Member for North Dorset, and other hon. Members who intervened to highlight specific cases and to draw the House’s attention to the challenges facing their constituents. I assure hon. Members, and the people they represent, that this Government understand the importance of face-to-face banking, and banking access, to local communities and high streets. Our objective is to ensure that people and businesses have access to banking services, supporting local communities and local economic growth. Work on that is well under way, and we are working closely with banks to open 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor marked the opening of the 100th banking hub in December, and more than 200 hubs have been announced in total. \p Jim Shannon: The hon. Member for North Dorset referred to 14 banks closing, and I referred to 11 closing. When it comes to the criteria for agreeing where those bank hubs will be, will the Minister reassure me that those constituents who have lost the most banks will be those who get more banking hubs when the opportunity comes through? \p James Murray: The hon. Gentleman highlights how this issue affects communities right across the UK, and in a moment I will turn to the criteria by which the locations of banking hubs are decided—hon. Members have raised that important issue, and put on record their concerns and feelings about it.

Banking hubs offer counter services provided by post office staff, which allows personal and business customers of more than 30 banks and building societies to withdraw and deposit cash, deposit cheques, pay bills and check their balance. They also, crucially, contain rooms where customers can see community bankers from their bank to carry out wider banking services, such as registering a bereavement or help with changing a PIN. As the hon. Member for North Dorset pointed out, banking hubs offer more than just access to cash—that is an important point regarding why such hubs can bring so much to an area that has otherwise lost its local banks.

Community banking hubs can clearly contribute a great deal to local areas where existing banks have closed, and decisions over the opening of a hub are guided by the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulations. In response to the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), it may be helpful for me to briefly outline how the FCA’s process works. When a bank announces a closure, Link, the operator of the UK’s largest ATM network, conducts an impartial assessment of a community’s access to cash needs. Link considers criteria such as population size, the number of small businesses and levels of vulnerability, as well as the distance to the nearest branch, and the cost and time taken to get there via public transport.

Should Link recommend a banking hub, Cash Access UK, a not-for-profit entity funded by major UK banks, will implement it. Crucially, a bank branch cannot close until any recommended services are in place. Additionally, individuals, including Members of Parliament, can directly request an access to cash review via the Link website. In collaboration with industry, the Government remain committed to advancing the roll-out of these hubs.

It is worth pointing out that customers have alternative options for accessing everyday banking services. Notably, 99% of personal and 95% of business banking customers can conduct their banking, including taking out and depositing cash, at over 11,500 Post Office branches nationwide. The Post Office, as several hon. Members have mentioned, has a duty to serve rural communities, with the Department for Business and Trade requiring that 95% of the total rural population across the UK be within three miles of a Post Office. Therefore, where communities might be too small for a banking hub, as may be the case for some of the rural communities we are focusing on this evening, individuals and businesses can still access essential services at their local Post Office. \p Helen Morgan: Have the people who have developed these regulations considered that three miles is a very long way for those who do not drive or have access to a car, or where there is no bus service? That is certainly the case for large numbers of people in North Shropshire and, I am sure, the other rural communities mentioned during the debate. People have set up their lives to be able to access the services that are available, but if those services are taken away and put somewhere else, they are unlikely to be able to get to that location, which is really problematic. Will the Minister consider reassessing the criteria, so that banking hubs are placed where banks were previously located so that people can still access them? \p James Murray: The hon. Member is correct that people need to be able to get to banking hubs, and I will address that point later in my speech.

More broadly, this Government are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in rural areas, so that rural communities and businesses can realise their full potential. A prosperous rural economy will be underpinned by improvements in rural connectivity, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) pointed out, and access to a diverse range of services. In the autumn Budget of 2024, the Government therefore announced funding of over £500 million next year to deliver digital infrastructure upgrades through Project Gigabit and the shared rural network. That investment will drive roll-out of broadband and 4G connectivity to support access to good internet in rural areas across the UK.

We have also confirmed investment of over £1 billion to support and improve bus services and keep fares affordable. In recognition of the fact that each community has individual needs, we have introduced the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill to put power over local bus services back in the hands of local leaders. Every region in England, including the rural communities at the heart of this debate, will benefit. Taken together, these investments will help improve access to banking services, whether  digital or in-person. More broadly, they will help to deliver economic growth more evenly across the country, helping rural areas to thrive.

In closing, on behalf of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), I again thank the hon. Member for North Dorset for his continued work in highlighting this important topic. I assure him and other hon. Members  that this Government are steadfast in their commitment to supporting rural communities in their access to banking services, and I thank him again for raising his constituents’ concerns in the House tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.