debates/debates2025-04-24b conversation_14
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-04-24)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-04-24b conversation_14

Johanna Baxter:It is right that the Government have ensured that funding is in place to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal, but many of them, particularly those in my constituency, are still concerned that the process is taking too long. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what we are doing to speed up getting compensation to those victims? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for her constituents. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority is of course operationally independent, but I stand ready to take all the steps I can to ensure that compensation is made as soon as possible. Payments to the infected started at the end of last year; payments to the affected will start by the end of this year. \p Danny Chambers: It is every British citizen’s right to vote, and voter turnout is one demonstration of public engagement with politics. Will the Minister consider scrapping photo voter ID, so that the 777,000 people who said that was the reason they did not vote at the last general election will be able to exercise their right to vote at the next general election? \p Ellie Reeves: As we set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to encouraging participation in our democracy and believe that it is unacceptable when legitimate voters are prevented or discouraged from voting. Although we have no plans to remove the voter ID rules, at the elections in May the veteran card will be accepted for the first time, and we are conducting a thorough review of the voter ID rules, evaluating how they impacted citizens at the general election. \p Gareth Snell: Too many Government Departments and public bodies have foreign-made tableware purchased with British taxpayers’ money. May I invite the ministerial team to make a commitment to ensure that every Department replaces its foreign-made table set with a British-made one—preferably from Stoke-on-Trent? \p Georgia Gould: We know of the brilliant craftsmanship of the Stoke-on-Trent industry. We are committed to supporting British businesses and ensuring that they have the best chance of winning public contracts. Our new national policy statement asks contracting authorities to maximise spend with small and medium-sized enterprises and to support our industrial strategy. \p Roger Gale: During the last Parliament, I made a submission, on behalf of the National Association of Retired Police Officers, for a medal to be issued in recognition of the service given by those injured on duty and invalided out of the service. That had the backing of the then Policing Minister, and I understand it also has the backing of the current Policing Minister, but it has now disappeared into a black hole in the Cabinet Office. Will the Minister please dig it out, dust it off and give it a fair wind? \p Pat McFadden: I will find out exactly where we are with this matter and then write to the right hon. Member. \p Jim Allister: Under the Windsor framework, the Government, through the Cabinet Office, regularly supply data to the European Union about the number and type of checks conducted at the Irish sea border, but they refuse to provide that data to Members of this House. When I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the oversight of those checks lay with the local Department, I was able to acquire that, but now that it is under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Members who ask those questions get a refusal of an answer. Why is that? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am perfectly happy to look into the matter that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises. On the UK-EU reset, I very much hope that if the Government are able to secure a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that they will reduce the number of checks on the Irish sea. \p Marie Goldman: The 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster came and went over the recess, when we also saw in the media rumours that the Government are considering watering down their proposed Hillsborough law. Can the Minister explain the Government’s thinking? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I pay tribute to the Hillsborough families and those who have campaigned over so many years. The Government are committed to bringing in a   Hillsborough law, but it is also important that we work closely with the families to ensure that we get it right, and that is precisely what we will do. \p Priti Patel: (Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the talks held yesterday in London on the war in Ukraine. \p Stephen Doughty: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question and for the Opposition’s continued support for the united position that we take in our iron-clad support for Ukraine. We remain fully committed to working with Ukraine and our international partners to secure a just and lasting peace.

Our support for Ukraine is iron-clad. Representatives of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States convened in London yesterday, with Ukraine, for another round of intensive talks, following up on the meeting in Paris last week. All parties reiterated their strong support for President Trump’s commitment to stopping the killing and achieving a just and lasting peace. The talks were productive and successful, and significant progress was made on reaching a common position on next steps. All agreed to continue their close co-ordination and look forward to further talks soon. There was an E3 statement on this just last night. The Foreign Secretary had bilateral discussions with Foreign Minister Sybiha, and he remains in close contact with his ministerial counterparts. To give further details of the discussions would only benefit Putin, as I hope the right hon. Lady understands.

We condemn Russia’s brutal missile and drone attacks on civilians, including overnight. Our thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones at this tragic time. They were absolutely horrific scenes, and they came on the back of shocking scenes not only in Kyiv but in Kryvyi Rih, Sumy, Marhanets and many other locations across Ukraine in recent days. I remind the House that, while Ukraine has been in peace talks, Russia has continued these severe attacks, including last night. That is a stark reminder of the continued bloodshed and aggression perpetrated by Putin. I witnessed myself the terrible situation in Kyiv when I visited just weeks ago; there were attacks on Bucha of all places just hours before I arrived. Indeed, this is about not just the killings but the continued shocking abductions of children and attempts to wipe out Ukrainian culture. Putin’s demands remain undiminished. We are very clear about that.

President Zelensky has shown his commitment to peace. President Putin must now agree to a full and immediate ceasefire without conditions, as Ukraine has done. We will not stop in our efforts to work with all parties to that end. \p Priti Patel: For all the talks taking place, it is concerning that a clear and unified front in support of Ukraine, to support a peace on its terms, has yet to emerge. The Minister mentioned the E3 statement on yesterday’s talks, but it consisted of three sentences stating that the talks were productive and successful, and that significant progress was made in reaching a common position on the next steps. Will he tell us exactly what was productive and successful about the talks, what those next steps are, and whether Ukraine is in agreement? Were security guarantees for Ukraine discussed, and was progress made  on agreeing what they will be? Was the UK’s long-standing position of supporting Ukraine’s accession to NATO discussed?

Following the abhorrent missile strike in Kyiv last night, which killed more innocent civilians, does the Minister believe that Putin is committed to a just and fair end to this conflict? Can the Minister confirm whether the status of Crimea and other Ukrainian territories invaded and occupied unlawfully by Russia was discussed and what the UK Government’s position is? The UK was the strongest advocate for Ukraine regaining all the territory taken by force by Putin and for Putin to lose this war. Is that still the case?

There is much debate about the initiatives to end the war by negotiations, but we cannot forget that this war was started by Putin—a murderous, vile autocrat who is being propped up by an axis of authoritarian states trying to extinguish democracy on our continent, and by those who are opposed to our values, including China, North Korea and Iran. We need the Government to leverage British influence in every way possible for Ukraine. Our Ukrainian friends are on the frontline, battling an attempt to reshape the whole international order by force.

I condemn the sanctioning of 15 Members yesterday by Russia. To those colleagues, I say this: it shows that you are on the right side of history and that we must always stand up to tyranny. UK sanctions on Russia must stay in place. What is the Government’s position on applying secondary sanctions, and when will the billions of pounds of proceeds from the sale of Chelsea FC be made available for Ukraine?

Can the Minister explain why the Government’s £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, backed by the profits of sanctioned assets, is being paid over three years rather than in full now? Finally, what more can the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office do to mobilise British technology, which could be cheaply and quickly applied to adapt Ukraine’s military efforts? \p Stephen Doughty: I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions and for her continued support and unity on these issues. It is crucial that we send a signal not only to our friends in Ukraine but to Putin—that this House will not be divided on these issues. We are united in our support for Ukraine, and I can reassure her of our absolute commitment to Ukraine. Indeed, there has been extensive ministerial contact over recent weeks. I met Minister Sybiha in Turkey a week or so ago, and the Foreign Secretary was with him yesterday. Contact remains at every level.

The right hon. Lady asked a number of specific questions. I am afraid that I cannot go into the detail of yesterday’s discussions, for reasons that she will understand. I know she has a job to do in holding us to account on that, but it is really important that we allow those technical talks to go on at that level between the principals, and she will understand why that is necessary.

I agree completely with the right hon. Lady’s point about the sanctions against Members of this House, which I utterly condemn. This is par for the course when it comes to Putin and his regime. She asked what we are doing on sanctions. Our commitment to sanctions remains undiminished. We will maintain the pressure at every level. In fact, we are ramping up the pressure, and  today we have announced new sanctions, including on the shocking repurposing of games console controllers to kill Ukrainians by Russia. We are taking robust action at every step we can, not only directly, to choke off the Russian war machine, but in relation to second and third-country circumvention of those sanctions. She can be assured that I have spent a lot of time on this issue in recent weeks.

The right hon. Lady asks about the situation with Chelsea FC, and I refer her to my previous comments on that. We are working at pace to meet the agreements that were made on that. She points out the importance of the extraordinary revenue accelerator loan. The first tranche of that has been disbursed. In fact, I discussed this with the deputy Finance Minister of Ukraine just a few weeks ago, to ensure that they had access to those resources. They do have access, and I am happy to write to her separately about the details of the further tranches that will be paid.

There is absolutely no softening of our commitment to the coalition of the willing. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary met French, US, German and Ukrainian counterparts last week, underlining our shared commitments, and we are leading a coalition of willing nations to defend Ukraine’s security. We will not get into the operational details, for obvious reasons, as the Defence Secretary made clear earlier this week.

The right hon. Lady asks about Crimea. The UK’s position regarding Ukrainian sovereignty is well known and has not changed: we do not recognise Russian sovereignty over any territory illegally seized from Ukraine, including Crimea. When, how and on what terms this war comes to an end can be decided only by negotiations with Ukraine at the heart of them. \p Phil Brickell: As one of the individuals who was sanctioned yesterday by the Kremlin, I ask the Minister whether he agrees that if Putin is serious about securing any sort of lasting peace in Ukraine, he should stop the performative sanctioning of democratically elected Members of this House and focus on stopping the murderous, barbaric killing of civilians in Ukraine and the invasion of that nation, which we stand with in full support. \p Stephen Doughty: Again, I utterly condemn the sanctioning of Members of this House, including my hon. Friend. I am on that list too, as are many other Members, and it is completely unacceptable; we are clear on that. My hon. Friend rightly points out examples of Russia’s actions in recent days—the horrific attacks, the deaths, the killing, the continued aggression—and of course Russia is the aggressor in this conflict. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson James MacCleary. \p James MacCleary: Overnight, Russia launched 11 ballistic missiles and nearly 200 cruise missiles and drones at civilian targets in Kyiv. Yesterday’s talks in London should have been an opportunity to strengthen the western coalition’s support for Ukraine in the face of Putin’s barbarism. Instead, they were derailed by President Trump, who, in a petulant response to President Zelensky’s refusal to countenance the recognition of Crimea as Russian, withdrew his Secretary  of State and special adviser from the meeting. President Trump demonstrated that he is not interested in securing a just peace that can deter future Russian aggression and protect Ukraine’s right to self-determination. Instead, he is intent on securing a carve-up of Ukraine with Putin, as long as it is agreed before the 100th day of his presidency. Will the Minister make clear to his US counterpart that the apparent ultimatum shared with President Zelensky last week, which would deliver to Putin most of the goals of his illegal invasion, is utterly wrong and would only embolden future Russian aggression? I too yesterday found myself on a list of MPs from across the House who are being sanctioned by the Kremlin. Will the Government outline how they plan to support Members who are being targeted for speaking out? \p Stephen Doughty: While I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s party’s continued support for a united front on Ukraine, I do not recognise his characterisation of the talks yesterday, which were productive and constructive, and involved the United States. The Foreign Secretary also spoke to Secretary of State Rubio just the night before, and we are in regular contact with our US counterparts. Secretary of State Rubio welcomed the fact that we were hosting special envoy Kellogg alongside others. Of course, the Prime Minister has been in contact with President Trump in recent days, and the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with his counterpart.

We share the President’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. Of course Russia could do that tomorrow by withdrawing its forces and ending its illegal invasion. We are working with all our allies, including the United States, on a plan to stop the fighting. We obviously need agreement among all of us on that—European allies, the United States and others—and we are working closely with President Trump on that, but we are also clear that Ukraine’s voice must be at the heart of any talks. We warmly welcome the agreements and discussions between the United States and Ukraine, but ultimately the ball is in President Putin’s court. He continues instead to fire missiles and cause the destruction and killing that the hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted. It is utterly horrific. The responsibility lies with one person, and that is Vladimir Putin. \p Matt Rodda: I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the appalling attacks on Ukraine last night, and I thank him for his statement today. Will he update the House on the support the Government are offering to Ukrainian communities across the UK at this very difficult time, such as the large Ukrainian community in Reading? \p Stephen Doughty: I thank my hon. Friend for his support, and he rightly references Ukrainian communities across the United Kingdom. I have met the Ukrainian community in my constituency, and just this week I met Ukrainian community members to discuss a range of issues, including the horrific abduction of children, which Russia has continued to perpetrate, one of the most shocking and heinous aspects of this conflict. I am really proud of what British communities have done across the country to support Ukrainians, and the strong ties that have been built. It is fantastic that we have signed a 100-year partnership, so that for 100 years into the future, we have that relationship and give  that iron-clad support on every level—economically, diplomatically, militarily, and of course through crucial people-to-people links. \p James Cleverly: Our international relationships the world over are dependent on partner countries’ confidence that we will stick by our word, and that our allies will do likewise. Will the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), convey that message to the United States of America? The world—friends and foes alike—is looking at our willingness to stick by the commitments that we have made to Ukraine. If we renege on those commitments, every single relationship around the world will be undermined. \p Stephen Doughty: Well, I am not my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—I represent Cardiff South and Penarth—but I thank the former Foreign Secretary for his comments, his continued support, and his engagement with me on these important issues when I was in opposition. The Government and I have been absolutely clear: our support is iron-clad, not only now, but for 100 years into the future. I was able to convey our support and our unity on this issue to a bipartisan delegation from the US House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday. It was an excellent and productive discussion. There is strong unity on these issues. We need to continue to work together, across Europe and in our transatlantic and global alliances, to deter and defend against the threat from Russia, as well as other threats that we face together. \p Johanna Baxter: I was also one of the Members on the list of people sanctioned by the Kremlin yesterday. I want to make it clear in this House that if Vladimir Putin thinks that sanctioning me will silence me, he is very, very wrong. It is no coincidence that the sanction came on the day when I launched a report that I co-authored with UK Friends of Ukraine on the issue of the stolen children. The report outlines in detail the systemic capture, re-education and conscription of Ukrainian children by Russia. Will my hon. Friend outline whether the issue of the stolen children was discussed yesterday? Does he support the campaign to return the stolen children? Will he join me in calling for a UK national day of action to recognise the issue of the stolen children of Ukraine on 17 July, the Day of International Criminal Justice? \p Stephen Doughty: I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful points, and I condemn the sanction against her. She is right to raise the issue of the stolen children. I discussed the matter a short while ago with the Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister and representatives of the different campaigns on the issue. This is a personal priority for the Foreign Secretary and me. It is one of the most heinous and horrific aspects of the conflict, not only for those children and their families, but because it speaks to a wider attempt by Putin to subjugate the people, identity, culture, language and future of Ukraine. That should be clear for all to see. One of the most powerful reminders of that is a picture that I have in my office painted by one of the children, who was thankfully  returned, but sadly there are still far too many children who have been taken by Russia. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on this important issue, and I am very happy to discuss the event that she suggested. \p Julian Lewis: If the Government could persuade the Nobel peace prize committee to give the award to Donald Trump on condition that he stops siding with the aggressor against the victim, does the Minister think that American policy might revert to one of NATO deterrence, which prevented world war three for half a century after the end of world war two? \p Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Gentleman, who I know well, will know that that is a matter for the Nobel committee, and not for me. I do not recognise his characterisation. We are working closely with the United States, Ukraine and all of our European partners to secure a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We are very clear about who is on the side of peace—us—and who is on the side of war: Vladimir Putin. \p Lisa Smart: Members across this House who have been sanctioned by Putin and his flunkies should wear that as a badge of honour. It indicates just how Putin and his flunkies feel about the prospect of Russian assets being seized. Will the Minister update the House on the progress made in moving from freezing to seizing Russian assets to strengthen the hand of our brave Ukrainian allies? \p Stephen Doughty: I condemn the sanction against the hon. Lady, and against other colleagues in the House. We have been very clear that Russia must pay for the damage it is causing in Ukraine and the destruction that it has wrought on the Ukrainian people and industries. I saw some terrible examples of that when I visited just a few weeks ago. I have spoken about the importance of the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme and the moneys that are now available to Ukraine. The Government continue to work closely with allies on the issue that the hon. Lady references. I had extensive discussions with my G7 counterparts and others about considering all possible lawful avenues for making Russia pay for the damage it is causing, and we will update the House in due course. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Minister for his statement. I also thank the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for her statement, because it is important that this House speaks with one voice on this really important issue. On Tuesday, I asked a question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the changing nature of warfare. The Minister raised the terrible image of controllers for computer game systems being used as weapons. Has he had conversations with NATO partners and allies about the changing nature of warfare, and will that be fed into the strategic defence review? \p Stephen Doughty: We certainly have had those conversations, and we have them regularly. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. The Minister for the Armed Forces is here with me; we regularly discuss these issues. I am sure all that will be considered as part of the strategic defence review. My hon. Friend rightly points out the efforts we are making to deny Russia any  of the nefarious means it uses to prosecute its horrendous war in Ukraine. We have taken very specific action on some of those matters today, and we will continue to consider further measures. \p Dan Carden: I welcome the words of the Minister, and the UK Government’s steadfast support for Ukraine, and for further promoting European security. Will he say a little more about how he is working across Government Departments to support the efforts of civil society and businesses in the UK to ensure that, at every level, we offer the greatest support possible to Ukrainians? \p Stephen Doughty: I point my hon. Friend to the important 100-year partnership that we signed. Engagement at every level between civil society and people in every community is crucial. I know that there are very important twinning arrangements between cities and communities across the UK, and we look forward to strengthening those, and working with those communities. I met Ukrainian civil society organisations in Kyiv just a few weeks ago, and I regularly meet organisations here in the UK. If all of us across this House can create more links, that will give true strength for the future to the foundation on which that partnership is built. \p Roger Gale: The Minister’s confirmation that the coalition of the willing will not permit the concession of any Ukrainian sovereign territory to Russia is most welcome, but I am not sure that I understand how that squares with Mr Trump’s current negotiating position, which seems to be based entirely on that. Some 20,000 Ukrainian children have been stolen by the neo-Soviet Union and sovietised. That is a war crime. Did the meeting yesterday make it absolutely plain that no recognition of any concession based on war crimes will be admitted at any time? \p Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Gentleman asks important questions. He has heard what I had to say about the abducted children, and I completely share his passion, and his horror at what has happened. I will not go into the details of what was discussed yesterday, but as I said, I spoke about this issue very recently with our Ukrainian counterparts, and I know that the Foreign Secretary takes a very keen interest in it. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about territory. I will repeat what I said: we do not recognise Russian sovereignty over any territory illegally seized from Ukraine, including Crimea. \p Jeevun Sandher: I was also one of the Members sanctioned by Putin yesterday for calling for this House to do everything we can to stop him. The lesson of a century ago is that dictators like Putin cannot and will not stop unless we stop them, and the only way to stop him is through strength—through strong armed forces, a strong NATO and a strong nation. How will we invest in our strength to stop Putin and keep ourselves safe? \p Stephen Doughty: Again, I condemn the sanction against my hon. Friend. He asks what we are doing to keep our citizens and all our allies safe, and to keep our shared security in place. Again, I am pleased to be joined by the Minister for the Armed Forces. This Government have stepped up resources for defence and security and  UK support to Ukraine. We are increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, and have an ambition to reach 3%, and the UK is committed to providing Ukraine with £3 billion in military assistance this year and every year for as long as it takes. I mentioned the ERA loan, and we also have export finance support, £1.6 billion of which is going on supplying Ukraine with more than 5,000 air defence missiles. That is utterly crucial and makes a tangible difference, not least in the face of the barbaric attacks that we saw overnight. \p Desmond Swayne: I welcome fresh members to the list of those of us who have been sanctioned. Why is President Trump treating Ukraine as the aggressor? Will the Minister remind US negotiators that—together with the United Kingdom—the USA signed the Budapest memorandum, assuring Ukraine of its territorial integrity and independence, when that country sacrificed unilaterally its position as the world’s third largest nuclear-armed power? \p Stephen Doughty: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support on Ukraine, but again, I do not share his characterisation of the United States’ position. We share President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end, and we are working closely with the US and other international partners to secure a just and lasting peace. As I have said, it is very clear to us that President Zelensky and Ukraine are demonstrating and have demonstrated a clear commitment to peace, including through their participation yesterday alongside the US and our European partners. We know who the real obstacle to peace is: Vladimir Putin. \p Connor Rand: Does the Minister agree that, as other hon. Members have alluded to, last night’s brutal attack on Kyiv is a timely reminder to Governments and leaders around the world that Russia is and always has been the aggressor in this conflict? Does he agree that that perspective must be central to any talks, as we stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes? \p Stephen Doughty: As I have said, we are absolutely unequivocal that Russia and Vladimir Putin are responsible for this war, and we are absolutely clear that they are responsible for the ongoing killing and aggression. That is why we stand four-square and iron-clad behind Ukraine, and we are working with the United States and our European allies to achieve a peace that is just and—most importantly—lasting. We know that Putin’s demands and intentions remain undiminished, and we need to ensure that Ukraine has the ability not only to defend itself, but to deter future aggression by Putin. \p Steve Darling: This weekend, I will join with the Ukrainian community in Torbay to mourn the sad loss of a Ukrainian national who has died far from home. Almost 20,000 children have been stolen by the barbaric Putin regime; can the Minister advise the Chamber on what practical steps the Government are taking to get those children home? \p Stephen Doughty: I was able to discuss some of the practical steps that we are taking on this important issue just a few weeks ago with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine and, indeed, with many of the  organisations that are working on it. We are exploring further ways in which we can assist; we have already done a huge amount, and I look forward to seeing steps forward taken in due course. I am very happy to update the hon. Gentleman in writing with further details. \p Scott Arthur: I am ashamed to admit that I have not yet been sanctioned by Russia—I am feeling a little bit lonely. Clearly, I have to do more to call out Putin’s barbaric war crimes. This House is always at its most united and its most passionate when we are talking about the need for a just peace in Ukraine, so can I ask the Minister very delicately whether he is convinced that all our international allies understand that for a peace to be lasting, it has to be just? \p Stephen Doughty: I think that is well understood, and it is a point that we continue to underline in all of our conversations, whether across the Atlantic, across Europe or with other parties internationally. It is why we have supported the important work on the special tribunal on the crime of aggression; it is why we are supporting action on justice for crimes that have potentially been committed in Ukraine; and it is why we are continuing to support key institutions within Ukraine on these issues and have worked within the Council of Europe on these issues, too. We have been very clear that justice must come alongside sustainability and Ukraine’s ability to deter future aggression and of course to defend itself and its people right now. \p Bob Blackman: The assistance that we have provided to our friends in Ukraine has included firefighting equipment, along with training on the use of that equipment. The devastation that took place overnight demonstrates that that assistance is still inadequate, so will the Minister undertake to review with the fire service Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), what extra provision we can provide? If we cannot provide anything, will he reach out to our international partners to encourage them to supply equipment, so that the fires can be brought under control and people’s lives saved? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Member raises an important issue, and I know the huge support that has gone in. Indeed, I worked with colleagues on some of that in the previous Parliament. One of my friends in Ukraine was called up as a military firefighter in responding to some of those attacks on the cities. The need is huge, and we have been giving a huge amount of support on reconstruction, energy infrastructure and other issues. I am happy to look at the issues he raises and to see whether there is more we can do in that regard. \p Stephen Gethins: Pope Francis described pride as the most devious of sins, but I wonder if we can be granted a little bit of indulgence and the Minister can take some pride in colleagues from across the House joining the fine group of those who have been sanctioned by Russia. However, those who are doing the hard yards are in Ukraine. Can the Minister assure us that he believes that the United States still believes in Ukraine’s territorial integrity, for which those brave Ukrainians are fighting? \p Stephen Doughty: I have been clear that we are working closely with President Trump and the United States, our European partners and others. I refer the hon. Member to the comments I made just a short while ago in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary. We are clear that Ukraine must be at the heart of these negotiations. That is why we are working closely with the United States, with our European partners and, crucially, with Ukraine. That was exactly what was happening in the technical talks yesterday here in London. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: On Tuesday, I asked the Defence Secretary what our red lines would be at yesterday’s peace talks regarding any peace proposal from the US that required Ukraine to cede any of its sovereign territory to Russia. I did not receive an answer. Yesterday, US Vice-President J.D. Vance told reporters:

“Now, of course, that means the Ukrainians and the Russians are both going to have to give up some of the territory they currently own.”

Can the Minister now state that the Government will not support any US proposal that sees Russia make territorial gains at the expense of Ukraine upon any permanent cessation of hostilities? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Member will understand that, like the Defence Secretary, I will not be drawn on the detail of the discussions yesterday. The only person that that would benefit is Vladimir Putin. We have been clear that we share the United States’ desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. Ultimately, though, it is for Ukraine to decide its future. Our position on that has not changed, and that is why we are working closely with Ukraine, our international partners and others to end the bloodshed and suffering caused by Russia. We are clear on who the aggressor is in this situation. We will continue to stand iron-clad with Ukraine. \p Alistair Carmichael: I have nothing new to say about this, but since I was one of those included yesterday in the list of those who were no longer welcome in the Kremlin—not that I had thought I ever would be—I feel compelled to place on record that my determination to oppose and expose the brutality and illegality of Vladimir Putin and his Government is greater today than it was yesterday. Can the Minister do what he can to make sure that our resolve in this House is heard in the Kremlin and also, if necessary, in the White House? \p Stephen Doughty: I am absolutely sure that the voices in this House are heard across the world. I have no doubt that the Kremlin is watching what is being said. Again, I condemn the sanction against the right hon. Member and other Members across the House. This terrible aggression by Russia and by Putin has often had the exact opposite effect of what he intended; it has strengthened NATO unity, and we have new members of NATO, increased defence spending, increased resolve, increased unity, and increased willingness to stand with Ukraine not just now but 100 years into the future. That is the message that we continue to send from this House and that we continue to send from our allies. It is the message that we must continue to send. \p Lincoln Jopp: At the London talks, did the Government have the opportunity to discuss with allies the deployment of 155 members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in support of Russia against Ukraine? \p Stephen Doughty: I am not going to get into the detail of the talks yesterday, but I will make it clear to the hon. Member that we are acting robustly against third-country support for Russia’s illegal war, including through our sanctions. We did so in relation to a series of matters, including the support of military industrial companies and others. The Foreign Secretary raised concerns with his Chinese counterpart on China’s supply of equipment to Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s relationship with Russia. We engage very closely on third-country support, in whatever form that takes, and we are not afraid to take action where that is necessary. \p Llinos Medi: I welcome the UK Government’s recent commitment to strengthening their energy partnership with Ukraine, which is crucial for Europe’s energy independence. I recently visited Urenco’s Capenhurst site, where an advanced nuclear fuels facility is being developed—a market that is currently dominated by Russia. Could the Minister outline how the UK Government are advancing this technology and what it means for the UK’s energy partnership with Ukraine? \p Stephen Doughty: Diolch yn fawr; I appreciate the hon. Lady’s interest in these issues and her support. We have been doing a huge amount with Ukraine to support its energy sector against the terrible attacks that have been taking place, but we have also been working on how we might co-operate together on energy in the future. That is a crucial question for all of us across Europe. I continually raise with European and other counterparts the issue of removing the dependency on supplies from Russia and elsewhere. We need to look at new partnerships and ways forward in which we can support all our energy needs—whether that is through renewables, through nuclear or in other ways. This is an important issue, and I thank the hon. Lady for raising it. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: Can the Minister update the House on whether yesterday’s meeting involved discussion of any potential future co-operation between the US and Russia on energy? If it did, did he impart to his US counterparts that such an arrangement would be a folly? \p Stephen Doughty: As I said before, I will not get into the detail of talks and discussions. We are very clear on our position, which is that we need to support and stand with Ukraine. We are having productive and constructive talks. Those continued yesterday with the United States, European allies and others, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) a moment ago. \p Jim Allister: How can the Minister describe yesterday’s talks as productive if the United States continues to make unreasonable demands of Ukraine that the United Kingdom does not support? \p Stephen Doughty: I can describe those talks as productive and constructive because they were. \p Alison Bennett: It is being reported today that the White House is considering lifting its sanctions on the Russian Nord Stream natural gas pipeline —more evidence, in case it was needed, that this US Administration are increasingly siding with Russia. This is hugely concerning, as I am sure the whole Chamber agrees. May I please urge the Minister and the Department to use whatever leverage they have with the US Administration to prevent that from happening? If it does go ahead, what will the Government’s next steps be? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Lady asks an important question about sanctions. The Prime Minister has been very clear that sanctions against Russia are a vital part of our armoury, and the UK is committed to maintaining our Russia sanctions—we are not considering lifting them. As the PM said in Paris, in order to get Russia to the table, we need to keep up the economic pressure to hinder its ability to wage war, and we need to deal with all the ways in which the war is being fuelled and supplied. The purposes of our sanctions are very clear: to stop Russia threatening and undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence; to help ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused; and to make sure that Ukraine is placed in the best possible position to secure a just and lasting peace. We will continue to work with the United States and all our allies on those important issues. \p Charlie Dewhirst: Further to the last question, there is rightly concern that Russia continues to bypass sanctions through its shadow fleet. What measures are the Government taking alongside our allies to prevent that? \p Stephen Doughty: Since this Government came into office, we have ramped up our efforts, particularly on the issue of the shadow fleet, on which we first sought sanctions at the European Political Community summit, just days after coming into office. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the impact of those sanctions has been substantial in constraining and taking down Russia’s ability to wage this war. Collectively, the sanctions by the previous Government and this Government have prevented $450 billion-worth of support to fuel Russia’s war. That could have paid for another three or four years of military aggression against Ukraine. We will not hesitate to consider further actions in this area; indeed, we have announced some of the biggest packages in recent weeks. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for his answers. I was one of those to be sanctioned, but what does that sanction mean? It means that my superyacht—I do not have one—cannot be taken to Vladivostok for the summer or for the winter, so I will have to take it to Ballywalter, the village where I was born and brought up, and put it alongside the rented rowing boat that I use now and again. The sanction will not stop me speaking up to tell it straight on Russia’s crimes, and let us remember what those are. There are the stolen children, whom the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) talked about. There are the thousands of men, women and children who have been murdered, and the church pastors who have disappeared. There was the massacre in Bucha. All those crimes anger us. This is about  accountability: it is about making sure that the Russians who carried out those crimes will be held to account some day. By the way, I hope they are watching, because a sanction does not stop me, and it will not stop anyone else in this Chamber speaking up either.

I apologise for that introduction, but as I said earlier this week, peace is the goal, but not at any price. What discussions has the Minister had with the Ukrainians to ensure they understand that our support is there until the right deal is in place? What discussions have taken place with our American allies to ensure that we are still on the same page when it comes to making sure that Russian aggression is not rewarded and that Ukraine’s sacrifice is always remembered? \p Stephen Doughty: I think the hon. Gentleman’s comments, like those of my hon. Friends, accurately capture the sentiments of this House. I condemn the sanction against him, but the reaction of him and other Members of this House should show everybody in the world—including Vladimir Putin, but also our allies and, most importantly, Ukraine—that our support remains ironclad and undiminished: it will strengthen rather than diminish.

I visited Bucha just a few weeks ago, and as with colleagues who have visited it, those scenes will never leave my mind. Let alone the horrific scenes we have seen over the last few weeks, the fact that that place has suffered so much—it is where priests were murdered and children were abducted, and just hours before I was there, further missiles came in and killed civilians—should leave nobody in any doubt whatsoever about who is the aggressor. It is Vladimir Putin and his regime. It is his war of aggression. Ukraine is the party that is serious about peace. We will work with Ukraine, the United States and our European allies in the endeavour to find that peace, but the ball is now very much in Vladimir Putin’s court. \p David Mundell: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the London Sudan conference. \p Hamish Falconer: Co-hosted with the African Union, the EU, France and Germany, the London Sudan conference convened Foreign Ministers, major donors and humanitarian leaders to galvanise co-ordinated international action on the conflict. Discussions focused on ensuring humanitarian access, protecting civilians and supporting a Sudanese-led peace process that preserves Sudan’s territorial integrity. A co-chairs’ statement set out the shared principles of an immediate ceasefire, rejection of external interference, opposition to parallel Governments, a return to a civilian-led transition and a principled approach to full, unimpeded humanitarian access.

Although this was not a pledging conference, international partners did announce over £800 million of support to address the humanitarian situation. This includes a further £120 million in UK aid for this year, which will reach over 650,000 people with food, nutrition support and emergency assistance, including for survivors of sexual violence. It follows our sustained push to ensure aid reaches those in need, including through access corridors such as the Adré crossing from Chad.

The UK will continue to lead international efforts to end the conflict in Sudan. Our immediate goals are clear: to bring an end to this destructive war, to protect civilians and to get aid to where it is needed most. Our vision for Sudan is to work with the Sudanese people and international partners to deliver the democratic and peaceful future that they deserve. \p David Mundell: I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. It is so important that we shine a light on this conflict, which is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world at this time. Sudan is experiencing the most extreme hunger crisis. Conflict-related famine, mass displacement, and extreme and sexual violence and killings continue to devastate millions of people. About half the population—24.5 million people—are experiencing acute food insecurity, with 650,000 facing catastrophic hunger. The conflict has led to an unprecedented displacement, with 8.6 million people internally displaced since the start of the conflict and nearly 4 million people forced to flee across borders.

Unfortunately, the crisis continues to get worse. In recent days, we have seen the Rapid Support Forces attack the Zamzam camp, which housed about 500,000 displaced people, and the Sudanese Government allegedly attack a market in western Darfur, which is speculated to be one of the worst single incidents of the conflict. I share the Minister’s aspirations, as I am sure does the whole House, but we cannot underestimate the scale of the challenge. I was pleased that the Government took part in the conference, but it was very disappointing that it was not possible to get the other participants, particularly the Arab nations, to sign up to an agreement  at the end of it. It was also disappointing to find the RSF declaring an alternative Government within a few days of the conference.

What are the Government doing to encourage a greater role for the African Union, particularly in discussions at the United Nations? Generally, there is a view that if the African Union was more involved, it would be more difficult for Russia to veto UN resolutions. Secondly, what are we doing in relation to the United Arab Emirates and its role in the conflict, which has been significant? \p Hamish Falconer: This is a truly tragic sequence of events for the people of Sudan. The right hon. Gentleman has long had an interest and he is right to call me to the House to answer questions. We had hoped that at the conference last week, we would be able to issue a communiqué agreed by all parties. As he identifies, there is a whole range of countries with an interest in Sudan. We are at real risk at the moment not only of a further degradation of the situation for those in Zamzam, northern Darfur and across Sudan, but, as he says, of a declaration of parallel Governments, none of which will lead to the peaceful democratic future that the Sudanese have long hoped for.

The Foreign Secretary took the decision to try for this conference in an attempt to ensure wide agreement among the parties, because he recognises that there must be no hierarchy of conflict. The situation in Sudan is catastrophic and we are making every effort. The conference was the beginning, not the end, of our efforts to try to reduce the suffering in Sudan. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: Let me begin by supporting the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and congratulating him on securing what is a very important urgent question.

Many millions of innocent Sudanese civilians have been caught up in what is a barbaric conflict. They deserve peace and dignity. They are facing the most appalling, dire humanitarian crisis. It is a fact that red lines have been crossed in the conflict, and that cannot be allowed to stand. We all want to help chart a course to a meaningful peace for the people of Sudan, and we are aware of the various pillars articulated in the London Sudan conference statement. We all agree on the need for an immediate end to the fighting, on preventing the partition of Sudan, and on the need for urgent humanitarian access.

Crucially, the Foreign Secretary’s conference did not see any new practical measures agreed with the African Union and other partners to help the warring parties into a ceasefire and an end to the conflict, and, importantly, to deter the ways in which the conflict is being escalated, because there has been no de-escalation whatsoever. Supporting a transition to a civilian-led Government is clearly crucial, and it must be led by the Sudanese people. What practical diplomacy are the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary doing to help international processes such as Cairo to stay on track and to build confidence among the Sudanese civilian and political forces?

Finally, the Minister mentioned the additional £120 million in humanitarian aid announced by the Government for 2025-26. Will he inform us which organisations the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is partnering with for the delivery of this new aid, whether delivery has started and whether it is actually making any impact whatsoever? Will he also confirm that in parallel to announcing this new aid, he is working to keep border crossings open and pressing for the proper safety nets to ensure that this aid ends up with those who genuinely need it, and not in the wrong hands? \p Hamish Falconer: Like the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), the shadow Foreign Secretary raises important questions about the African Union. We thought it was particularly important that we co-hosted this event with the African Union; clearly, this is an important conflict with wide implications for those in the neighbourhood and in east Africa. We are taking practical steps, and we conducted the conference in closed session in order to enable the kind of frank discussion that is required to advance towards a more peaceful solution in Sudan.

I would not wish to give the House the impression that we have made dramatic progress towards an end to the violence in Sudan. We are all familiar with the terrible reports that continue to come in—even this morning—of events in Darfur and across Sudan.

Through the conference, we were able to bring greater unity among the international community on what the necessary next steps must be and on the importance of maintaining open border crossings, which, as the shadow Foreign Secretary sets out, are vital, in addition to trying to ensure that humanitarian access can be exercised right across Sudan. We have been in discussions with Tom Fletcher, the emergency relief co-ordinator, who has today spoken to some of the key participants. In terms of practical steps, I can confirm that we remain in direct contact, through our special envoy for Sudan, with both the RSF and the Sudanese armed forces. We are absolutely clear that we need a civilian process towards civilian Government. \p Rachael Maskell: The Government were right to co-ordinate this conference as a first step on the path to peace. It is obviously disappointing that it was not possible to establish a contact group at the end of the conference, but I know the Minister will be working hard to progress bilateral talks, not least with the external actors in this conflict such as the UAE and Egypt.

I want to put the spotlight on women and girls in this conflict, who are experiencing high levels of sexual violence. What discussions were there on the protection of women and girls, and on the further steps that could be taken both to ensure the safety of those experiencing trauma today because of their experiences and to protect women and girls in the future? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put the focus on violence against women and girls in Sudan. It is absolutely appalling—the latest reports are lurid and graphic in their details of what is befalling women and children right across Sudan. The Minister for Africa has been leading international efforts to maintain a spotlight on these questions. He chaired a  UN Security Council briefing on conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan just last month, and was also at the UN Security Council in November further highlighting this issue. This conflict is disproportionately affecting women and children, and the UK will remain completely focused on doing everything we can to bring that to a close. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Monica Harding: The Sudan conference in London presented an opportunity to generate international consensus for a path to peace in Sudan’s civil war, the world’s largest conflict. It was deeply disappointing that the conference failed to establish a contact group for the conflict, as such a group could build international political will to move towards an end to the fighting. Will the Minister therefore outline what new diplomatic initiatives he will pursue to establish a contact group?

I welcome the announcement of £120 million more for humanitarian aid, but with aid access being wielded as a weapon of war on both sides, can the Minister assure us that it will reach civilians?

Gender-based violence is a terrible feature of the war, so what steps can be taken to protect women and children? I am also deeply concerned by reports that other nations are supplying arms to the warring factions, particularly the reports that the United Arab Emirates have provided weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, which are alleged to have committed mass civilian killings and are accused by the US of genocide in Darfur. Will the Minister outline what steps he has taken to stop the flow of arms to ensure that British exports are not used in Sudan? \p Hamish Falconer: The shadow Foreign Secretary also raised those questions. I am happy to write to the House with further details about aid delivery, both in relation to the £120 million in further funding and the concerning reports over recent days about restrictions in aid access, particularly in Darfur. Once the situation becomes clearer, I am happy to provide a full update to all parties on the practical questions about aid delivery.

The hon. Lady asks about the practical successes of the conference and what is next on the diplomatic front. The statement from the co-chairs, which include not just the UK, but the African Union, the EU and others, attempted to capture what was an important and frank set of discussions over the course of the day, and set out five principles. It went further than any other recent statement, calling for a ceasefire, rejecting external interference, opposing parallel governance and supporting a transition to civilian-led Governments. My Foreign Office officials have been talking to all parties with an interest in Sudan, including the two belligerents, to make it clear that the statement is the strong view of the international community and that we expect to see it put in place.

It is true, as the two most recent questions have set out, that we were not able to secure a contact group at the conference. I would not want the House to think that, as frank and behind closed doors as it was, the conference was therefore a failure. The fact that this is  difficult is all the more reason why it was important for the UK to show leadership and to bring the African Union and others to the table to discuss these issues. \p Alice Macdonald: What is happening in Sudan should shock us all. UNICEF has warned that children as young as one are being raped. More than 220 cases of child rape have been reported since 2024, so we need outrage and, more importantly, action. Can the Minister confirm how much of our aid, if any, is being spent on supporting survivors of sexual abuse and violence, and also how we are using our role as penholder on Sudan at the UN to push for action specifically on sexual violence? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has worked extensively on these issues, and I know her commitment to them. I will write to her with a full breakdown on which part of our aid programmes are working with survivors. As I set out in answer to an earlier question, the Minister for Africa has led efforts at the Security Council on ensuring that the whole international community is focused on the atrocities that she has just described. We are also leading efforts at the Human Rights Council to establish and renew the mandate for the UN fact-finding mission, which will be crucial to supporting future accountability efforts in Sudan. \p Julian Lewis: I appreciate the pressures on the Minister’s officials, but does the Minister agree that this disaster playing out in Sudan is under-reported, and, therefore, may I encourage him in the future to take every opportunity to come to the House voluntarily with statements, rather than rely on urgent questions, to give him the opportunity, which he has quite rightly taken today, to spell out where we are in this awful situation? \p Hamish Falconer: I am always happy to come to the House, but let me just clarify that I am not the Minister with policy responsibility for Sudan; that belongs to the Minister for Africa in the Lords. Since taking office, the Foreign Secretary has shown strong personal commitment to this conflict. He is intensely aware of the many conflicts in the world, but appreciates that this is the one that is causing the greatest humanitarian disaster. There is a danger of appearing to create a hierarchy of conflict, and the Foreign Secretary is personally committed to ensuring that that is not the case, and that is why he took the leadership that he did last week. \p Harpreet Uppal: Sudan is the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis, and we know that there has been a particular toll on women and girls, as other Members have mentioned. Some 80% of hospitals in conflict-affected areas are not functioning, and maternal deaths have spiked, so can the Minister say little bit more about how aid will support hospitals in the region? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. As I have said in previous answers, we are very focused on the fate of women and girls in Sudan. We have been working through the United Nations and with the emergency relief co-ordinator to ensure that the necessary aid is in place, whether that is for the function of hospitals, to support survivors or to protect  the mechanisms to prevent civilian suffering. I will update the House once the position is clearer, given the events of the last few days. \p Brendan O'Hara: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this urgent question and laying out the unimaginable horror of what is currently happening in Sudan. There is a very real danger that the catastrophe in Sudan will spread to neighbouring countries. Since 2023, an estimated 800,000 Sudanese refugees have fled to Chad, which is already one of the poorest countries in the world and ranked No. 1 in the list of countries at risk of genocide. What assessment has been made of the impact of overseas aid cuts to the likelihood of genocide occurring in Chad, and what are the Government doing proactively to prevent a genocide in Chad? \p Hamish Falconer: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. Since the conflict began, 3.6 million refugees have fled to neighbouring countries. That of course includes Chad, but also Egypt, South Sudan, Uganda and the Central African Republic. Many of these countries I know well, and I served in South Sudan for the Department for International Development for two years. These are countries with delicate political balances and that have seen recent incidences of severe conflict. What happens in Sudan makes a difference to neighbouring countries. I do not think that what is centrally at issue here is UK aid to Chad. What is centrally at issue is violent displacement from Sudan, and we will remain focused on those questions. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: I commend the Foreign Secretary for co-hosting the conference and for giving this situation the political and diplomatic attention that it warrants. The crisis in Sudan is awful. The UN has warned that

“never in modern history have so many people faced starvation and famine as in Sudan today”.

The UN puts that down to the deliberate starvation tactics by the RSF and the SAF. Can the Minister outline what further measures the Government are taking to end the deliberate obstruction of food aid by the warring parties? \p Hamish Falconer: The UK condemns the growing body of evidence of serious atrocities being committed against civilians in Sudan. The escalation of violence, killing of civilians, sexual assault of women and restriction of humanitarian access must end. That is why in January the Foreign Secretary visited the Sudan-Chad border and raised awareness of the conflict. It is why we hosted the conference last week and are in regular touch with both the parties themselves and all those with influence, including regional players, the United Nations and major donors. We are trying to do everything we can to ensure that humanitarian access is properly restored. \p Desmond Swayne: Might it be expedient if we use our intelligence resources to expose and shame those who are fuelling the conflict through arming the antagonists? \p Hamish Falconer: We are clear that there should be no external interference in Sudan and that a continuation of this conflict serves no one. It is why we took the  efforts last week that we did, and we held the conference in closed-door sessions in order to allow the frankest possible exchange of views on the way ahead. \p Adam Jogee: The scenes from Sudan are beyond harrowing. There is brutal murder, millions at risk of starvation, and millions more have been displaced, with women and children watching their sons, fathers and husbands be brutally killed and many of those women and children being victims of the most horrendous sexual violence. In Newcastle-under-Lyme, I represent a number of people from the Sudanese community—either born in Sudan or whose parents were born in Sudan. They are watching the TV in horror, fear and sorrow. What we are doing to engage with and support the British Sudanese community here in the United Kingdom? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend speaks about the horrors for British Sudanese residents who are looking back at home and seeing such atrocious scenes. I am sure that the Minister for Africa will be happy to meet with my hon. Friend and his constituents to discuss the issue further. I have Sudanese constituents in Lincoln, and I know the horror that they feel each and every day looking at this imagery. \p Carla Lockhart: Does the Minister agree that religious freedom must remain a key pillar of the UK’s foreign aid policy? That said, with Sudan now ranked as one of the worst countries in the world for Christian persecution according to Open Doors, will he confirm whether the protection of religious minorities will be a condition—indeed, a priority—of the distribution of foreign aid to Sudan? \p Hamish Falconer: Freedom of religious belief remains a real priority for the Government. On my way to the House, I was with our new envoy for freedom of religious belief, meeting with the Baha’i community, who have suffered in Yemen and Iran. This remains an important question for the Government, and we will remain focused on it through the envoy. \p Bob Blackman: The Minister rightly condemns the violence against women and girls in Sudan. Will he update the House specifically on what assistance is being provided to the victims of female genital mutilation? Those women are literally castrated. Will he ensure that we are providing assistance to those poor women? \p Hamish Falconer: I have heard the House’s interest in the fine detail of which elements of our aid programme are working with survivors, and I commit to providing that further information in due course. \p Steffan Aquarone: I am deeply concerned by the ongoing conflict in Sudan and in particular the sexual violence that was brought to light so shockingly by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald). When the Minister next engages with his counterparts in South Sudan, will he raise the case of Dr Ding Col Dau Ding? He travelled from Norfolk to South Sudan to practise medicine shortly after independence and saved many lives across east Africa in his time there. Just a year later, he was shockingly  murdered, and his family—my constituents—have been fighting for justice for almost a decade. Will he meet me and the family of Dr Ding to discuss how they can finally secure justice for their beloved brother and son? \p Hamish Falconer: I am not familiar with the case. I will discuss it with the Minister for Africa and ensure that the hon. Member gets a proper response. \p Shockat Adam: I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing the urgent question. Despite the barbarity of Sudan, it seems to be the forgotten conflict. What steps are being taken to investigate and prevent the transfer of arms to Sudan via third countries who may have been present at the conference over the weekend and are allies of the UK? \p Hamish Falconer: We were clear in the co-chairs’ statement, as we have been in many other places, that we do not want external interference in this conflict. We are taking every step we can to try to ensure that we get back to a diplomatic solution and back to a civilian transfer towards civilian rule, which is what the Sudanese so desperately need. \p Jim Shannon: The Minister clearly understands the issues and responds to our questions, so we thank him for that. Having, like others, raised the Sudanese war on numerous occasions and the acts of depravity and war crimes that have taken place over the last number of years, I and many others were disheartened to see the end to any semblance of peace talks. However, we must not lose heart and give up. The people of Sudan deserve a better chance of hope and a future without living in fear. How will the Minister facilitate further peace talks? What discussions have taken place with allies to produce a co-ordinated global effort to stop the torture, the maiming and the killing and to bring peace to all? \p Hamish Falconer: I say with regret that the two protagonists of the conflict do not appear prepared to enter into serious talks at the moment. That was why they were not invited to the conference. The conference was not an attempt to mediate a peace deal as that is not possible if neither participant is prepared to do so. We made the judgment that the conference was so important to try to cohere international support towards the next steps to try to reduce the violence. We are working with all our partners to try to do that. \p Jesse Norman: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business? \p Lucy Powell: The business for the week commencing 28 April includes:

Monday 28 April—Second Reading of the Football Governance Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 29 April—Remaining stages of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.

Wednesday 30 April—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill, followed by motion to approve the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025, followed by motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Crime and Policing Bill.

Thursday 1 May—General debate on Parkinson’s Awareness Month, followed by general debate on prisoners of conscience. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the early May bank holiday at the conclusion of business on Thursday 1 May and return on Tuesday 6 May. The provisional business for the week commencing 5 May will include:

Tuesday 6 May—General debate on the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe and victory over Japan.

Wednesday 7 May—Remaining stages of the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 8 May—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 9 May—The House will not be sitting. \p Jesse Norman: Could there be a local election coming up? I very much hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everyone here had a perfectly spectacular Easter. I am sure I speak for the whole House in recording my sadness at the death of His Holiness the Pope, who was, in his work and in his life, the embodiment of faith, hope and charity.

If I may, I would like to start with something small but important. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) recently asked the Secretary of State for Education, in a written parliamentary question, whether she had visited any private schools since July last year. The junior Education Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), replied that

“the Secretary of State for Education and the wider ministerial team visit a wide variety of education settings, including private schools. The Secretary of State for Education prioritises visits to our state schools, which serve 93% of pupils in England.”

All that is no doubt true but it is not an answer to the question that was put. All ministerial visits are logged by the Department, so it would have been and remains easy to compile the numbers. The Leader of the House has made clear on many occasions her commitment and belief that Members of this House should receive proper answers to their questions. Will she take up the matter with the Secretary of State for Education and see that a proper answer is given?

A few weeks ago I talked about how the Prime Minister was steadily being mugged by reality, and we have seen this again in the last few days with the Government’s U-turn on the ban on sourcing photovoltaic cells built with slave labour in China. The same can be said for the Government’s energy policy as a whole. It is important to put before the House the fact that Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised to cut bills, boost energy security and create cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero by 2050. It tried to allay public concerns by promising

“a phased and responsible transition in the North Sea that recognises…the ongoing role of oil and gas in our energy mix.”

Nine months on, we can see how that is going. The Government have already had to U-turn on their infeasible commitment to zero carbon electricity by 2030. Most recently, the situation with British Steel in Scunthorpe has underlined the deeper incoherence of their overall approach. By banning new oil and gas licences and preventing new exploration, the Government are committing the UK to greater dependency on imported oil and gas at higher cost, with higher emissions and under less democratic control. In so doing, they are not advancing environmental justice or economic resilience; they are accelerating a decline in energy sovereignty that will leave this country more polluting, less secure and, ultimately, poorer.

If we do not produce our own oil and gas, we will have to buy it. The difference is that it will come from overseas, and imported energy is not only more expensive but has a far higher carbon footprint. I remind the House that, for example, importing liquefied natural gas involves cooling gas to 160° below zero, shipping it thousands of miles from Qatar and regasifying it at a port in this country. The net emissions are up to four times higher than those from North sea gas. Crucially, UK territorial emissions go down, but overall emissions, including imports, are higher than they would be. This is not an honest policy.

Labour’s manifesto talked about the importance of energy security, but refusing to allow new exploration does not reduce our vulnerability; it increases it. Energy, after all, is national security. It is industrial strategy. It is heating our houses and fuelling our cars. The idea that a major economy should voluntarily give up control of its energy supply before alternatives are well advanced is not progressive—it is reckless.

The problem goes somewhat wider. The Government talk about a green industrial revolution, but the more expensive imported energy we have, the harder that will be to achieve. Not just steel but chemicals, ceramics and fertilisers all require large amounts of gas and will do for years to come. If energy is unreliable or unaffordable, those industries will continue to struggle whatever the fond imaginings of the Secretary of State. Worse still, the Government’s policy will squander capital and skills that might have gone into safely managing the UK’s remaining hydrocarbon assets. The extra revenues that would have helped fund the transition will now be lost to the many other countries that welcome such investment, while the Government turn their back on a sector that still employs 200,000 people and contributes billions in tax revenue.

I ask the Leader of the House whether she shares my view that we badly need some common sense here. We all want an effective and just energy transition, but that starts with one principle: control what we can and use  our own resources responsibly and transparently while building the clean energy system of the future. Instead, the Government have chosen a path that will increase emissions, raise costs, weaken the economy and tie Britain’s future to foreign powers and volatile markets. That is not leadership; that is an abdication. \p Lucy Powell: I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with Catholics in this country and around the world as they grieve Pope Francis. As the shadow Leader of the House said, Pope Francis embodied the very best of us with his deep faith and commitment to the poorest, the weakest and those dealing with conflict and destitution. I once again put on the record my thanks to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to Mr Speaker and to all the House staff for the professional and speedy way they recalled Parliament for us over the Easter recess. They have dedication and professionalism at their core.

I take this opportunity, which I do not think has been done yet in the House, to pay tribute to Rory McIlroy on finally getting one of the greatest sporting achievements —the golf grand slam—and being the first European to do so. The resilience and mental strength he showed was unbelievable, and he was a role model of great sportsmanship. I also wish good luck to all those taking part in the London marathon this weekend.

The shadow Leader of the House raises a number of points about the Government’s energy and climate change strategy, but he misunderstands the economics of the situation. The way we will get energy security and lower bills in the future and over the long term is by having our own energy security and our own clean energy supplies. We have to get ourselves off fossil fuels because to get that energy security, we have to become a price maker, not a price taker. Home-grown energy is the only way we will get control over our prices and get off the fossil fuel roller coaster. As a country, we have great assets: we are an island nation with an ability to generate offshore and onshore wind, tidal and nuclear energy.

This Government have wasted no time. We have lifted the ban on onshore wind. We have established Great British Energy. We have approved nearly 3GW of solar, delivered a record-breaking renewables auction, kick-started carbon capture and got the nuclear planning reforms under way. That is how this country will bring down energy bills and get the energy security we need. We have to get ourselves off the fossil fuel rollercoaster. The shadow Leader of the House needs to look at the economics of the situation.

I notice that the Chamber is very busy today—unlike many Members—as we look forward to the local elections. The shadow Leader of the House did not want to use this opportunity to make his party’s pitch for the forthcoming local elections, perhaps because the Conservatives are not quite sure what their pitch is. People have not forgotten the chaos and decline that his party left this country in after 14 years of failure and sleaze.

The Labour party is putting money in people’s pockets with our boost to the living wage, with wages rising faster than prices; we are fixing the NHS, with waiting lists down for six months in a row and cut by 220,000 since July; our new free breakfast clubs will give kids the start to life that they need; we are taking back control of our trains and buses; and, as I saw at the weekend, we are taking swift action to tackle crime and antisocial  behaviour by seizing and crushing off-road bikes, which I did myself. That is the difference that Labour makes in power.

I am still not quite sure what the Conservative party’s strategy is at the elections. Perhaps the shadow Leader of the House would like to enlighten us. Is it what has been proposed by the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), in the form of an alliance with Reform? If that is not their strategy, why has he not been sacked? The Leader of the Opposition used her flagship election interview on the “Today” programme this week to tell us of her one big achievement: Tory party unity. I nearly spat out my tea! Tory Members can barely muster a cheer for her at Prime Minister’s questions, and the shadow Justice Secretary is in open leadership campaign mode.

In fact, this week I have seen a letter that the shadow Justice Secretary sent to all Conservative local election candidates with his clear leadership pitch and the offer of “lunch with Robert”. By the way, it was all on House of Commons-headed paper, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is highly questionable. It is blatant manoeuvring, and a strong leader would have sacked him by now. Is it not the truth that, at the elections next week, a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for Reform, and a vote for Reform is a vote for the Conservatives? \p Tan Dhesi: We have been dealing this week with the sad passing of Pope Francis. I was also deeply saddened by the shocking, cowardly and deadly terrorist attack on innocent tourists in Jammu and Kashmir. The victims and their families are very much in my prayers. I sincerely hope that the perpetrators are swiftly brought to justice. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House take this opportunity to convey this Parliament’s heartfelt condolences to the Indian people and to condemn that callous attack? \p Lucy Powell: That horrific terrorist attack in Kashmir was utterly devastating and, as my hon. Friend says, a cowardly act. My thoughts and those of the whole Government are with the affected, especially those who have lost loved ones. \p Marie Goldman: Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) was denied entry to Hong Kong while making a private trip to see her son and meet her three-month-old grandson for the very first time. She was given no reason by the local authorities as to why she was refused, so it seems reasonable to assume that her only crime was being a British parliamentarian. She tells me that going all that way only to be bundled on to the next flight home with no explanation was a big shock, and that she was close to tears. Her son was waiting for her and her husband just a short distance away in the arrivals lounge, but she never saw him.

This is extremely worrying and has far-reaching and concerning implications. To be clear, my hon. Friend had not been made aware that she would not be welcome in Hong Kong, and it was a purely private visit. The Liberal Democrats are concerned that this could have a chilling effect on all parliamentarians who speak up for freedom and democracy. We cannot and must not  accept our democracy being undermined by allowing the intimidation of UK parliamentarians. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on how the Government intend to engage in a clear-eyed manner with authoritarian countries that appear to be creating hidden blacklists of British parliamentarians? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Member for raising this matter on the Floor of the House, because I know that it is of deep concern to all Members. I know the hon. Member for Bath well—I have known her for a number of years, and I enjoyed our exchanges when she was the hon. Lady’s predecessor—and I was shocked and deeply saddened to hear of this incident. She must be so upset not to have had the opportunity to meet her grandson, having been denied entry to Hong Kong in this way.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) is right to say that it is unacceptable for a Member of Parliament to be denied entry to another country simply for being a Member of Parliament, albeit on a private visit in this case. The Government have relayed our deep concerns over this incident to the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities, and we will continue to press these issues with them over the coming months. She is right to say that our democracy and our ability as Members of Parliament to speak freely in this place, and to not have that jeopardised when we travel abroad, is fundamental to what the House of Commons is all about. \p Liz Twist: I recently visited a great regional organisation, North East Youth, in my constituency and met members of the Peer Action Collective, an inspiring group of young people working to prevent violence within the education system. Lucy, Penny and Dan delivered a compelling presentation on the need for clearer communication and better listening to young people in schools. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can implement more effective ways of understanding the causes of youth violence and disruptive behaviour and supporting young people before an escalation to violence? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Lucy, Penny and Dan, and all those involved in the Peer Action Collective, which sounds like a very good initiative. The Government take youth violence incredibly seriously. We have established the Young Futures programme, and we want to bring all those partners together to take these issues forward. It would make a very good topic for a debate. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. \p Bob Blackman: I join the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), and the Leader of the House in expressing condolences to Catholics all over the world on the death of the Pope. His leadership of the Church will be sadly missed.

In terms of the business, I commend the Clerks who support our Committee on the work they have been doing to try to get colleagues to agree to having a debate next Thursday. \p Lincoln Jopp: Good luck! \p Bob Blackman: We managed to achieve it, thank goodness. May I ask colleagues who have made applications and are on our waiting list to respond speedily once they have been offered a date?

The business on Thursday 8 May will include a debate on St George’s day, which should have been held today, but for the fact that Government business takes precedence. On Thursday 15 May there will be a debate in the Chamber on solar farms. Next Tuesday there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on compensation for criminal injuries. We are not proposing to have debates in Westminster Hall next Thursday because it is the day of local elections. On Tuesday 6 May there will be a debate on parking regulation, and I remind the House that it will take place at 11.30 am, because we will be on Monday hours. There will be further debates in Westminster Hall.

On Tuesday we saw the systematic murder of Hindu pilgrims in Pahalgam in India. The sad reality is that the terrorist group thought to be responsible for this, Lashkar-e-Taiba, is a Pakistani organisation that deliberately targets innocent people in Jammu and Kashmir. Already the Indian Government have revoked visas, closed the border and expelled officials from Pakistan as a result. Probably most importantly, they have suspended the Indus waters treaty. We need the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House on what could end up being a quickly escalating situation between India and Pakistan.

Tonight there will be a vigil outside the Indian high commission. I will be representing the Opposition, and I understand that there will be representatives of the Government as well. We must give our reassurance and support to the Government of India in ensuring that they apprehend these terrorists and that those responsible for supporting them are also brought to justice. My understanding is that the Pakistani Government and the Pakistani military have condoned these attacks. I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in condemning these terrorist atrocities and will agree on the need to ensure that people who visit Jammu and Kashmir are held safely and do not have to suffer such incidents yet again. \p Lucy Powell: I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for letting us know about future debates. Like him, I anticipate that next Thursday will not be as popular as today seems to be, for obvious reasons. I absolutely join him in condemning the terrorist attack in Kashmir. This country always stands shoulder to shoulder with other countries—in this case India—that suffer these horrific terrorist attacks, which are cowardly acts that we resolutely condemn. Conversations are ongoing, as he will know, to provide the support that we can, and we will also provide that support to any British nationals affected. I thank him for raising this important matter. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Members will see that there is a lot of interest in business questions today—about 80 wish to speak. I therefore ask any Members who have a long question to rewrite it. It should be no longer than two or three sentences. \p David Williams: The good people of Kidsgrove were promised significant improvements to their town as part of the Kidsgrove  town deal. However, Simon Tagg, the Conservative leader of Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council, alongside the former Conservative Member of Parliament, over-promised and under-delivered. They knew they did not have the funds available. They should now say sorry to the people of Kidsgrove. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on openness and transparency in public funding? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for once again raising this important matter with me. He is a strong advocate for Kidsgrove and his constituents. I am really sorry to hear about the frustrations with the town deal. He is absolutely right that things were over-promised and under-delivered, and that is why the people of his constituency rejected the Conservative party at the last election. \p Mike Wood: Last month’s fire at Cirencester is at least the third at a battery energy storage system already this year and residents are understandably worried when they are constructed near to their homes, yet Labour’s planning reforms will make building them in villages such as Lower Penn, Swindon and Wombourne in my constituency even easier. May we have a debate in Government time on the safety of battery energy storage systems, on planning regulations and on how we can ensure that local communities have proper oversight and a real say? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about the fire in Cirencester. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to get the balance right by ensuring that such facilities are safe and are safely operated while at the same time ensuring that we have the infrastructure that we need, and not just today but in future, for battery storage and other clean energy supplies. We are taking steps to ensure that local communities are consulted on these matters and that they benefit from these facilities when they come to their local area, but we make no apology for saying that we have to sprint towards that clean energy superpower that we need to be. \p Sharon Hodgson: Next week marks the beginning of Coeliac Awareness Month, a time dedicated to raising awareness about coeliac disease, a serious autoimmune disease for which the only treatment is a strict gluten-free diet for life—it is not a fad. While coeliac disease affects one in 100 people in the UK, just 36% are medically diagnosed, leaving an estimated half a million people potentially facing debilitating symptoms yet being in the dark as to their cause. So will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time to mark this important month and to help raise important awareness of this terrible disease? \p Lucy Powell: Coeliac Awareness Month is an important time and I commend my hon. Friend for raising this issue in the House. She is right that we need to do more to raise awareness of that debilitating disease, especially in relation to treatment and access to affordable gluten-free food, and that would make a good topic for a debate. \p Roger Gale: The Leader of the House will probably know that last night, elsewhere in this House, the campaign to return  Ukraine’s stolen children was launched, with cross-party support and a very large number of people present. Some 20,000 Ukrainian children have been abducted and taken to the neo-Soviet Union. That is a war crime, as was the bombing of Kyiv and Kharkiv last night, and Putin is a war criminal. Will the Leader of the House consult the Leader of the House of Lords and try to ensure that no person who supports President Putin, however grand, is given a platform that would enable them to address these Houses of Parliament? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of the stolen children of Ukraine and the event to launch that campaign in the House yesterday. There has just been an urgent question about this matter. The Minister of State in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), was very clear about our unwavering support for Ukraine and our condemnation of the continued actions of Russia and Putin, especially overnight but also over a long period of time. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. We are establishing the coalition of the willing to support what Ukraine wants going forward. The only country that is stopping peace is Russia, under Vladimir Putin, who could stop this war tomorrow if he chose to do so. I am sure that we will continue to discuss these issues. \p Liam Conlon: I am proud to be the MP for Crystal Palace. On Saturday, many of my constituents will travel to Wembley to see Crystal Palace take on Aston Villa in the FA cup semi-final. A win will see Crystal Palace continue their quest for their first major trophy since the 1991 Zenith Data Systems cup. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Crystal Palace football club good luck for the weekend? \p Lucy Powell: I am often invited to support other football clubs, but my husband is an Aston Villa fan and, obviously, I am a Manchester City fan, so we have a lot of other stakes in the FA cup semi-finals this weekend. However, I am happy to join my hon. Friend in wishing Crystal Palace the very best of luck on Saturday. \p John Lamont: There are proposals by Scottish Borders council to close a number of local nurseries, including those at Channelkirk, Yetholm, Glendinning, Westruther, Ednam, Cockburnspath and Fountainhall. There is strong local opposition to those plans. Local nurseries are vital to rural communities such as mine, and keeping them open ensures that we can attract and retain young families in the Scottish Borders. Does the Leader of the House agree that nurseries throughout the United Kingdom should be protected, and will she allow time for a debate to discuss the importance of nursery provision in rural communities? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about that and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Scottish Government should be prioritising nursery provision and ensuring that people in rural constituencies such as his have access to that vital provision. He will know that, as the consequence of the Budget, the Scottish  Government received a boon of over 20% more per person than the rest of the UK, so they have no excuses for the actions they are taking. \p Matt Western: I am sure that everyone in the House is concerned about the use of public money. In my constituency, a council is employing leaf blowers to blow leaves around a redundant car park, and a county council has spent £11 million on levelling a field for a school playing field and £16 million on a bridge to nowhere, so may we have a debate on how we can better scrutinise the use of public money in local government? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend raises a really important matter. Local people want to know that their council tax is going towards the services that they want to see in their communities. Nothing frustrates our constituents more than seeing things in their area and their community that they perceive to be, frankly, a waste of money. This Government are committed to bringing more accountability and audit into local government, and we will bring forward legislation on that soon. \p Munira Wilson: Just over three weeks ago, the Minister for children and families had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the Dispatch Box to be forced into extending the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which had expired the previous day, leaving thousands of vulnerable children and their adoptive parents and kinship carers in limbo. Not once during that 45 minute urgent question did she say, when she triumphantly announced £50 million extra to continue the fund, that the individual support grants were about to be cut by 40%. That information was snuck out in a private letter last week, during recess, to local authorities and charities. Will the Leader of the House demand that the Education Secretary comes to the House, makes a statement, and takes questions from hon. Members who feel that they were, I am sure inadvertently, misled by the children’s Minister that day, so that we can understand the impact on some of the most vulnerable children in our society? \p Lucy Powell: I know that this is a matter of deep concern to many Members across the House, and I commend the hon. Lady for continuing to raise the issue, which also affects a number of my constituents. The Government have ensured that we have the £50 million arrangement for this year, but she will recognise that the increased demand on the adoption system, which is a good thing, means that we have had to make money from the fund go a bit further for many families. However, I hear what she says about the Government’s accountability. There was a written ministerial statement on the subject on Tuesday, but I will ensure that she and other hon. Members are able to question and speak to the Ministers, as appropriate. \p Paula Barker: Dozens of families across Merseyside, including my constituents Gemma and Paul Lucas, have been left financially and emotionally devastated by the actions of a home improvement company, Celsius Home Improvements Ltd, and its director Frank Deary. Customers had to pay 60% of costs up front to Mr Deary, but have been left with homes that are uninhabitable and, in some  cases, dangerous. The Liverpool Echo has reported that it has seen documents showing that Mr Deary’s companies were providing quotes post 2022 with Celsius branding, but were trading as Clearmetric Ltd. A winding-up order was made against Clearmetric Ltd in the Manchester district registry on 7 January this year, more than three years after Celsius Home Improvements was dissolved in February 2022. What can the Government do to prevent individuals like Mr Deary and his associate Liam McGrath from liquidating one company, which owes more than £1 million to customers, and going on to scam others by setting up other companies, one of which I am led to believe is called Merseyside Construction Ltd? Most importantly, what can be done to get justice and a full refund for my constituents Gemma and Paul? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear about this troubling case. My hon. Friend has used her voice and her platform as a Member of Parliament to raise some very serious issues, and I commend her for that. Phoenixing, whereby directors dissolve a company to avoid debts, only to set up a new one, is wrong. We are committed to stamping the practice out, and Companies House now has greater powers to do that. My hon. Friend is right that people like her constituents need greater recourse when services and products go wrong or are not delivered and they cannot get the accountability that they need. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I want to get as many people in as possible, so please keep questions short. \p Greg Smith: Unitary council elections, county council elections and mayoral races are taking up a lot of the headlines at the moment, but in local government, there is an often regrettably forgotten subset of incredibly hard-working people who offer to serve on parish and town councils—people like Nic Brown, who, after 25 years, is standing down from Chearsley parish council in my village. The amount of work that people put in for no remuneration, just for love of a place, is extraordinary. In a lot of parish and town councils in my constituency, not only are the elections uncontested, but there will still be vacancies after next Thursday. Can we have a debate in Government time to thank everyone who puts themselves forward to serve on a town or parish council, and to discuss how we can encourage more people to come forward to serve their community through those councils? \p Lucy Powell: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all those who serve on our town and parish councils—often, as he says, for little reward, in one sense. Our communities need them, and they are vital. As he will know, we are bringing forward changes to local government, because we want to ensure that people can represent their area and deliver the kind of change and services that people want. That is why we have the devolution Bill coming forward. \p Rachael Maskell: Tomorrow, we would have been debating the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. However, we have not seen the impact assessment, which I understand has been prepared but not published. Many of us have serious concerns  about the safety of the legislation. Significant advance notice of what is in the impact assessment is really important for us, so that we can scrutinise it. Will the Leader of the House say when the impact assessment will be published? Now that it has been prepared, will she ensure that we can see it immediately, and that it is not withheld? \p Lucy Powell: I reassure my hon. Friend that the impact assessment is absolutely not being withheld. I have been asked about this a number of times, and I made it clear on previous occasions that given the number of amendments to the Bill, the impact assessment would take some time. I am glad that in order to allow that time, the promoter of the Bill moved the date for its next stage to 16 May. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that the impact assessment is published imminently, long before 16 May, so that people can consider the issues in it. \p Claire Young: Businesses across my constituency, the wider west of England and south Wales were given a rather glum Easter present in the news that heavy goods vehicles will be banned from the M48 Severn bridge from the end of May. That will lead to expensive and environmentally damaging diversions, and one local haulier called it a “hammerblow”. National Highways estimates that the bridge will cost between £300 million and £600 million to fix. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Department for Transport brings forward a clear plan of action as soon as possible? \p Lucy Powell: I will absolutely ensure that the hon. Lady gets a full ministerial reply about why that has happened, and when those repairs will be done, so that HGVs can get back on to the bridge as soon as possible for her constituents. \p Matt Rodda: May I ask the Leader of the House to join me in supporting the Football Governance Bill, which will have its Second Reading on Monday? I appreciate that she does not support Reading football club, but will she also offer her support to its fans at this very difficult time, as we wait to hear the outcome of the ongoing negotiations? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. I am delighted that the Football Governance Bill will receive its Second Reading in this House next week; it is an incredibly popular piece of legislation among the many Members from across the House who, like my hon. Friend, have a club in their constituency. The Bill seeks to ensure that fans and communities are put at the heart of our football governance, and that protections are in place against rogue owners and those who do not have the financial means to support their clubs properly. \p Sarah Bool: May I associate myself with the comments about the passing of Pope Francis? As a Catholic, I very much appreciate them, and I wish the best to the conclave in selecting our new Pope. As was mentioned earlier, if the current trend continues, more than 1.5% of my constituency will be covered in solar farms. One of my main concerns is about the use of battery energy storage systems, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) mentioned. Green  Hill solar farm in my constituency will have a very large one. They pose a huge risk of fire. Those fires release toxic fumes, and putting them out pollutes the waters and takes days—if the solar panels can ever be put out. I know that there may be a debate on the issue, but I also ask the Leader of the House to speak to the Secretary of State about the severe risks posed by BESS, because applications are being pushed through that create serious risks for our communities. \p Lucy Powell: As I said in answer to a previous question on this issue, we need to get the balance right: we need to ensure that these facilities are safe for local communities, and that the risk of fires is mitigated as far as possible, while also getting much-needed infrastructure for battery energy storage, which is absolutely critical to the future of our energy security and our economy. I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a ministerial update on those matters. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: The new traffic calming scheme in Bierton has been causing chaos, noise pollution and danger in my constituency. Almost 2,000 people have signed Matthew Grolimund’s petition calling for an urgent review of the chosen layout. Will the Leader of the House join me in urging Buckinghamshire council to plan its road building and roadworks better, and will she reaffirm this Government’s commitment to improving our road infrastructure? \p Lucy Powell: Poorly planned and delivered roadworks are of great frustration to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and to the constituents of Members from across the House. I join her in urging her local council to ensure that the roadworks do not cause the level of disruption that she describes, and this Government are committed to ensuring that. \p Steffan Aquarone: Families in Holt have been promised for years a new primary school to replace the current building, which is too old and too small to cater for this growing market town. However, the Conservative-led county council has broken promises and dithered and delayed, pointing to minor fluctuations in the birth rate as a pathetic cop-out. Will the Leader of the House consider scheduling a debate on investment in our primary schools? Also, how this decision reached? Will she facilitate a meeting with the relevant Minister to ensure that parents, pupils and staff in Holt get the new school that they need? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear of the dither and delay in getting the school in Holt that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have long been promised. As he knows, the provision of places is a matter for local authorities. They have been given the funding to provide places where they are needed, so the local authority really has no excuse but to get on and provide the school. \p Naushabah Khan: I recently visited the hygiene bank in Medway in my constituency. Its volunteers provide essential hygiene products to people who need them, restoring their dignity and confidence. Given that 4.2 million adults in the UK live in hygiene poverty, will the Leader of the  House consider a debate on how we tackle this issue, and specifically on removing the 20% VAT on soap by reclassifying it as an essential hygiene item? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight hygiene poverty, which is a real issue for many in this country. Tackling poverty in all its forms is a priority for this Government. I am sure that she would not expect me to make decisions on or talk about future levels of VAT, but this is a really excellent campaign that I think will get wide support from across the House, if she wants to take it further. \p Martin Vickers: Yesterday, like many Members across the House, I attended the event staged by the MS Society in Portcullis House. I was given a handout that said that an estimated 3,770 people in my constituency suffer from multiple sclerosis. I have met a number of them and their support groups over the years, but that number is surprising. It is estimated that each year, another 179 will be added to that number. Next week is MS Awareness Week, so it would be an appropriate time for a ministerial statement on that subject, and I hope that the Leader of the House will oblige me with that. \p Lucy Powell: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all the work he has done in supporting steel and British Steel in his constituency, and for his attendance at the recall. He makes a really good point about MS Awareness Week and the real challenges faced by people living with chronic diseases. Given that it will be MS Awareness Week, I will certainly bear in mind his request for a statement. \p Andy MacNae: To get to school, William Cartwright, who is in year 6 at Thorn primary school in Bacup, has to cross the very busy Burnley Road at a point where there is no lollipop service, 20 mph zone or zebra crossing. That is his daily experience. He said:

“Cars travel very fast. We often run across the road, and I’ve nearly been hit several times.”

William has launched a petition calling for Lancashire county council to install a safe crossing. He says:

“We should not have to wait for an accident to happen before something is done.”

I could tell a similar story about the safety of roads around almost every other primary school in Rossendale and Darwen. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating William on his initiative? Given how oversubscribed Westminster Hall and Adjournment debates on this subject have been, will she agree to a debate in Government time? \p Lucy Powell: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating William on highlighting the issues of road safety in Bacup and across Rossendale and Darwen. He is absolutely right: road safety matters attract a great deal of interest in this House. We will soon deliver an updated strategic framework for road safety. I will ensure that that is brought to this House, and I will consider his request for a debate. \p Sarah Dyke: Some 77% of LGBTQ+ millennials are considering starting a family, but only three out of 42 integrated care boards  in England give female same-sex couples access to fertility funding. Others ask for six to 12 rounds of self-funded treatment before funding is considered. As we celebrate Lesbian Visibility Week, could we have a debate in Government time about the discrimination that same-sex couples face when accessing fertility treatment? \p Lucy Powell: I join the hon. Lady in supporting Lesbian Visibility Week, and she raises a really important matter. We should be supporting all couples of whatever kind who want to start a family, with all the joy that that brings and all the support that those families can bring to the babies and so on. I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a full ministerial reply, but I am sorry to hear about the postcode lottery she has described. \p Rachel Hopkins: Last week, I co-hosted a youth engagement workshop at the brilliant Tokko youth hub in my constituency to help inform our Government’s national youth strategy. Young people from a range of organisations, including Luton’s children in care council, CHUMS, the Centre for Youth and Community Development, Luton Roma Trust and Luton Youth Council—to name but a few—all gave excellent feedback. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is vital to recognise a wide range of young people’s voices in developing strategies that affect their futures, in order to break down barriers to opportunity for all? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for facilitating that workshop. She is absolutely right; we want to co-produce the national youth strategy, and conversations and workshops like the one she has described—which are part of what I think is the biggest conversation ever with young people—are critical to ensuring that we design the services and support that young people want. \p Lincoln Jopp: I know that like me, the Leader of the House will be a massive fan of acrobatic gymnastics, so she will be aware that over the Easter break, Team GB went over to Luxembourg to compete with 22 other nations. What she might not be aware of is the outstanding contribution made by Spelthorne Gymnastics in bringing home five gold medals and three silver medals from the European championships. Will she join me and Members from across the House in congratulating Team GB and Spelthorne Gymnastics on this outstanding effort? \p Lucy Powell: I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me to perform a somersault—we will save that for later, maybe. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I was thinking more of the political variety—if you don’t mind! I absolutely join the hon. Member in congratulating Spelthorne Gymnastics on their fantastic achievement of five golds and three silvers in GB acrobatic gymnastics. \p Shaun Davies: On a recent visit with the courts Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), to Shropshire’s justice centre, I was reminded about the dedication of our magistrates. Can we have a debate in Government time about the importance of magistrates in the justice system? Since the 12th century, magistrates have played a critical role in delivering local justice, and now do so as volunteers, many with decades of service.  Currently, there is not a long service medal award; does the Leader of the House agree that there really ought to be? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in thanking all the magistrates—as he says, they are volunteers, and they are the backbone of our justice system in this country. I think the issue he has highlighted is one that would gather a great deal of momentum and support, and I implore him to continue campaigning for it. \p Shockat Adam: If the Leader of the House will indulge me, I would like to quote somebody who I suspect has read more books than I have: Albert Einstein. He said,

“The only thing that you absolutely have to know, is the location of the library.”

Libraries are more than just a place of knowledge—they are the lifeblood of local communities, bringing people of all backgrounds together. However, in Leicester, the Labour mayor is looking to slash library services in some of the most economically deprived areas of my great city, and I know the same will be happening in other constituencies up and down the country. Cutting our library services disproportionately affects the most vulnerable in our society, so will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in which we can praise our public libraries and the work of our wonderful librarians across the country, and urge the Government to give more support to local authorities to protect those crucial services? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Libraries are long-standing services in many of our communities, and they provide a great service to local people. They do not only provide access to books; these days, they provide access to services, the internet and all sorts of other things, to ensure that people have the knowledge and access they need. I am sorry to hear of the plans in Leicester, which I will look into for the hon. Gentleman, but we have given local areas a record settlement in the local government budget, which I hope means that they can keep their libraries open. \p Jo White: Last week, I visited Papa’s fish and chip restaurant in Worksop, where I met the owner, Nick. He told me about his reconnect campaign, which encourages people to come off their screens and spend time in good company over a first-class plate of fish and chips. He also showed me the safe space he has created for SEND families. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Nick for running such a thoughtful and caring campaign? \p Lucy Powell: Papa’s fish and chip shop in my hon. Friend’s constituency sounds like a great place to go and reconnect by putting away our phones and having a great plate of fish and chips. Perhaps I will join her there some time soon. \p David Mundell: Recently, the Bank of Scotland announced the closure of all five of its branches in my constituency. As part of the follow-through, the organisation Link makes an assessment of access to cash, and in particular whether a free-to-use cash machine should be provided. However, it is bound by very strict criteria,  meaning that it has to take into account other cash machines—cash machines that might not be available 24/7, might not have disabled access, and might not be stocked up with cash on a regular basis. Will the Leader of the House ask Treasury colleagues to review those criteria to make absolutely sure that people have access to cash machines? \p Lucy Powell: Access to cash in communities like the right hon. Gentleman’s is an issue that gets raised with me pretty much every week in this House. I will certainly make sure that a Minister comes back to him on those criteria and whether they are appropriate now that we are seeing more and more banks withdrawing from our high streets, and whether access to cash is really viable. \p Torcuil Crichton: My local authority, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar/Western Isles council is fast approaching its 50th anniversary. Formed in 1975, it brought together the many islands that make up Na h-Eileanan an Iar and gave the Outer Hebrides a unified identity. My father served as a councillor, and my brother currently serves; they are among many councillors and officials who have given service to the islands over the years. Our local authorities are not much loved, but by wishing Comhairle nan Eilean Siar a happy 50th anniversary, will the Leader of the House show that they are much appreciated? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Western Isles council and wishing it a happy 50th anniversary. It sounds like he comes from a great dynasty of local politicians, and here he is as a Member of Parliament, representing his home area. \p Julian Lewis: I thank the Leader of the House in advance for the very large number of follow-up letters she will be writing after this marathon session. I know that it is probably quite a chore, but we really appreciate that she does it so conscientiously.

In a brief exchange about NHS dentistry on 13 March, as part of the formidable campaign being waged by the National Federation of Women’s Institutes on that subject, I was quite impressed when the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that the problem requires,

“not simply tinkering with the system as it is, but fundamentally rethinking it”—[Official Report, 13 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1298.]

I am sure he is absolutely right about that, so will the Leader of the House urge him to make a statement to the House on what progress he anticipates making on this very important issue? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for thanking me for all the letters that my brilliant civil service team support me with, getting the answers to the questions that people ask me during business questions. Making sure that Members get answers to the questions they raise is something that I take incredibly seriously.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that dentistry has been broken in this country, that access to NHS dentists is not what we would want it to be, and that more fundamental change is needed to ensure that we get more dentist appointments and look at the dental  contract—I am lobbied about this issue by my own dentist every time I go. I will ensure that the House is kept updated on progress. \p Alex Baker: Aldershot Town football club are going to Wembley. The FA trophy final on 11 May will be the first time in the club’s history that the red and blue army have played under the arch, with over 17,000 fans there to spectate. That club is also the first football club in the country to achieve the armed forces covenant gold status award for the work it does in our community. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating everybody at the club on reaching this prestigious final, and for giving all of us in Aldershot something to cheer about? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Aldershot Town on reaching the FA trophy final against Spennymoor Town. What a great achievement for her local club. A lot of football clubs are being mentioned today, and I am sure she might want to raise this next week on Second Reading of the Football Governance Bill. I also join her in congratulating Aldershot Town on being the first football club to get the armed forces gold standard achievement. \p Tom Gordon: Harrogate’s LGBT community was appalled by homophobic comments made by Anthony Murphy, a Conservative town council candidate, who described it as a “truth” that acts of homosexuality are of “grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered”. An organisation he directs even claimed that AIDS is a disease spread by the depraved, and he called on the Church to “purge the filth”. This was not a vetting failure; the local Conservative association knew and selected him anyway. It has refused to withdraw support or answer whether he is the same Anthony Murphy who was linked to organising Enoch Powell rallies. The local association has either gone rogue, or the nasty party is well and truly back as the Conservatives chase votes from Reform. I have written to the Leader of the Opposition but have had no reply. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on candidate standards and party accountability? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear of the appalling homophobic remarks being made by a councillor, and a Conservative councillor at that. The hon. Member has raised them here this morning, and I hope that those on the Conservative Front Bench have heard his question, because action needs to be taken. The Conservative party needs to show, like the rest of us, that such remarks are completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated in our democracy or any of our parties. \p Gareth Snell: Stoke-on-Trent has witnessed a proliferation of houses in multiple occupation in the city in recent years, with family homes being converted with little notice given to local residents. Working with Councillors Shaun Pender, Daniela Santoro and Adrian Knapper and with Labour’s Maggie Bradley, we are prosecuting a case for Stoke-on-Trent city council to adopt an article 4 direction, but this is proving more difficult than it should be. Can I encourage the Leader of the House to bring forward legislation to remove this permitted development right for everybody across the country, so that HMOs can be properly regulated and looked after in communities? \p Lucy Powell: I know that HMOs are a big issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency, in mine and in many others. The Renters’ Rights Bill, which is now in the House of Lords, will take some action on regulating HMOs, but he is right that we could go further on these matters. I encourage him to continue to raise them, and I will make sure that he gets a ministerial reply. \p Vikki Slade: My constituent, Paul Pearson, tragically lost his granddaughter Lauren following an accidental drug overdose. He later discovered that she had been introduced to drugs by someone at her dance school. Safeguarding concerns were not passed to the Disclosure and Barring Service. It was suggested that the individual also was not DBS-registered. When I queried that with the Home Office, it said that Home Office legislation around regulated activity only provides eligibility for checks and does not make them a requirement. I am sure that the Leader of the House shares my concerns on this. Will she ask the Government to make time for a debate on DBS and how it can be strengthened to protect children? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear of the case that the hon. Member raises. The question of whether DBS checks are wide enough, suitable and so on does get raised in the House regularly. I will ensure that she gets a ministerial reply, but she might want to apply for an Adjournment debate; I am sure that many people would attend. \p Charlotte Nichols: It was good to meet the Safeguarding Alliance this morning about its concerns, which I share, regarding the patchwork of different Departments, bodies and regulators with responsibility for safeguarding. That allows known offenders to slip through the gaps and continue offending. An overarching safeguarding regulator could close those gaps, and with a Cabinet Office review reportedly being undertaken on quangos and arm’s length bodies, will the Leader of the House arrange for Government time for MPs to be part of that? Can she advise when the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which might allow opportunities for better regulation around safeguarding data and information sharing, will be coming back to the House? \p Lucy Powell: The Bill’s Report stage is on Wednesday 7 May, so my hon. Friend may want to raise some of these issues then. Tackling safeguarding and ensuring that we have the right safeguarding is a cross-Government issue, as she will know. It covers many Departments, but we have a number of measures coming forward in various pieces of legislation, which I hope will improve the safeguarding environment. I encourage her to raise these matters during the passage of some of those Bills. \p Carla Lockhart: The UK Government have a legal and moral duty to ensure that the Union succeeds. It is therefore imperative that Ministers do not go on solo runs and make unhelpful comments in the context of Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, given that support for Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK has remained unchanged in generations. Will the Leader of the House therefore consider providing time for a debate on the Government’s responsibility to speak with one voice and their commitment to upholding Northern Ireland’s place in this Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? \p Lucy Powell: I will certainly ensure that the Minister has heard the hon. Member’s question. This Government speak with one voice—we certainly try to—and I am sorry if that has not been the case in what she describes. This Government are committed to the Good Friday agreement in all its parts, and she will know that these issues are a matter for those who live in Northern Ireland. \p Jonathan Brash: Residents of the Throston ward in Hartlepool, in common with communities right across the borough, tell me that they are fed up with crime and antisocial behaviour following 14 years of Tory failure that destroyed neighbourhood policing. Does the Leader of the House agree that Labour’s pledge to put a named police officer in every community, as championed by our brilliant council candidate, Lyndsey Allen, is a game changer in tackling antisocial behaviour and crime in Throston, Hartlepool and the country as a whole? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in thanking Lyndsey Allen for supporting these issues. He is absolutely right that we have to put neighbourhood policing back in our communities. We are committed to get 13,000 more officers into neighbourhood policing over this Parliament, and that is what we will do. The Crime and Policing Bill is passing through Parliament, and it will give the police the powers they need to tackle antisocial behaviour. \p Clive Jones: Just before the recess, I was unexpectedly a guest of the NHS at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Gateshead. It was a result of my delayed cancer diagnosis 17 years ago. I sometimes get cellulitis, and it needs very urgent intravenous antibiotics. I went in on Thursday night, and my records did not catch up with me from my local hospital until Monday. Can we have a debate in Government time, so that the Secretary of State understands the urgent need to have digital records, so that our local hospitals can pass on our details to hospitals in other parts of the country in a timely fashion, allowing treatment to be undertaken quickly? \p Lucy Powell: I was sorry to hear of the hon. Member’s admission to hospital, and it is good to see him here in his place today as fit and well as ever. He is absolutely right, and people might not understand that hospitals hold individual records, and there is not a national database for data sharing across hospitals. Many people imagine it just happens, and it does not. I can assure him that the Health Secretary is committed to breaking down these barriers and making sure we have got the data sharing we need and the digital records that he describes so that people can get the appropriate treatment when they need it. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: Beira’s Place is a sexual violence support service run by women, for women. It opened in 2022 in response to the need for single-sex counselling services for survivors of violence against women and girls in the Edinburgh and the Lothians area, including West Lothian, which covers a large part of my constituency. Can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of single-sex counselling services for survivors of violence against  women and girls? Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the all-women team at Beira’s for the invaluable support they provide? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of single-sex spaces and counselling when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls and dealing with the aftermath of that. She will know that the Supreme Court ruling over Easter gave greater clarity on these matters for service providers, such as those in her constituency, and she might want to raise the great work that they do at the next Women and Equalities questions on 7 May. \p Will Forster: The former chief executive of Woking borough council, Ray Morgan OBE, has been identified in a public interest report as the chief architect in bankrupting my council, leaving it with debts of £2 billion. Does the Leader of the House agree that the very least the Government could do is remove his OBE for services to local government, and will she agree to hold a debate in this House so that we can discuss Government policy on removing honours when wrongdoing has been committed? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s case. He may be aware that there is a special committee—it is not a Government committee—that looks at where there is a strong case for nominations to be removed. I urge him to contact that committee, and I will write to him with the details. He is absolutely right to say that we need to make sure that people are held accountable for their actions. Where they have received nominations, that is something that we should consider. \p Sureena Brackenridge: Like the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), more than 3,000 people living in and around my constituency have multiple sclerosis, including Simon, who manages a full-time job only because his employer provides the flexibility that he needs to cope with this unpredictable and degenerative condition. Neurological conditions such as MS are lifelong and often invisible, and profoundly impact on people’s lives. Will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate on ensuring that neurology is a clear priority in the 10-year plan for the NHS? \p Lucy Powell: I will absolutely join my hon. Friend in highlighting MS Awareness Week, which is next week. I thank her constituent Simon and his employer for being so flexible. As she describes, living with these chronic conditions requires good employers that are flexible, as well as a range of other support services. Given that it is MS Awareness Week next week, I will make sure that the relevant Ministers report to the House on what we are doing. \p Jim Shannon: Nigerian Christians are at the forefront of Christian persecution across the world. As the majority of Christians worldwide enjoyed the start of Holy Week, many in the Plateau state of Nigeria had a different experience. On Palm Sunday, an hour-long massacre occurred in Zikke village, where some 54 people were killed and 103 households destroyed.  The entire village was displaced. Eyewitnesses report military inaction, the selective disarmament of Christian youths, and violence by armed Fulani extremists. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate or a statement to ascertain what steps the UK Government will take to support the protection of Nigerian Christian communities and to address the ongoing violence? \p Lucy Powell: As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of freedom of religion or belief for all—in this case, in Nigeria—which we raise with the Nigerian Government on a regular basis. We need to put an end to the inter-community violence that we are seeing in Nigeria. \p Paul Waugh: I know the Leader of the House has a sweet tooth, so she may be disappointed that she missed out on the very first chocolate festival held by The Oxford pub in Shawclough over the Easter break. The festival was attended by 800 people, and it was held in conjunction with the chocolate maker Slattery. As well as having a great time, customers and the pub donated free Easter eggs to children in need in Rochdale. Will she join me in congratulating the McNeeney family on putting on the festival, and will she join me for a candy and a shandy in Rochdale soon? \p Lucy Powell: I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the McNeeney family on putting on the chocolate festival, which sounds like a really great event. It ensured that those who perhaps could not afford to indulge over the Easter weekend had the opportunity to do so at The Oxford pub. I gently say to him that next time he should bring us back a few chocolates, so that we can make sure that they are up to the standard that the whole House would want. \p Scott Arthur: All of us made sacrifices when Parliament was recalled to save the steel industry, and mine was missing a slice of a cake that was baked to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Balerno farmers market. I met the baker, Emma Galloway, at St Mungo’s Easter service last week, and she explained to me that my slice was gone. The House can imagine how I felt. My low-calorie alternative is early-day motion 1091, on the 20th anniversary of the Balerno farmers market.

[That this House congratulates Balerno Farmers Market on celebrating its 20th anniversary on 12 April 2025, marking two decades of consistent service to the local community and surrounding areas; recognises the market’s vital contribution to promoting local food, sustainable farming and small independent producers, while strengthening the sense of community and supporting the local economy in Edinburgh South West constituency; commends the dedication of the organisers, stallholders, volunteers and community partners whose continued efforts have made the market a well-loved and successful monthly event since its founding in 2005, which helps define Balerno; acknowledges that the market has grown into a community hub, supporting not only local commerce but also arts, culture, fairtrade and environmental awareness, reflecting the values of resilience, sustainability and civic pride; and congratulates all those involved in the Balerno Farmers Market on this significant milestone, wishing it continued success in the years ahead.]

The early-day motion highlights that the market is vibrant and defines Balerno. It supports the local economy and, through the Fairtrade group, also supports sustainable farming right across the world. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Balerno farmers market a happy 20th birthday, and suggest that Emma bakes a slightly bigger cake next time? \p Lucy Powell: I will absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Balerno farmers market. It sounds like the bakers produce great cakes, which are so popular that none was left for him, so next time they definitely need to make a bit more. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. We have around 15 to 20 minutes left for these questions, so please help each other out. \p Melanie Onn: Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Labour’s brill and totally committed Greater Lincolnshire mayoral candidate, Jason Stockwood? He is truly putting Lincolnshire first, having just completed his countywide cycle tour, raising over £16,000 for charities across the area—and he is the only candidate to brave Lycra in public. \p Lucy Powell: I will absolutely join her in wishing Jason Stockwood, whom I know well, all the very best in standing to be the first Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire. He will make a fantastic Mayor for Lincolnshire, and I hope people will vote for him next week. \p Ben Goldsborough: Fantastic local businesses, such as SugarBeat on the A140 in south Norfolk, are being hammered by drawn-out roadworks that have been signed off by Norfolk county council and carried out by EDF, with little care for the financial damage caused. Can we have a debate in Government time on holding utility companies to account when roadworks run riot? \p Lucy Powell: There is nothing more frustrating than poorly delivered roadworks, especially roadworks that come on top of other roadworks or just after them. I think this would make a very popular topic for a debate if he were to apply for one. \p Douglas McAllister: Earlier this month, my hometown football club, Clydebank FC, were crowned West of Scotland premier division champions. On Saturday, they play their final home league game of the season at Holm Park, and it will be my pleasure to be there and see them lift the trophy. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all the players, the manager, the coaches, the staff and the Bankies supporters on such a wonderful and successful season? Does she wish to join me—never mind the FA cup semi-final—in West Dunbartonshire on Saturday to celebrate the Bankies winning the league? \p Lucy Powell: I will absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Clydebank FC, known as the Bankies. What a great honour it will be for a new Member of Parliament to see their football club lifting the league  trophy at their home ground on Saturday. I am slightly otherwise engaged this weekend with my own football interests, but I look forward to seeing him with the trophy at Clydebank on social media. \p Oliver Ryan: Burnley is a premier league town once more. I am sure the whole House—though perhaps not the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain), who is not in his place—will join me in congratulating Alan Pace, Scott Parker, Josh Brownhill and all the lads at Burnley football club on their ascension to the premier league. They are back where they belong. Up the Clarets! Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them? \p Lucy Powell: We have really had a football theme today. I put on the record my congratulations to Burnley FC on getting promoted to the premier league. I look forward to Man City putting a few goals past them next season. \p Elaine Stewart: My constituents John and Evelyn Preston contributed to Digital’s pension scheme before 1997. They expected discretionary increases to counter inflation, but since Hewlett-Packard took over in 2002, their pensions have stagnated—in some cases, people have experienced 60% losses. Thanks to the Pre-97 Alliance, we know that this issue affects hundreds of thousands of people across the UK. Will the Leader of the House find time to discuss how this injustice can be addressed? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. There is nothing worse for pension holders than seeing the value of their pension eroded because uprating is not happening in line with inflation. Pension scheme trustees have a duty to act in the best interests of their members, and I will ensure that a Minister looks into this case for her. \p Amanda Hack: Just this morning, my office received notice of the intent to cancel two key bus services in my constituency—the 125, which connects Castle Donington to Coalville and into Leicester city, and the 129, which connects Ashby-de-la-Zouch to Loughborough and is the only service for some of my rural villages. Will the Leader of the House join me in expressing concern about these proposed cuts, and call on Leicestershire county council to work with me and local bus companies to save these services to keep my communities connected? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear that Leicestershire county council is cutting vital bus services in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We have confirmed over £1 billion extra for local bus services such as those she describes, and we are bringing forward—in fact, it is passing through Parliament at the moment—the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which will give local communities much more say on bus services in their area. \p Julie Minns: On 16 April 1850, the Cumberland Co-operative Land and Benefit building society first opened its doors. The Cumberland, which is headquartered in my Carlisle constituency, is celebrating 175 years of serving my constituency and the wider area. Will the Leader of the House please join me in  wishing the Cumberland building society a happy birthday and thanking it for the part it is playing in supporting Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million new houses? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Cumberland building society on its 175 years—what a remarkable achievement—and on all the work it is doing in supporting house building and homeowners in her constituency and beyond. \p Connor Rand: Bar Etna, a fantastic family-friendly restaurant in Altrincham, has suffered to the tune of thousands of pounds from a business rates scam. Thankfully, the licences of the fraudsters were suspended, but they have since changed their company name and are back scamming small businesses again. It was the fourth time they have pulled this trick. Can we have a debate on the business rates scams crisis in our country, so that we close for good the loopholes being exploited by these con artists? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear that businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency have been victims of business rates scams. We are committed to reducing the number of these scams, and we will take steps to do that, but I will ensure that he gets an update from Ministers. \p Maya Ellis: Girlguiding and its volunteers provide endless opportunities for girls and young women in my constituency of Ribble Valley. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Waddow Hall Trust group of Girlguiding members on successfully campaigning to secure Waddow Hall, which provides adventure and outdoor education for future generations of young people? Will she make time for this House to discuss the importance of outdoor education within the Government’s national youth strategy? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating her local girl guides on their campaign to secure the future of Waddow Hall. The girl guides do a great job, and they are a vital part of the youth services and youth community activities that we want to see across the country. \p Emma Foody: Fly-tipping is a blight on local communities across Cramlington and Seaton Valley in my constituency, yet under Conservative-run Northumberland county council, fly-tipping has increased by a massive 76%. The Government have taken action to keep our communities safe and tackle fly-tipping. Can we have a debate on the action being taken to strengthen enforcement, and how we are clearing up the mess the Conservatives have left nationally and in Northumberland? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that fly-tipping is a blight on many of our communities, and we are determined to take further steps. We are currently seeking powers in the Crime and Policing Bill to issue statutory fly-tipping enforcement guidance, but I know she will want to raise these issues as the Bill passes through Parliament. \p Jonathan Pearce: The Hawthorns care home in Buxton recently celebrated 90 years of service to our local community. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending the warmest congratulations to the staff, the residents and their families. This stands in stark contrast to the Conservative-led Derbyshire county council closing care homes and adult day care centres across High Peak, including the sudden and shocking closure of Queens Court in Buxton earlier this month. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time to consider the future of care homes and day centres run by local councils? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of care homes such as the Hawthorns in his constituency. I am sorry to hear that his local county council—the Conservative-run county council—is closing care homes at this time. We have seen a record settlement for local government, so the county council should really reconsider its decisions. \p Jas Athwal: Getting a driving licence in Ilford South has become almost impossible. Learners are having to wait for more than 18 months to book their tests, because rogue individuals and unscrupulous driving schools are booking up the spaces and charging residents up to 10 times the cost of a single test. Learners are being exploited and honest instructors punished. Would the Leader of the House facilitate a positive outcome, including a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss common-sense solutions for our constituents who are locked out of driving by these manipulative practices? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that, and he is absolutely right that access to driving licence tests and other things are not what we would expect them to be. The Secretary of State has taken steps this week to address some of these challenges, and we can go further. I will ensure that he is given a ministerial update on these important issues. \p Sonia Kumar: UK homes bin 1.7 billion pieces of plastic every week. Thanks to companies such as the British Dudley-based business Iron and Velvet, there are viable alternatives to using plastic in cleaning products. Would my right hon. Friend help encourage others and this place to ditch plastic, and could we have a debate about the importance of reducing plastic waste? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend highlights an important issue. We do need to reduce plastic waste, and I will ensure that the House plays its part in reducing plastic waste. We want to see a circular economy, which means more recycling and less use of plastic. \p Jacob Collier: Engineers at JCB have pioneered the world’s first hydrogen combustion engines that can power heavy machinery. That world-leading British engineering has been developed and built by my constituents. These diggers are unable to drive on UK roads, but thanks to this Labour Government, that is going to change on 29 April. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming this change, which will bring increased jobs and investment? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the engineers at JCB in his constituency on their brilliant work. I am pleased that this Government have been able to unlock road access for these diggers, which will unlock further job opportunities in his constituency. \p Lee Barron: In Corby, residents of Hooke Close were denied the chance to object to plans for a huge warehouse to be built immediately next to their homes, and they now live under its shadow. This was due to admitted failures by North Northamptonshire council, including consulting the wrong streets. Residents took the matter to court, and the judge criticised the council, but the case had to be ruled out because it was out of time. The council—which did not consult the residents, but consulted the wrong streets, and which the judge criticised—is now pursuing the very people it failed for £5,000 in legal costs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that authorities should be held accountable when serious consultation failures occur, and that residents should not be financially penalised as a result of the incompetence of the consultation? \p Lucy Powell: This sounds like a troubling case in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He is right that high-quality consultation for developments is imperative, and it does not sound as though that happened or that proper procedures were followed in this case. I will certainly raise it with Ministers for him. \p Kirith Entwistle: Too many of my constituents in Bolton are trapped in overcrowded homes. As a result, too many parents are left with no option but to share rooms with their adolescent children. Outdated overcrowding rules and a shortage of housing mean that pleas for help are routinely dismissed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that families deserve better and that everyone deserves a decent home that is fit for purpose? \p Lucy Powell: As my hon. Friend will know, this Government are committed to providing more affordable homes, so that we can tackle the issues of overcrowding and poor housing that she describes in her constituency. I think this would make a good topic for a debate. \p Leigh Ingham: I am sure the Leader of the House is tired of hearing about the constant road chaos in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, but my constituents and I are at our wits’ end. Conservative-run Staffordshire county council continues to ignore the chaos at the A51-A53 Blackbrook junction, failing rural areas such as Baldwins Gate yet again. Will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate on Labour’s serious plans for fixing our roads and how we actually get Conservative-led councils to do that? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has yet again had to come to the House to raise with me the poorly managed roadworks in her constituency. Staffordshire county council really needs to get a grip on them, because it sounds like it is making a real mess. \p Phil Brickell: From conversations with my constituents, it is clear that after 14 years of Tory government there is a systemic issue of overcrowding in social housing. Under the Housing Act 1985, a living  room is classed as sleeping accommodation, which means that many families in my constituency find themselves stuck on the housing register for extended periods, with no priority when bidding and often with teenage children having to share a bedroom with a complete lack of privacy. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time to address this critical issue? \p Lucy Powell: Housing waiting lists are far too high in this country. That is why we need more social housing. It is why we need more housing, full stop. That is what the Government are committed to delivering. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: Leaseholders in Hendon and across the UK are being ripped off by managing agents charging excessive fees while delivering poor service. That is why I, along with colleagues on the Labour Benches, have called many of those companies into Parliament to explain themselves. In the recent White Paper, the Government set out a strong plan to end the feudal leasehold system for good. May we have a debate in Government time on what can be done at constituency level to support the reforms, and specifically to help the Government hold managing agents to account while the reforms are enacted, lowering the unfair and unaffordable service charges that leaseholders are being forced to pay? \p Lucy Powell: Leasehold and unscrupulous managing agents are a huge issue for many of our constituents. We are committed to ending the feudal leasehold system for good. We have the commonhold White Paper. The Minister has announced how he will bring into effect measures from the previous Government and we will have a leasehold reform Bill later in the Session. My hon. Friend’s constituents will get the recourse and the services they deserve. \p Johanna Baxter: At the last session of business questions, the Leader of the House kindly joined me in congratulating one of my constituents, Jean Gallagher, who had just received a provost award from the Renfrewshire provost for her 25 years voluntary service at the Johnstone learning centre. Little did we know that at the same time as recognising Jean’s incredible service, the council was planning cuts to that vital service, leaving it in jeopardy. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning those cuts, and does she agree that the local SNP-run council should instead be using the money it has been given by this UK Labour Government to invest in these vital services? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. This Government have ended austerity in Scotland by giving the Scottish Government the biggest boost to their budget that they have ever had. They have the money; they have the powers. We really should not see services being cut like they are. \p Christopher Bloore: Rob Oliver, Kevin Joynes, Matthew Humphries and Tom Hayward from Redditch will be rowing across the Atlantic ocean in December as part of a challenge known as “The World’s Toughest Row”. The challenge will involve them rowing 3,000 miles from the Canary Islands to Antigua to raise funds for three fantastic charities: the Frank Bruno Foundation, Arrive Alive, and Redditch Self Defence  and Youth Engagement, which helps to educate young people in Redditch on the dangers of knives. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending these self-described “four ordinary blokes” for taking on such an extraordinary challenge to support these critical causes? \p Lucy Powell: I thought there was an invite to Antigua coming there, Madam Deputy Speaker, but alas no. I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating and wishing well those four blokes—Rob, Kevin, Matthew and Tom—on their amazing charitable endeavours. \p Judith Cummins: We need very short questions. \p Jeevun Sandher: Potholes are a blight across my constituency and cost us £500 each time they damage our cars, and the reason is that our roads have not been maintained by the Conservative-run county council. Does the Leader of the House believe that on 1 May my constituents should vote to fix our potholes and vote for all the brilliant Labour candidates across Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. After more than a decade of Conservative chaos, our roads were left in a shocking state. If people want this country’s potholes fixed, they need to vote Labour at next week’s local elections. \p Alice Macdonald: Play spaces should be accessible to all regardless of ability or disability, but that is not always the case. Young people in my county of Norfolk are leading the charge to change that through the “MAP Right to Play” campaign. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the young people of Norfolk for pushing this issue, and will she make time for a debate on the importance of inclusive play? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. The right to play is critical and I am really pleased to hear that young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and across Norfolk, and are making it such a priority. \p Julia Buckley: Minsterley village has recently seen its rural outreach post office service withdrawn with just two days’ notice. The unplanned closure affects three villages. No explanation or consultation was given to residents, the postmaster, the council or the three Members of Parliament, in clear breach of the principles of engagement set out by the Government. Will the Leader of the House please raise with the relevant Business and Trade Minister my residents’ serious concerns and ensure that the Post Office is fulfilling its obligations to rural communities such as mine? \p Lucy Powell: Post office closures are a really serious matter for this House. I implore my hon. Friend, as the local MP, to stand up for post office services in her constituency, as she is doing today, and campaign for them to remain open. I will absolutely ensure that she gets a ministerial reply about what is happening. \p Adam Jogee: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; all good things come to those who wait. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to my constituents Yvonne Yorke and Jackie Wood from Newcastle-under-Lyme, Sue Jackson from Stafford, and Linda Lock from Stoke-on-Trent South, all members of the Potteries branch of Alzheimer’s Research UK? They have raised more than £15,000 in many different ways, including their “human fruit machine”. Can the Leader of the House assure me and my constituents that conditions such as Alzheimer’s and dementia will be at the heart of our plans for early diagnosis? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. Tackling Alzheimer’s and dementia is at the heart of our early diagnosis strategy. We are determined to expand research and innovation into Alzheimer’s across all areas. \p Katrina Murray: Yesterday and today, hundreds of young people in my constituency celebrated their final day at school, with the Scottish Qualifications Authority exam period starting tomorrow. Leaving school and moving on is a big transition in life. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing those young people all the best with their exams and what comes next, and may we have a debate on the importance of celebrating such transitions? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in wishing all the young people in her constituency and across the House the very best of luck in all the exams they will be sitting over the coming weeks. \p Judith Cummins: For the final question, I call Chris Vince. \p Christopher Vince: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—and congratulations to you on that. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the players, staff and volunteers of a team often known as the “non-league Man City”, Harlow Town football club, on its promotion from the Thurlow Nunn first division? And as I have time, will she also wish the club luck to do the double in two weeks’ time in the league cup final? \p Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend may be last, but certainly not least. I certainly join him in congratulating Harlow Town football club—maybe they have a Haaland as well, if they are bit like Man City—on its promotion and wish it the very best of luck in the league cup final in two weeks’ time. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within twelve months of this Act coming into force, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the impact of this Act on credit unions.

(2) The report must include—

(a) an assessment of the arguments for granting credit unions access to Bank of England liquidity facilities, considering their similarity to small building societies;

(b) an analysis of the competitive disadvantages faced by credit unions compared to start-up banks, particularly concerning access to liquidity and resolution mechanisms;

(c) recommendations for any legislative or regulatory changes to support the stability and competitiveness of credit unions.”—(Mark Garnier.)

This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prepare a report on the impact of the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act on credit unions.

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Mark Garnier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Judith Cummins: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) The Bank of England must not require the scheme manager to make a recapitalisation payment if it has directed the financial institution to maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) exceeding minimum capital requirements.”

This amendment seeks to prohibit the use of FSCS funds to recapitalise large financial institutions, defined as those which have reached end-state MREL.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 22, at end insert—

“(3A) No application to the scheme manager for recapitalisation payments may be considered by the Bank of England for a financial institution which has been directed to maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) exceeding minimum capital requirements, unless permission has been given, through regulations, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

(3B) Regulations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, subject to subsection (4), shall be made through Statutory Instrument under the negative procedure.”

This amendment would ensure financial institutions that maintain an end-state Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities exceeding minimum capital requirements are excluded from the provisions of the Bill, unless permission has been given through regulations.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(5A) As a further objective to the special resolution objectives in section 4 of the Banking Act 2009, when discharging its functions in respect of the exercise of recapitalisation payments under this section, the Bank of England must observe the competitiveness and growth objective.

(5B) The competitiveness and growth objective is facilitating, subject to aligning with relevant international standards—

(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom, and

(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”

This amendment would place a further objective on the Bank of England to consider the competitiveness and growth of the market before directing the recapitalisation of failing small banks through a levy on the banking sector.

Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 4, line 14, at end insert—

“(2B) The code must include guidance to the Bank of England on the exercise of its functions in relation to building societies to ensure that, in circumstances where the use of a recapitalisation power may result in demutualisation, due consideration is given to the impact of such demutualisation on members and on the mutuals sector.

(2C) In preparing the guidance required under subsection (2B), the Treasury shall consider the feasibility of selecting a purchaser from the mutuals sector as a means of avoiding demutualisation, provided such a purchaser meets the resolution objectives.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that, where possible, the selection of a purchaser from the mutuals sector is considered to avoid demutualisation, provided this aligns with the Bank's resolution objectives. \p Mark Garnier: Before speaking to new clause 3 specifically, let me reiterate that the Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to carry over the legislation from the previous Parliament, and that the principles underpinning the Bill continue to enjoy strong cross-party support. We all want and need confidence in our banking sector, yet the failure of Silicon Valley Bank UK exposed a gap in our resolution framework for smaller banks. Unlike larger institutions, they do not hold the bail and bond mechanism known as MREL—the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—reserves to facilitate recapitalisation in the event of a crisis. By providing the Bank of England with new tools to manage small bank failures, the Bill remains both prudent and necessary to protect financial stability and public funds.

Moving on to the amendments we have tabled on Report, I want to make it clear that our approach is constructive and focused on strengthening the Bill, not obstructing its progress. As the Bill has made progress through both Houses, our intention has been to address a series of smaller but none the less significant issues that we believe require further attention. I appreciate that this might be a conversation we can continue in today’s debate, or beyond it, and I would certainly welcome conversations with the Minister, who has been incredibly open to direct conversations in her usual pragmatic style, to further discuss these matters.

We have three measures selected for discussion today. I will speak first to new clause 3, which addresses a critical gap in the Bill’s scope: the protection of credit unions. These community-focused institutions have seen significant growth in recent years, driven in part by the eradication of predatory payday lenders, and they continue to provide a vital role in delivering affordable finance to those underserved by traditional banks.

Membership of credit unions rose from 1.89 million in 2019 to 2.14 million in 2024—an increase of more than 260,000. However, while their importance has grown, their inclusion in our resolution framework has  not kept pace. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has paid £10.1 million in compensation to credit union depositors over the past three financial years, primarily due to small-scale failures, underscoring their potential vulnerability and the need for a tailored approach as the sector expands.

The growth of credit unions is a success story, but it demands proportional safeguards. The Bill, however, excludes credit unions from its recapitalisation mechanism. While their smaller size and unique nature may differentiate them from banks, questions remain. How does the current resolution regime account for credit union failures as the sector scales up? Is there scope to develop a mechanism that protects members without imposing undue burdens on these community institutions? New clause 3 seeks clarity on this matter, requiring the Minister to produce a report outlining how the resolution framework can be adapted to protect credit unions, ensuring that their growth does not outstrip their regulatory safeguards. The vast amount of legislation for credit unions was written back in the 1970s. The previous Government made significant reforms for credit unions through amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act, and I welcome the common bond reform consultation, which closed last month.

I know that the Government are giving the sector serious consideration, and I am sure the Minister will agree that this is not about applying bank-style rules to mutuals, but about recognising their unique role and risks. Credit unions are more than financial institutions; they are engines of financial inclusion. They often serve small, working-class communities, whom I know the Government want to support specifically. As the sector evolves, so too must our approach. We must ensure that our regulatory framework grows. I hope the Government will support this amendment, which simply seeks to look more clearly at the options available when a crisis happens.

Amendment 2 seeks to address a concern that has been raised with me by the mutual and building society sector. These institutions are not relics of the past, but vital components of our financial ecosystem. Although the first known building society was set up in 1775 by ordinary working people helping themselves to build their financial resilience and get a home of their own, they remain current today. Building societies today hold more than £360 billion in assets and provide mortgages for more than 3 million people in the UK. They represent a significant proportion of the housing market and are a trusted source of savings for millions more. They provide a clear and important diversification in our financial markets, offering a clear alternative to shareholder banks.

The Labour party stood on a clear manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector, which the Opposition agree is a very good policy. Today presents a good opportunity for Labour Members to demonstrate that commitment to the sector by enshrining in the Bill a requirement that the Bank of England consider the risk of demutualisation when using the mechanisms enshrined therein. There is a genuine fear in the building society sector that, without proper safeguards, the recapitalisation mechanism offered by the Bill could inadvertently become a back door for  demutualisation. When a mutual institution faces resolution, the selection of a purchaser from the plc sector risks permanently dismantling its mutual status, undermining the very ethos that makes these institutions unique.

Our amendment would provide a proportionate solution, requiring the Bank of England to consider the impact of demutualisation on members and the sector as a whole, while also exploring the feasibility of selecting a mutual sector purchaser, if one exists and meets the resolution objectives. This is not about privileging mutuals at the expense of financial stability; it is about ensuring that the Bank’s resolution tools do not inadvertently homogenise our financial landscape. Silicon Valley Bank demonstrated the need for agile resolution frameworks, but it also highlighted the importance of preserving institutional diversity.

Mutuals and building societies often serve communities and demographics that larger banks frequently overlook. Their potential loss would leave gaps in financial inclusion and weaken the resilience of the sector. Importantly, without the millions of mortgages provided by the building society sector, particularly for first-time homeowners, Labour’s house building plans would be simply impossible.

I hope the Minister appreciates that our amendment strikes a careful balance between safeguarding financial stability and honouring our commitment to a pluralistic banking system—one where mutuals continue to thrive as a cornerstone of community-focused finance. I remind Labour Members that it will be much harder to double the size of the mutual sector if, in the event of a failure, recapitalisation defaults towards the banking sector. I hope the Government will therefore demonstrate their manifesto commitment to the mutual and co-operative sector by voting today for new clause 3 and amendment 2.

There remains genuine concern—shared across this House and reflected in the debates in the other place—over the risk of the recapitalisation mechanism being applied too broadly and potentially capturing larger banks that already hold substantial loss-absorbing resources, such as MREL. We continue to believe that the mechanism should be limited in scope and targeted at smaller banks that do not have the same capacity to manage their own failure. Amendment 1 would limit the use of the mechanism to what it was always intended to be: a mechanism for smaller banks outside the MREL regime.

I appreciate that new clauses 1 and 2 have already been ruled out of scope, but it may be worth noting a couple of points on these measures. I wish to place on the record today that the Opposition believe the time has come for a review of how we set the threshold for MREL, as well as the protection ceilings for depositors under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The current static nature of MREL thresholds disproportionately affects smaller and mid-sized banks, particularly challenger banks. By indexing MREL thresholds to inflation, we can ensure that the regulatory framework remains robust over time without stifling competition. These institutions often operate on tighter margins and face significant barriers in meeting rigid capital requirements, hindering their ability to scale and compete effectively with larger incumbents. While we appreciate that the Bank of England’s consultation on MREL closed earlier this year, we hope that the Government will consider these points. Threshold limits should not stay static with time.

Likewise, we welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to review the Financial Services Compensation Scheme deposit limit. The recent announcement of the increase of the deposit protection scheme from £85,000 to £110,000, although very welcome, is certainly overdue. It is worth noting that if the limit had kept pace with inflation, it would be nearly two thirds higher, at around £140,000, according to the Federation of Small Businesses. It is worth noting that only 4.6% of Silicon Valley Bank’s UK deposits were insured by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme— \p Judith Cummins: Order. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing what is in scope, rather than what is not in scope and has not been selected? \p Mark Garnier: My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. These are points that we feel are worth noting, but I take your comments.

I will turn to amendment 3, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Although we share the intent behind the amendment, which mirrors the Conservatives’ amendment on MREL limits for banks, there is a critical difference in its approach that gives us pause. Like us, the Liberal Democrats recognise that end-state MREL banks should not be the primary target of this legislation. However, their amendment introduces a requirement for a statutory instrument under the negative procedure that we believe would create more problems than it solves.

Our concern lies in the potential impracticality of this approach. Banking crises can unfold rapidly, as we saw with Silicon Valley Bank UK, where decisions were made in a matter of hours, not days. A statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure becomes law the moment the Minister signs it, which is a good thing, and it remains in law unless either House rejects it within 40 sitting days. That creates a window of uncertainty. If Members were to pray against the statutory instrument, particularly in a hung Parliament, it could trigger market instability, which is precisely what this Bill seeks to avoid, so although we agree with the principle of limiting the Bill’s scope, we worry that the mechanism could tie the hands of a future Chancellor, hindering their ability to respond swiftly and decisively in a crisis. For those reasons, we cannot support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Finally, I turn to the Liberal Democrat’s growth amendment, amendment 4. Here we find ourselves in a familiar and supportive position. This amendment, which seeks to place a further objective on the Bank of England to consider the competitiveness and growth of the market before directing the recapitalisation of a fail small bank through a levy on the banking sector, echoes concerns raised in the House of Lords. We were happy to support the proposal there, and in Committee.

The Government frequently repeat the point that their focus is on economic growth. That is a goal that all of us in this House share. The decision to place a levy on the banking sector to cover the cost of a competitor’s failure must be carefully weighed against the broader growth objectives. This is an economic climate in which taxes and borrowing are up, and business confidence, jobs and growth are down, but the Government have an  opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to economic growth through this legislation—and we, of course, hope that they will.

In conclusion, we support the overall aim of the Bill. It will strengthen our banking system and our banking resolution framework. As I said, the Bill was originally drafted by the previous Government and retains cross-party support. We have highlighted several key areas that require further consideration, and I hope the Minister will consider them. From ensuring that the mechanism is not extended to MREL banks to protecting mutual societies and credit unions and safeguarding the Financial Services Compensation Scheme against inflation, our amendments aim to improve the Bill’s effectiveness and fairness, which is entirely in line with the promises made by the Labour party before the general election. I very much look forward to Labour supporting its own manifesto promises. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: I rise to speak in opposition to amendments 1, 3 and 4. Under the previous Government, the country was subjected to years of economic chaos. This Government have made restoring stability a cornerstone of our strategy to boost long-term growth. Ensuring macroprudential stability, underpinned by an effective recovery and resolution regime, is a key part of that. Changes undertaken in the UK and globally through the Basel III reforms have made our large banks safer and more resilient, and we should welcome that. The reforms have improved solvency and reduced risks for the taxpayer.

However, the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023 has demonstrated the need for new tools to help minimise the risk to consumers, taxpayers and broader financial stability posed by small bank failures. We need an approach that goes beyond the bank insolvency procedure, and that is why the proposals in the Bill enjoy so much support across our financial services sector, as I know from my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial markets and services. But in designing this new approach, we must make sure that the proposals reflect the lessons of experience. In all candour, I am concerned that the amendments do not do that, and will impede the functioning of the new regime, rendering it less effective at moments of crisis.

I was an adviser in the Treasury to Alistair Darling during the global financial crisis, when we had to resolve and recapitalise a number of major banks. The action that the Labour Government took then—often in the face of resistance from Conservative Members—helped to save our financial sector from catastrophe and stabilise not just the UK, but the global economy. There are many lessons to be learned from that period, but in relation to the Bill, one stands out. When we had to act to save our banking sector, we learned that successful resolution relies, among other things, on two key factors: speed and flexibility. It was the combination of those factors that was so important in 2008, and since then, I would argue, they have only become more important.

In 2008, we watched banks’ liquidity and solvency deteriorate by the day, but now, as the collapse of Signature Bank in the US in 2023 shows, the combination of banking apps and social media mean that a full-scale banking run can develop in hours or even minutes. If we are to resolve banks successfully, regulators must be able to move as quickly. Speed has become more important  than ever. So, too, has flexibility. As we see increasing financial innovation and diversification among banks, with new challengers, new forms of institutions and new types of markets and assets emerging, allowing regulators sufficient flexibility has become more essential, not less.

The value of flexibility was demonstrated in the case of Silicon Valley Bank’s UK subsidiary. The creative use of powers to resolve that bank through a sale, rather than putting it into the bank insolvency procedure, protected consumers, minimised market turbulence and shielded the public purse. Contrast that with the US regulators’ approach to the parent company, SVB. There, rigidity and a mechanistic failure to apply major bank rules led to failures of regulatory oversight that contributed—as US regulators have acknowledged—to the bank’s failure. I raise this matter because I fear that amendments 1, 3 and 4 will militate against speed and flexibility, and will reduce the effectiveness of the Bill, especially in acute crisis situations.

Let me start with proposed amendment 4. This would require the Bank of England to consider competitiveness and the growth impact on the market before directing resolution through the FSCS. However well-intentioned the amendment is, it could have a catastrophic effect. At a time of crisis—policymakers have sometimes just hours to act—it would place a duty on them to make a market assessment, which, by the way, could presumably be challenged. This is simply impractical and could fatally slow down action to restore financial stability. As someone who has sat in the room during a bail-out process, I have to tell the proposer of the amendment that spending time on this kind of exercise during a disorderly bank failure is simply a luxury that we do not have.

I am also concerned that such a requirement would have a chilling effect, staying regulators’ hands when they have to act quickly. This could not only increase the risk of disorderly collapse, but raise the cost to the FSCS of a recapitalisation if it does proceed. Experience tells us that the longer we put off a resolution, the more expensive it becomes. This is a recipe for higher risk and higher cost. Moreover, leaving aside the practical difficulties, the underlying logic is flawed. First, in seeking to analyse the market before deciding on whether to resolve an institution or wind it up, we are putting the cart before the horse. Surely a much better course of action is to prevent the potentially disorderly collapse of the institution, and then to work out its long-term future and the role, if any, it should play in the market.

Secondly, the amendment fails to take into account other objectives that the Prudential Regulation Authority should properly consider in deciding whether to act, including the protection of retail savers, the prevention of contagion and the safeguarding of macroprudential stability. As drafted, the amendment, however well-intentioned, could distort PRA decision making. Its intentions may be good, but its impact might not be.

The same is unfortunately true of amendments 1 and 3. Both seek to circumscribe the use of the FSCS via statute, to prevent it being used to bail out larger institutions. The amendments would rob regulators of the flexibility to use the instrument in unusual or unforeseen circumstances, in the name of solving a problem that does not exist.

The powers provided by the Bill are already aimed squarely at smaller banks, and there are various safeguards in the Bill to prevent the use of those powers for larger banks in most scenarios. For example, the Bill states that the FSCS-funded resolution may be used only for institutions that are placed in a bridge bank or transferred to a new institution, and this would not be applicable for larger bank in most scenarios, as they are expected to be resolved through an MREL bail-in. The Bill also provides for de facto Treasury sign off, requires the Chancellor to report to Parliament on the use of the powers and mandates the bank to inform the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees whenever an FSCS-funded resolution is undertaken. As such, it is already well-policed and circumscribed. There is little danger of this approach being regularly or routinely used with large banks. Adding a statutory prohibition on using this approach with firms meeting their minimum MREL thresholds would add little, but it would create risk.

My experience in the Treasury during the global financial crisis, and in my work across financial services since then, is that we cannot say that the highly improbable will never happen, and we cannot always predict what form the next crisis will take, or what will trigger it. Conservative Members should surely understand this lesson better than most. After all, it was Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget that sparked market chaos through a product—liability-driven investments—that most people had never even heard of, and were thought to be very stable and low risk. Given this, it would be exceptionally unwise to statutorily bar the Bank from being able to use all the tools at its disposal in exceptional circumstances. There are eventualities that, however unlikely, are possible, such as a well-capitalised bank suffering a very rapid deterioration of its position due to a mass redress event. We must allow the Bank flexibility to access the tools that the Bill provides in exceptional circumstances, in order to ensure stability and protect the taxpayer. We must not bind its hands in a crisis.

The power of the Government’s proposals lie in their ability to be deployed rapidly and with flexibility. That is what will give them their traction and help safeguard our financial stability. It is critical that we preserve those facets of the Bill. For that reason, I urge the House to join me in rejecting the amendments. \p Clive Jones: The Liberal Democrats are supportive of the Bill, because the last thing taxpayers need to worry about are the consequences of an under-regulated banking sector. I have brought amendment 3 back from Committee, because the size of banks eligible for the new mechanism has been a key debate through the Bill’s passage.

The Minister has regularly set out that the Bill’s stated aim is to enhance the resolution regime, so that we can respond to the failure of small banks. However, the Bill does not restrict the regime to small or medium-sized banks. If applied to large banks, it would create high costs for banks and customers. The costs would persist for many years, adding a significant long-term burden on the banking sector and consumers. Amendment 3 would ensure that the Bill does not apply to banks that have reached the end-state minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—put more simply, the largest UK banks. That would mean that only small  and medium-sized banks could be supported by the mechanism. That would protect consumers and the banking sector from unnecessary financial burden.

Amendment 4 has also been brought back from Committee. It would place a further objective on the Bank of England to consider the competitiveness and growth of the market before directing the recapitalisation of a failing small bank through a levy on the banking sector. We believe that further consideration of the effect on the competitiveness and growth of the market is important before directing the recapitalisation of failing small banks.

To conclude, I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the remarks made in Committee and explain how precisely the amendment would complicate the process of managing a bank failure. \p Emma Reynolds: It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Members for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for their amendments and their constructive engagement throughout the Bill’s passage. The Bill will ensure that the Bank of England remains equipped with the necessary tools to effectively manage bank failures in a way that minimises risk to the taxpayer and to UK financial stability, protecting the taxpayer.

While there may be some disagreements on the finer detail of the Bill, what we have heard today, and on Second Reading and in Committee, demonstrates that there is cross-party support for the principles and overall objectives of the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest and the hon. Member for Wokingham for supporting those.

The amendments cover a broad range of issues, and I will explain the Government’s position on them in turn, but first I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) for setting out his experience of the banking crisis and stressing that the mechanism we are seeking to provide through the Bill must allow the Bank of England, in close consultation with the Treasury and other financial services regulators, to act with speed and flexibility at times of crisis. There are hours, not days, in which to make decisions during crises, and at the forefront of our minds when discussing the Bill should be that they often happen over the weekend, as happened under the previous Government with Silicon Valley Bank. I will turn to that example shortly, but I wanted to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon for setting out his concerns about the amendments that would essentially stymie the effectiveness of the Bill.

I note that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, raised a number of issues on new clause 3, on the Bill’s impact on credit unions. Some were not strictly relevant to the Bill, but I will come on to them. As he noted, the Government absolutely support credit unions. They play a vital role in providing saving products and affordable credit in local communities across the country. However, they are not in scope of the resolution regime that we are discussing, and therefore not in scope of the new recapitalisation payment mechanism introduced by the Bill. That is a benefit to the credit union sector. Indeed, it asked the Government to ensure that it was not included in the payment mechanism. Credit unions will therefore not be liable to pay towards the cost of a failure where the mechanism is used.

I will set out the detail of the resolution regime and remind the shadow Minister and others why credit unions are not involved in this case. Under the resolution regime, the Bank of England has a set of powers it can use to manage the failure of banking institutions in order to protect financial stability and public funds. In order for the Bank of England to use these powers, certain conditions must be met, including that resolution action is necessary and in the public interest. It is unlikely that these conditions would be met in the case of credit union failures, given their size and the reduced likelihood of contagion if they fail. It is therefore appropriate and proportionate that these firms are out of scope of the resolution regime and placed into insolvency when they fail instead.

The Government do not therefore believe that it is necessary for a report to be produced on the impact of the Bill on credit unions. Nevertheless, I appreciate the points the shadow Minister raised about access to liquidity facilities. Credit unions are not currently eligible to access the Bank of England’s liquidity facilities, but the Bank does continually assess the types of firms that are eligible. I would gently say to him that with eligibility to these liquidity facilities comes additional responsibilities on behalf of the firms that benefit from them. That is worth bearing in mind.

I reiterate the Government’s clear, strong support for the credit union sector. We continue to engage regularly with the sector to understand the barriers it faces to being able to grow and compete. \p Jim Shannon: I support wholeheartedly what the Minister has said about credit unions, because credit unions have a big role to play in Northern Ireland, as they do in other parts of the United Kingdom. My concern when it comes to crises in banks is that credit unions belong to their members, but banks have a different hierarchy—they have chief executives and directors to pay. I believe it is unfair for bankers to retain their bonuses while the pensioner who has saved his pennies all his life suffers. No matter what the crisis is, the executives still get their dividends and bonuses. I have a simple question: within this legislation and the rules we have here, can we be assured that the bankers—the ones at the top who may be responsible for the banks, or certainly act responsible for them—will find that their bonuses are not delivered to them? \p Emma Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman draws me on something that is not pertinent to the amendments, but I understand why he has asked the question. When a bank fails, there is a hierarchy of creditors. I can write to him with that hierarchy, as I do not have it in my head at the moment. The hierarchy ensures that if, for example, the bank is bailed in, those who have already invested in the bank become stakeholders, although it depends on the resolution scenario and where they are in that process. The people who have deposits in the bank—in more simple language, people who have bank accounts—are protected up to £85,000. Soon that will increase in the way that the shadow Minister suggested.

Amendments 1 and 3 in the names of shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, and the hon. Member for Wokingham respectively both relate to the scope of the Bill, which has been discussed at length during the  Bill’s passage through this House and in the other place. The Government’s position remains that the mechanism in the Bill is not intended to support the resolution of the largest banks. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest set that out in his speech, as did the hon. Member for Wokingham. The largest banks will continue to be required to hold MREL to self-insure against their own failure. For banks that are required to hold MREL, the Bank of England should in the first instance use those resources to recapitalise such a firm in resolution rather than resorting to the new mechanism in the Bill. It is right that shareholders and investors in the firm should bear losses before anyone else, which goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

I return to the primary purpose of the Bill, which is to protect the taxpayer. Bank failures are by their nature highly unpredictable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said. In the unlikely circumstances where a top-up is needed to resolve a bank once all its MREL resources have been used, hon. Members must consider whether they want those costs to be borne by the taxpayer. It is the Government’s belief that the taxpayer should not be on the hook for those costs.

I made the point in Committee, and do so again today, that safeguards are in place to prevent inappropriate use of the mechanism. The Treasury, for example, is involved in the exercise of any resolution powers through being consulted about whether conditions for resolution have been met. It would also need to approve any resolution action with implications for public funds. If the Bank of England requested a large sum from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme that the scheme could not provide through its own resources, additional amounts would need to be borrowed from the Treasury and would therefore require the Treasury’s approval. Therefore, in practice, Treasury consent would be required if the Bank of England had requested a large sum.

The shadow Minister attempted to draw me into many different subjects related to MREL. You rightly reminded him, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the scope of the Bill and the amendments under discussion. I will always be happy to have those discussions with him—as he knows, the Bank of England recently consulted on the thresholds—and I note what he said before he was called to order. He also tried to draw me into questions about the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which are also for a different day; as he said, there will soon be increases. \p Matt Rodda: I appreciate that the Bill’s scope is limited, and the Minister is making an excellent case for the Government. I realise that bank collapses are unusual and that the Government take a range of steps to try to protect the interests of consumers, but could she write to reassure me on the related point of bank branches there were a bank collapse? \p Emma Reynolds: Perhaps my hon. Friend and I could have a discussion outside the Chamber so that I can better understand his question. The mechanism in the Bill is about what happens when the resolution regime is triggered. Four different conditions have to be met for that to happen. The Bill seeks to continue the work that the Opposition started to take forward when they were  in government before the election about what we do in cases like that of Silicon Valley Bank. In that case, there was not any recourse to public funds, but this is about how we protect the taxpayer in a scenario where there is. Perhaps we can have a discussion about bank branch closures, which is obviously of great concern to Members across the House.

I appreciate that amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Wokingham, aims to introduce an additional safeguard by permitting the Bank of England to use its new power on the largest banks only if the Treasury permits that through regulations. He talked about that in his speech. However, there may be risks associated with that approach, particularly if the Bank of England needed to take a decision at pace in a crisis. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon was in the Treasury when many such situations arose. [Interruption.] Well, let us not rake over the history. We discussed some of these issues in Committee.

As the shadow Minister suggested, we are trying to avoid a window of uncertainty during which a statutory instrument would be laid. The Bank of England, working in close partnership and consultation with the Treasury and the other financial services regulators, needs to be able to act swiftly and decisively—often over the weekend. I ask hon. Members, and the hon. Member for Wokingham in particular, to cast our minds back to the weekend when Silicon Valley Bank UK was failing. The Bill derives from the lessons learned from that event.

What we saw from that incident is how quickly the authorities—the Bank of England in consultation with the Treasury, the PRA and the FCA—must move to find a solution before markets open and resolve a failing firm in a way that protects financial stability, depositors and the taxpayer. That has to be at the forefront of our minds when we are thinking about the amendments.

Amendment 3 could add a further stage to that process, whereby the Treasury must lay regulations to enable the Bank of England to act. That may well—it is most likely that it would—hamper those efforts to implement a solution swiftly to achieve those objectives. Had Silicon Valley Bank UK been caught by such requirements, that certainly would have made achieving the solution by Monday morning, before the markets opened, much more challenging. Again, the priority is to protect the depositors and to protect financial stability.

Overall, the Government firmly believe that it is better to leave flexibility for the Bank, noting the safeguards in place that I have already mentioned. On the basis of those points, I hope that hon. Members will be persuaded to support the Government’s position on this matter; I know that it is an issue of some contention.

Amendment 4, also in the name of the hon. Member for Wokingham, is on whether the Bank of England should have a growth and competitiveness objective when exercising its new power—another topic that we have discussed previously during the Bill’s passage. Growth and competitiveness are fundamental priorities for the Government, and as I stated in Committee, a disorderly bank failure could pose a serious risk to the growth and competitiveness of the sector and to the UK economy. The Bill seeks to mitigate that risk.

Bearing that in mind, the Government do not believe that they should impose a requirement on the Bank of England to consider growth and competitiveness when it is taking urgent crisis management action in relation  to an individual distressed or failing firm. At such a time, the situation that it would have to manage would be challenging enough without an additional broad objective of that kind. The resolution objectives set out in the Banking Act 2009 already provide a solid basis on which it must make its decisions, including protecting financial stability, protecting covered depositors and protecting the taxpayer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon reminded us, the Bank of England, in close partnership with the Treasury and the other financial services regulators, needs to act with speed and flexibility to maintain financial stability. Those considerations are very different from those that the PRA and the FCA make in their policymaking roles. The Government strongly support the existence of their secondary objective on facilitating growth and competitiveness.

I note and accept that there is a broader question about how the Bank of England can support growth and competitiveness, but this is a complex matter, and one that is well beyond the scope of the Bill. We will be resisting the amendment for those reasons.

Finally—[Interruption.] I see that our debate has attracted quite a lot of discussion around the edges; if I could hear myself think, it would be nice. I turn briefly to amendment 2, tabled by the shadow Minister. First, I reiterate that the Government have made clear their strong commitment to support the mutual sector, and I reassure him that we take our commitment in the manifesto to double the size of the mutual and co-operative sector very seriously. Many hon. Members on the Government Benches who serve as Labour and Co-operative MPs have a great interest in this matter, as has been demonstrated.

I also direct the shadow Minister—to be fair, he referred to a couple of them—to the package of measures that the Chancellor set out at Mansion House, which included the consultation on the potential to reform common bonds for credit unions in Great Britain. The Chancellor asked the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to produce a report on the mutuals landscape by the end of the year. She also welcomed the establishment of an industry-led mutual and co-operative business council, the first meeting of which I attended earlier this year.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for raising the issue in the amendment. The chief executive of the Building Societies Association has written to me about it, and we are engaging with him and the broader sector on the issues related to the Bill, as well as on many other issues that are relevant to financial services and the role that the sector plays in providing vital services to people throughout the country and as an engine of growth for the wider economy.

I understand that the sector’s interest in this matter stems from a provision in clause 7 that gives the Bank of England an explicit power to require the issuance of securities by the firm in resolution where the new mechanism in the Bill is used. This provides a means for the Bank of England to give effect to a recapitalisation under the new mechanism established by the Bill. Its purpose is to provide additional operational certainty that, if the Bank of England needs the failing firm to issue shares as part of its resolution, doing so will not be put at risk by the usual administrative process of share issuance.

Of course, mutuals have a different ownership model, with no shares, so the use of the power with respect to a mutual would require the firm to be demutualised. That brings me to amendment 2, which would require further detail to be included in the code of practice in relation to demutualisation. Specifically, it would require the Treasury to include guidance in the code in respect of the Bank of England’s exercise of its resolution powers in respect of a building society in circumstances where the use of the recapitalisation power may result in demutualisation. The guidance would require the Bank of England to give due consideration to the impact of such demutualisation on members of the building society in resolution and on the mutual sector, particularly when the Bank of England could select a buyer from the mutual sector to avoid demutualisation. The Bank of England is required to have regard to the code, so would be required to have regard to such new guidance when exercising its resolution powers.

In responding to the concerns raised by the amendment, I note first that the Bank of England already has the power to require the demutualisation of a mutual firm when exercising its powers, if that is necessary to execute a resolution effectively in the public interest. The Bill does not change that. There are also circumstances in which demutualisation would not be necessary, such as the transfer of a mutual firm’s assets to another mutual acquirer. We saw that back in 2009, with the transfer of the Dunfermline building society’s assets to Nationwide. Indeed, if the Bank of England is seeking to resolve a failing building society, its assets may well prove an attractive acquisition for another mutual, so a sale within the mutual sector may already be a likely outcome under the existing regime, whether in resolution or in recovery in the period prior to resolution.

It is worth remembering, however, that the issues we are considering relate to banks and building societies once they have failed. In such circumstances, the alternative to demutualisation as part of a resolution may be insolvency, which may have far more adverse consequences for members of the mutual, as well as for the wider mutual and banking sector. \p Gareth Snell: Will the Minister give way? \p Emma Reynolds: I am afraid I am being urged to wrap up. I remind Members that the Bill is fundamentally about protecting the taxpayer— \p Gareth Snell: We have Third Reading—it’s fine. \p Emma Reynolds: We have not come to that yet; my hon. Friend can intervene on Third Reading. [Laughter.]

Taking what I was saying into account, although the Government appreciate the point raised by the sector and by the shadow Minister, we do not believe it is necessary to hardwire in legislation a requirement to update the code of practice on this matter. I understand, however, that the mutual sector feels strongly about this issue, and my officials and I will continue to engage with the sector on it. I commend to the House our position on the new clauses and amendments, which is to resist them. \p Mark Garnier: With the leave of the House, I wish to address one or two of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky)  is an incredibly valuable contributor to the debate because of his experience back in the days of the 2008 financial crisis. If I remember correctly, that was largely a result of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which almost compounded the problem by having a tripartite regime that looked after the banking sector at the time. If I remember rightly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time found it so scary that his eyebrows nearly turned white. One of the surprising things about that crisis was that just 10 years earlier we had seen the Asian banking crisis, which basically laid the groundwork for what subsequently happened in the west. Perhaps we in the west were too arrogant to believe that it could happen to us, yet it sure did.

In my role as a member of the Treasury Committee from 2010 to 2016, and on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, I looked at all these issues very extensively. It is incredibly important that we resolve the issue. As it has turned out, the Financial Services Act 2012 and the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 have worked well in respect of some of this resolution.

On the point about LDIs and the financial crisis as a result of the Budget, we dealt with the problem pretty swiftly and pretty brutally. When one of our leaders gets it wrong, we get rid of them fairly quickly. I suggest to the Labour party that if Government Front Benchers get things wrong, it is worth cauterising the problem and moving on.

On credit unions and mutuals, we absolutely recognise the point about the mutual sector. We are not asking for demutualisation to be ruled out; we are asking for the prospect of avoiding demutualisation to be part of that very swift process. That is why we will press amendment 2 to a Division. I met the credit unions yesterday, and they are keen that the principle of new clause 3 is voted on, so we will press that as well.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 212.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 2, page 4, line 14, at end insert—

“(2B) The code must include guidance to the Bank of England on the exercise of its functions in relation to building societies to ensure that, in circumstances where the use of a recapitalisation power may result in demutualisation, due consideration is given to the impact of such demutualisation on members and on the mutuals sector.

(2C) In preparing the guidance required under subsection (2B), the Treasury shall consider the feasibility of selecting a purchaser from the mutuals sector as a means of avoiding demutualisation, provided such a purchaser meets the resolution objectives.”—(Mark Garnier.)

This amendment seeks to ensure that, where possible, the selection of a purchaser from the mutuals sector is considered to avoid demutualisation, provided this aligns with the Bank’s resolution objectives.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 89, Noes 230.

Question accordingly negatived.

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

We can hopefully do Third Reading in a more relaxed fashion. As we have discussed through the Bill’s passage, the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill will strengthen the UK’s bank resolution regime by providing the Bank of England with a more flexible toolkit for responding to the failure of banking institutions.

As volatility over recent weeks has shown, global uncertainty can have a real impact on financial markets across the world. That is why it is important that the UK remains equipped with an effective financial stability toolkit. The primary objective of the recapitalisation mechanism introduced by the Bill is to protect the taxpayer; it will provide more comprehensive protection for public funds when banks fail. I think both sides of the House can agree that this is of vital importance to ensure that our constituents are not left on the hook when a bank collapses. The Bill achieves that without placing new up-front costs on the banking sector, and therefore strikes the right balance between protecting financial stability and supporting the Government’s No. 1 priority of driving economic growth.

I would like to thank all those in this House and the other place who have contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill. In particular, I would like to thank the Opposition for their constructive engagement. As I said on Report, there is broad agreement on the primary objectives and principles of the Bill, but differing views have been expressed on the scope of the mechanism and certain finer details. I reiterate the Government’s position: it is important to learn the lessons from the case of Silicon Valley Bank UK, which demonstrates that the implications of a firm’s failure cannot always be anticipated, and things move very quickly. It is important that the legislation avoids overly restricting the Bank of England’s ability to use the mechanism in unpredictable and fast-moving failure scenarios, and can achieve its primary objective of protecting the taxpayer. I hope that those in the other place will agree with the Government’s position when the Bill returns there for their consideration.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), the hon. Members for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones), and others who were on the Committee. I thank the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), and the hon. Members for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) and for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), for their contributions on Second Reading. I thank the Minister with responsibility for pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), who assisted me on Second Reading, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for his input. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) for his speech on Report.

I would like to extend my gratitude to my officials in the Treasury for their hard work in developing this highly technical Bill, which could not easily be rushed, and for supporting me throughout the Bill’s passage. I am also grateful to the House staff, parliamentary counsel and all other officials involved in the passage of the Bill.

This Bill supports the UK economy’s resilience to the risks posed by bank failures. We all remember the damage caused by the financial crisis, and the Bill, alongside other measures that allow failures to be managed in an orderly way, upholds the economic and financial stability that will deliver on the Government’s growth mission. I am pleased that the Bill has received broad   cross-party support in this House and the other place, and I look forward to its enactment. I commend it to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Mark Garnier: May I first say a hearty congratulations to the Minister on bringing through her first Bill in the new Government? She was parachuted into the job rather recently, but she has done a magnificent job, and it has been a pleasure to engage with her. We share the aim of working in the interests of the wider economy, and we have worked together on the Bill. We may differ on a few tiny details, but we agree on its overall objective.

As I mentioned on Report, I spent some time on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards looking at how we can stop another banking crisis, and on the Treasury Committee doing pre-legislative work on the Financial Services Act 2012. This is an iterative and organic process. We will never be able to stop financial crises happening, but working together, we can ensure that there are no more instances of contagion flooding through the system. This Bill is extraordinarily good in following that iterative process, in order to make the banking system unsinkable, I hope—and I do not use that term lightly, as someone might have done in the film “Titanic”; this is genuinely very important.

I pay credit to the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), and the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and their officials, who worked tirelessly to ensure that Silicon Valley Bank UK was transferred to HSBC over that weekend, which undoubtedly avoided wider disruption to the financial system. We are delighted that the Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, and we welcome the Government’s decision to carry it over into this Parliament. I was about to say that our swords will cross in the coming months and years, but I do not think they will; I think we will almost certainly agree on things. We will engage with the Minister and her officials to ensure that we have a world-class financial system that is the envy of the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Christian Wakeford.) \p Julie Minns: I am pleased to have secured an Adjournment debate on a topic that is so important to my constituency of Carlisle. In the last two decades, Carlisle has suffered two devastating floods, which have left local people fearful whenever there is a forecast of heavy rain.

In the flood of January 2005, which was the worst flood since 1822, three local people—Margaret Threlkeld, Margaret Porter and Michael Scott—tragically lost their life. Thousands were forced from their homes as 1,800 properties were overcome by water from the three rivers that converge in the centre of Carlisle. Power and telephone lines were disrupted. Road and rail networks were closed. All the city’s buses were damaged. The civic centre, designated as the emergency control centre, along with the police station, the fire station, the main electricity substation, the telephone exchange and the sewage treatment works, were all severely flooded.

It was record rainfall that caused the flood of 2005, but just 10 years later that record was shattered, and Carlisle was flooded again. This time, 2,200 properties were breached with floodwater. Given that the floods were in 2005 and 2015, I think the Minister will understand why many of my residents are concerned that 2025, another year ending in a “5”, might bring further devastation to our city. That fear is heightened, because the defences promised by the previous Government following the 2015 flood were never completed.

It is a fear I can personally relate to. In 1985, my family’s home in the Denton Holme area of Carlisle—one of the areas still at risk because of those incomplete flood defences—was flooded when the River Caldew burst its banks. I can personally testify to the terror and helplessness that people feel when their home is invaded by water. We waded through what was once our living room, surveying possessions and furniture destroyed beyond repair. It is a horrible, crushing feeling, and even after the water subsides, the smell of damp and sewage remains. Returning to any sort of normality can take months, even years. My parents had spent the best part of two decades creating a home in Denton Holme that they loved, and my mam—who, incidentally, will turn 91 on Saturday—still talks of it. After the flood, she said she could never shake the sense or smell of damp, and within 18 months we had moved house.

In response to the 2005 flood, the then Labour Government commissioned and completed new flood defences, and over the next five years, £38 million was spent on the design and construction of flood defences at the Eden, Petteril and Caldew rivers. These were designed to protect Carlisle from a storm with a one in 200 chance of happening, and they did make a major difference. In 2012 and 2013, the defences were estimated to have prevented in excess of £180 million-worth of flood damage to the city. But on 5 December 2015, Storm Desmond hit Carlisle. It was a storm with a one in 333 chance of occurring. The rainfall triggered the highest level of flow ever recorded on the River Eden. In some locations, flood levels were approximately 600 mm higher than those experienced in 2005. Such was the  extent of the flood that the crossbar posts at Brunton Park, Carlisle United’s famous stadium, were submerged under water. Fortunately, no one lost their life in 2015, and while the recently constructed defences were effective at reducing damage and delaying flooding in some locations, it was clear that more needed to be done.

Progress has been made in subsequent years, and I commend the Environment Agency for that. Since the catastrophic floods of 2015, some 1,650 homes are better protected, thanks to over 6 km of new or raised flood defences. There have also been improvements to two culverts and their associated inlet or outlet structures. The Carlisle phase 1 and 1a schemes, completed in 2021, have increased protections for homes and businesses around the Warwick Road and Botcherby areas of Carlisle. The Carlisle phase 2 scheme, also completed in 2021, raised the flood defences along the River Eden, providing further protection to the Hardwicke Circus and Castle Way areas. The Rickerby and Low Crosby schemes have also reduced the flood risk to local communities. It is particularly excellent that the latter took an award-winning, innovative, low-carbon approach; it removed historical embankments to increase the effectiveness of natural floodplains. \p Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent and powerful speech about this awful problem that affects so many people, particularly in her part of England. Can wider lessons be learned from the techniques she is describing—for example, lessons about the use of natural materials, and about changes in land use, particularly in a range of river catchments? In my area in the Thames valley, both the Thames and the Kennet have flooded; as a result of climate change, they pose much greater risk than they did. Many residents have concerns about a range of issues, and I wonder if my hon. Friend thinks there is a wider national lesson to be learned. \p Julie Minns: I do think there are lessons to be learned, not least because Carlisle has been so badly affected by flooding and it is so devastating. Lessons could be shared from the schemes that have been introduced in the city, particularly in relation to maximising the use of the floodplains. In a short while, I will discuss more generally some of the natural flood defence work that has happened on the outskirts of the city.

There have been a number of schemes to the north of Carlisle. In the town of Brampton, natural solutions like tree planting and the creation of wetlands have been used to mitigate the risk of flooding from the Brampton beck, all while providing wider environmental benefits to the community. A new natural flood management scheme is currently being delivered at Brampton Fell farm, offering further protection to the town. There has also been the return of the “wiggling river” at Howgill beck, which was straightened more than 200 years ago. Thanks to the work of RSPB Geltsdale warden Jen Selvidge, a 1.8 km stretch of the beck has been returned to its natural wiggly state. During heavy periods of rainfall the river can now spill out on to the natural surrounding floodplain meadows, helping to reduce the chance of flooding downstream towards Carlisle, as well as having the added bonus of creating vital pools and damp patches for wading birds to feed on.

I am delighted that earlier this month the restoration project won the prestigious UK river prize project-scale award for 2025. Natural flood management schemes like these have an important role to play, and I urge the Minister to look closely at how a redesigned sustainable farming incentive can best encourage and compensate farmers who do the right thing by their local community for the loss of the income that they might otherwise have earned from the farmland that they have given over to natural flood management schemes.

One of the groups that particularly deserves praise in keeping Carlisle’s flood preparedness under the spotlight is the Carlisle Flood Action Group. Since its founding in January 2016 in the wake of the December flooding, it has done an excellent job of campaigning for the defences that our city needs. Indeed, it is one of many examples that show Carlisle at its very best. Our community is one that pulls together, and nothing encapsulates that better than it taking just 49 days from the 2015 floods to get the aforementioned Brunton Park back up and running and ready for matches once again. Some might say that, given our form this season, we could use a little bit of a delay to the end of it, but I will not dwell on that point.

Let me be clear: more needs to be done. In January last year river levels threatened to overwhelm the city again. Last May, rainfall equivalent to a one-in-300-year storm led to the flooding of 100 properties in the village of Scotby, just outside Carlisle. Our changing climate only makes these sorts of storms more common. Indeed, the Environment Agency believes that the impact of climate change in the River Eden catchment, which covers near the majority of my constituency, will be more severe than in the vast majority of river catchments in England.

At the very top of the list of what must be done is the Caldew flood risk management scheme, which many people in my constituency will know as the long-promised Carlisle phase 3 scheme—the one that was not delivered by the last Government. The scheme’s objective is to reduce flood risk to over 1,700 properties in the Denton Holme, Caldewgate and Willowholme areas of the city. I was grateful to Carol Holt, the Environment Agency area director for Cumbria and Lancashire, for accompanying me on a tour across the area in February this year, but despite assurances dating back years, residents have become frustrated by a lack of communication from the EA since the project was first paused in 2021 due to viability concerns.

We are not the only community waiting for defences or even trying to get maintenance done to existing defences. After 14 years of Conservative dither and delay, some 3,000 Environment Agency high-consequence assets were below the required condition. That is one of the reasons that I am glad we now have a Labour Government, and an especially responsive Minister for Water and Flooding. I welcome the planned investment of a record £2.65 billion in the next two years to build and repair over 1,000 flood defences, better protecting 52,000 properties across the country.

Last month, over £1 million was pledged towards a number of schemes in north-west Cumbria, including road surface work at Etterby Terrace and Wigton Road in Carlisle, and a property flood resilience scheme at Warwick Bridge, just outside the city, which I have been pushing the EA to deliver since I entered this place and which is planned to be finished by winter 2025. Some £300,000 was secured for the long-mooted Caldew scheme;  I have been told that feasibility studies are due by the end of the summer, and although I look forward to their conclusions, I am concerned that even if a path is identified, it may be five to 10 years until the scheme can be delivered.

Tackling the risk from the Caldew cannot just be about creating ever higher and more expensive and imposing flood defences. Instead, we need a range of measures, both in Carlisle and outside it, to help slow and hold the water away from the city, buying precious time for the river levels to ease. I understand that the Caldew scheme will be one of the largest schemes that the Environment Agency has ever undertaken, but it is vital to the lives of over 100,000 residents in Carlisle and to the prosperity of a place that has been the centre of trading in north-west England since before Roman times. I recognise that delivering the scheme will not be quick and I urge the Minister to ensure that a suite of measures is employed in the interim to mitigate the immediate threat from the River Caldew. Those measures could include a plan to remove aggregate and vegetation build-up that slows the flow of the river through the city.

I wish to address one other aspect of flood preparedness: emergency planning. I am glad that further expansions of the flood warning provision have taken place in Carlisle, including two new flood warning areas at Warwick Bridge and Parham beck, covering a combined 330 properties. I am also grateful for the flooding text alerts that I receive on a regular basis, but one issue that has been pointed out to me, particularly by the Carlisle Flood Action Group, is the need for more information to be made available to the public ahead of an incident, so that people can see where their nearest emergency shelter is planned to be in the event of a flood. I understand that such information is not currently available, so the first time the public hear of those locations would be when a flood occurs. \p Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In my own experience and that of local residents, alerts sometimes happen in the middle of the night, so it is extremely worrying and difficult for residents to respond quickly. She is right that there needs to be a proactive element, but does she also believe that there needs to be better co-ordination between private landowners, local authorities and the EA to tackle this issue? Particular concerns about private landowners have been raised with me. Will she comment on that point? \p Julie Minns: I am aware, certainly in the Denton Holme area, that a number of different landowners have responsibility for the maintenance of the river banks. As my hon. Friend identifies, that patchwork of responsibilities gives rise to a number of issues. It would be desirable for more information about flood alerts to be available in advance, so that people could plan for such an eventuality, but I recognise that those plans need to be dynamic; as I highlighted, in 2005 people could not get to the emergency centre because it had been cut off by the flood water. I recognise that providing that information in advance will not be absolutely perfect, but it would be beneficial for it to be made available.

If emergency locations were known, residents would have a better understanding of where to move to in the event of an emergency and would begin to do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda)  indicates, when that all-important flood alert came through. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider that point in her response.

In summary, I urge haste. I have already said that we are in another year ending in a “5”, and that does present concerns for my constituency. We passed the 20-year anniversary of the tragic 2005 floods in January and we approach the 10-year anniversary of the 2015 floods in December, so it is vital that we get on with delivering the schemes needed to keep our great border city safe and secure for many years to come. \p Emma Hardy: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing this debate. I wish a happy birthday to her mam, who I believe has her birthday at the weekend. I am really delighted to have the opportunity to hear about and discuss the steps being taken to prepare for flooding in Carlisle and across England. On a personal level, I have to say that my hon. Friend’s constituents made an excellent choice in making her their Member of Parliament, because she always lobbies me so nicely. That is always nice, but it also makes it very difficult for me ever to say no. I spoke with the Environment Agency earlier, and its representatives also told me how engaged my hon. Friend has been on flood risk reduction in Carlisle and were very complimentary about her persistent and kind lobbying.

Protecting communities, homes, businesses and farmland is our priority, and that is more important than ever as climate change brings more extreme weather to the nation. I have met my hon. Friend twice in the last year formally, and many times informally, to speak about some of the challenges that her constituency faces. I understand the awful experience of flooding, and I know full well that flooding of any kind is devastating for those affected. My hon. Friend has spoken in this House on the issue of flooding 20 years after the terrible 2005 floods, which are considered the worst in Carlisle since 1822 and, as she said, tragically claimed the lives of three people. In 2015, Carlisle saw further devastation from Storm Desmond. I know that she raised that issue last December, asking the Prime Minister what assurances could be given on delivering flood defences that might prevent a repeat. Only last year, Carlisle was badly affected again, so I understand my hon. Friend’s urgency.

Unlike the last Government, who left our defences in a state of disrepair, I am pleased to share that the investment for this year between April ’25 and March ’26 includes more than £1 million across nine schemes in my hon. Friend’s constituency alone. Her constituency is receiving £1,015,000 this financial year, of which £660,000 is allocated to the city of Carlisle itself. I know that she has expressed particular concern about the delays to the Caldew flood risk management scheme, which I am delighted to confirm has an investment of £300,000 this year for further development. I hope that reassures her that efforts to reduce flood risk to more than 1,700 properties in the Denton Holme, Caldewgate and Willowholme areas of the city are firmly in motion.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Caldew flood risk management scheme, which in ’25-26 will receive an investment of £300,000, in relation to feasibility studies.  In 2021, Environment Agency consultants carried out a feasibility study on further flood risk management options for the city of Carlisle, the outcome of which was that that option was not viable. However, another feasibility study is live on other potential options for flood risk management schemes, including, as my hon. Friend mentioned, work upstream of the city. The EA expects that study to conclude this summer.

Great progress has been made in Carlisle in recent years. Parts of the area have some of the highest standards of river and flood protection anywhere in the country, with new flooding schemes designed with a 0.5% annual probability of flooding. My hon. Friend highlighted the work of Jen Selvidge, the RSPB Geltsdale reserve warden, in helping to return 1.8 km of Howgill beck to its natural state of wiggliness, and the work of the Carlisle Flood Action Group to keep Carlisle’s flood preparedness in the spotlight. Local flood action groups play such an important role across this country. Led by the communities themselves, those groups give a voice to local areas and allow communities to work in partnership with local authorities and the Environment Agency. I pay tribute to all of them up and down the country.

Turning to the use of emergency shelters in a flooding event, it is of course local authorities that are responsible for setting up and managing rest centres during evacuations, providing temporary shelter and support for those who have been evacuated. Typically, those locations are not published in advance, as the locations in use will depend on availability, the location of the emergency, and the number of people who may need to use them. The concern is that publishing in advance could risk people attending an inactive location, or one affected by the emergency itself—my hon. Friend mentioned one of the emergency centres itself being flooded, and therefore unable to be used. We will, however, work with the local authority to ensure that a list of potential shelters is published, which can provide residents with notice of where their nearest shelters may be set up.

During a flood emergency, local authorities and the Environment Agency work closely with other emergency partners to co-ordinate messaging—including the possible use of emergency alerts—to affected communities and local flood groups, to ensure that residents have timely and consistent guidance during an emergency. I spoke to the Environment Agency this morning, which informed me that it would contact my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle to discuss the location of emergency shelters in Carlisle and how to make people aware of where they could be, while taking into account that in an emergency, some of them might not be able to be used. We do not want people going to the wrong place, so there is a balance to be struck, but the Environment Agency is happy to talk to my hon. Friend in more detail.

Carlisle is one of the many areas in England that will be receiving investment this year. I am therefore proud to share that in delivering on the Government’s plan for change, we are investing a record £2.65 billion over two years in the construction of new flood schemes and the repair and maintenance of existing ones. With that funding, 1,000 flood schemes have been supported or will continue to be supported, helping to protect 52,000 more homes and businesses. Maintenance of existing flood defences is also being prioritised, ensuring that a further 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored. In total, 66,500  properties will benefit from that funding, helping to secure jobs, deliver growth and protect against economic damage.

We recognise that many flood defence projects have stalled over time, due partly to an outdated formula for allocating money. We have therefore made available £140 million from the £2.65 billion investment programme, which has been prioritised for 29 projects that are ready for delivery, ensuring that nearby communities are protected as soon as possible. The full list of schemes to receive funding in 2025-26 was announced on 31 March and can be found online, and we will of course continue to invest in new defences.

Because we have inherited flood assets that are in the poorest condition on record following years of under-investment, 3,000 of the Environment Agency’s 38,000 high-consequence assets have been left below the required condition. In a November 2023 report, the National Audit Office recognised that increasing investment in operating and maintaining existing flood defences was critical to reducing the frequency and impact of flooding. As such, we are taking decisive action to fix the foundations, giving communities confidence that flood defences will protect them. To support that action, we are re-prioritising £108 million of investment in repairing and restoring critical assets: £36 million in 2024-25 to target repairs towards assets damaged in storms last winter and ongoing flood events; and a further £72 million this year to continue repairs and ensure that assets are as resilient and reliable as possible, and that they operate as expected in flood events.

In addition, the environmental land management schemes present a valuable opportunity to support flooding and coastal erosion risk management aims through direct funding of actions, providing a revenue stream to support landowners working with EA capital schemes, and indirect actions, which will lead to reduced watercourse maintenance requirements and increase the lifespan of our assets. I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle that the EA actively monitors aggregate and vegetation throughout the year for critical locations that are trigger points, and when those trigger levels are met, gravel and vegetation is removed when timing allows. If she has any concerns about those levels —if she believes they have already been met—that can be another conversation to continue with the Environment Agency.

Protecting communities around the country from flooding is one of the Secretary of State’s five core priorities, which is why we set up the flood resilience taskforce to provide oversight of national and local flood resilience and preparedness. That taskforce brings together Ministers from DEFRA, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Transport—the fact that we have so many Ministers in the same room to discuss flood resilience demonstrates the priority given to that issue across Government. It marks a new approach to preparing for flooding by bringing together representatives from national, regional and local government, the devolved Administrations, the emergency services, charities and environmental interest groups. I was pleased to chair the taskforce when it met on 5 February to look at learning from flooding since last September and longer-term funding and investment reform. The discussions from that meeting are now being taken forward through  collaborative action groups of taskforce members, and we are looking at flood warnings, flood recovery and flood insurance. The next taskforce meeting will take place in May 2025, where the action groups will report back on their work to improve flood resilience and better protect and support vulnerable communities, because flood warnings are frequently mentioned as a concern after flooding events.

We are also providing vital funding to support greater resilience for farmers and rural communities. The Government announced last month an additional £16 million boost to the internal drainage board fund, which has been bolstered to a total of £91 million from the previously allocated £75 million. It will enable investment in modernising and upgrading IDB assets and waterways to ensure they are fit for the future. More than 400,000 hectares of agricultural land and around 91,000 homes and businesses across England are expected to benefit from the IDB fund.

Turning to the sustainable farming initiative, more than half of all farmed land is now being managed in environmental land management schemes. That includes more than 37,000 live SFI agreements undertaking a range of actions, including to strengthen natural flood defences. We announced on 11 March that the current SFI budget had been fully allocated, and we will continue to support farmers to transition to more sustainable farming models, including through the thousands of existing SFI agreements over the coming years, and a reformed SFI offer.

Now is the right time for a reset of SFI, supporting farmers, delivering for nature and targeting public funds fairly and effectively towards priorities for food, farming and nature. The Government will work with the farming sector to prioritise funding for future years, so that we can target those who will benefit most before reopening to new applicants. There will be a new and improved SFI offer, with details to follow in summer after the spending review. The improved SFI scheme will be another step in this Government’s new deal for farmers to support growth and farm profitability. If my hon. Friend would like, I can share details highlighting her interest in providing views to the officials responsible.

Looking ahead, I have set out plans to consult on a new strategic vision for floods investment. I am pleased to say that a consultation on reforms to the funding formula will be launching shortly this spring. We will ensure that the challenges facing businesses and rural and coastal communities are adequately taken into account when delivering flood protection. Flood schemes proceeding in 2026, 2027 and beyond will continue to be subject to the annual regional flood and coastal committees consenting process, with local elected representation, and to decisions from the upcoming spending review. \p Matt Rodda: I appreciate the work that the Minister is doing in this area. She is proving herself to be an excellent Minister who is willing to listen to those of us with concerns about flooding. As part of the review, is it possible to investigate the role of locks and weirs in river catchments and how they are maintained and operated when rivers are at a high level? Concerns have been raised with me by local residents that some weirs or locks—this is an issue within the community, which I have not yet been able to fully check out—may have been opened at times of high flow, when perhaps it might  have been better for the water to have been managed in a different way. Is it possible to have further consultation on that?

I understand that in some catchments there are different ways of locks and weirs being managed, and it may be that there is no national standard. On the Thames, there are often lock-keepers who are paid employees, but with some tributaries, it is not as organised as that, and it may be individual landowners who are responsible. In our area, the way that the Kennet—it is a large tributary, but still only a tributary—is managed is different from and less professionalised than the Thames, and concerns have been expressed about that. \p Emma Hardy: I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful contribution as always and for his interest in this area. The management of locks and weirs probably does not come into the scope of the flooding formula review, but I have heard the point he is making, and I will talk to officials about whether the management of locks is taken into account with flood plans and how that is managed consistently around the country. I will write back to him on that, if that would be useful.

The Government’s record two-year investment in our flood defences will better protect communities across the country from flooding. It will also boost economic   growth in local communities by protecting businesses, delivering new jobs and supporting a stable economy in the face of the increasing risk of flooding as a result of climate change.

Through our plan for change, this Government will deliver a decade of national renewal and economic growth, and we are committed to ensuring that communities are better protected from flooding in the first place. We will continue to deliver and repair flood defences, improve drainage systems and develop natural flood management schemes. As ever, the emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities, voluntary organisations and Government Departments stand ready to support affected people in any future flooding event, and I pay tribute to them all. It is a personal priority and a privilege to be the Minister responsible for flooding, and I will continue working to ensure that this country is more resilient to floods. \p Nusrat Ghani: As the Member for Carlisle mentioned her mother’s 91st birthday, it is only appropriate that I wish Freda Minns—what a beautiful name—a very happy birthday.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.