debates/debates2025-10-15b conversation_20
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-10-15)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-10-15b conversation_20

John Whitby:Can the Prime Minister update the House on the Government’s elections Bill? Does he agree that in the light of recent court cases and the conviction of Reform’s former leader in Wales, no party whose leaders take Russian bribes can be trusted to defend our democracy? \p Keir Starmer: Labour is introducing an elections Bill to protect our democracy from foreign interference. But look at Reform. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his deputy, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), worked alongside someone who took money to spread Putin’s propaganda. Whatever their denials, they have serious questions to answer about what they knew, but that is the choice: Kremlin cronies sowing division or Labour patriots working for national renewal. \p Thomas Tugendhat: The lines that we have heard from the Government in recent days have been a conflation of fabricated stories trying to set up straw men and knock down things that have not been said. The real question in this whole debate is whether or not the Director of Public Prosecutions charged legally and properly. If they did, then the Official Secrets Act is valid, and all this talk about the National Security Act 2023, which I introduced, is completely irrelevant. If they did not, why is he not charging his successor with abuse of power? Well, we know the reality, Mr Speaker. Although the Prime Minister has answered the question  about evidence, the real question is: what political direction did this Government give to their officials before they went to give evidence? \p Keir Starmer: Absolutely none—absolutely none. I will also tell the right hon. Gentleman this: I was the chief prosecutor for five years, and I can say that in those five years, which included three years under the coalition Government, when we were taking difficult decisions on MPs’ expenses, not once—not once—was I subjected to political pressure of any sort from anyone. That is the tradition in this country. It is a proud tradition, and it is one I uphold as Prime Minister, just as I upheld it when I was Director of Public Prosecutions. \p James Cleverly: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the statement that the Security Minister made earlier this week and then again in answer to a question today, I have been misquoted—and the misquote, I think, is significant. It has been said that I, in a speech at Mansion House, said that describing China as a threat was

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”

The quote was that describing China or our policy “in one word” was

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”

In that speech, I went on to say of our policy:

“First, we will strengthen our national security protections wherever Beijing’s actions pose a threat to our people or our prosperity.”

I finished by saying:

“And when there are tensions with other objectives, we will always put our national security first.”

How can I get redress for this misquote, Mr Speaker? \p Lindsay Hoyle: The right hon. Gentleman has put it on the record, and it is there now for all to see. I will leave it at that. \p Edward Morello: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the adequacy of Jhoots as a pharmacy provider. \p Stephen Kinnock: I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important urgent question.

Pharmacies play a vital role in our healthcare system. They are at the heart of our high streets and are the cornerstone of communities up and down the country. That is why this Government have given pharmacies a funding boost of almost £500 million this year, which is more than any other area of the NHS and the biggest uplift in years. Indeed, we have provided a 19% uplift over the two-year period.

The vast majority of pharmacies provide excellent care to their patients, but unfortunately there are some that fall short of the standards we expect. Sadly, the services provided by Jhoots are falling well below the mark. Hon. Members will know that several integrated care boards have been deploying contract management actions against Jhoots, initially in the form of breach notices. Integrated care boards enforce the NHS terms of service on pharmacies for such things as their opening hours, and the General Pharmaceutical Council regulates pharmacy premises and pharmacy professionals. Both ICBs and the General Pharmaceutical Council have powers to address problems in pharmacies and they are actively using those powers, including in relation to stores that are part of Jhoots.

I have written to the hon. Gentleman about this case. As he will understand, it is difficult for me to go into detail about one pharmacy chain, at least on the specifics of the measures we are taking, but I can tell him that where there are problems with access to medicines, ICBs are supporting affected patients in the short term, for example by allowing local dispensing doctors to provide dispensing services to those patients. Where pharmacy stores regularly breach their terms of service, ICBs can give them notice that they are being removed from the pharmaceutical list. This power applies to any and all pharmacies, including, of course, Jhoots, and means that pharmacies would no longer be able to provide NHS services. Such notices can be appealed against, so it does take some time to work through the system. I stress to hon. Members that pharmacies are private businesses and must be responsible business owners. We can regulate what pharmacies should and should not do as part of their NHS terms of service, but it is not possible to prevent pharmacies from, for example, not paying their staff.

In conclusion, if pharmacies breach their terms of service, for example by not being open when they should be or where there are patient safety concerns, we take action. The General Pharmaceutical Council is taking regulatory action. ICBs are taking regulatory action and are supporting patients with access to medicines where necessary. This is aimed at improving pharmacies’ behaviour, but can ultimately lead to pharmacies being forced to close their business. I have also asked my officials to explore whether we can strengthen the regulatory  framework to be able to deal more quickly with pharmacies that do not play by the rules. My officials are working on that as a matter of urgency. My office is also setting up a meeting with the hon. Gentleman to discuss this matter further and I will keep the House updated in the usual way. \p Edward Morello: I would be grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you could pass on my thanks to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister for his response.

The collapse of service provision in some places, the constant closures in others and the general governance at Jhoots pharmacy, which operates 150 branches across England, demands immediate ministerial intervention. In West Dorset, Jhoots branches in Lyme Regis and Bridport have been closed for months, leaving thousands without access to essential medication and placing a huge strain on overstretched neighbouring pharmacies. Jhoots staff have gone months without pay, despite payslips being issued, tax deductions made and pension contributions not deposited. I have been contacted only this morning by staff who have not been paid for the third month. Many are unable to buy food or pay rent. They are relying on food banks and the amazing communities that have stepped up to support them. There have been reports of staff recruited by Jhoots under skilled worker visas being left without income or resource. I have also been made aware of deeply troubling reports of controlled drugs being removed without proper documentation or process, which if proven true may constitute a breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

I have raised my concerns with the General Pharmaceutical Council, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the NHS Business Services Authority, the ICB and the Minister, whom I thank for his response. I understand that processes must be followed, but this situation requires immediate action. Jhoots staff are not being paid and people across the country do not have access to vital medicine. Will the Minister please confirm what steps are being taken to ensure that all Jhoots staff are paid without delay? What discussions have taken place with the NHS BSA, the General Pharmaceutical Council and other regulators about Jhoots’s business practices? Finally, will the Government commit to urgently reviewing Jhoots’s suitability as an NHS pharmacy provider, outline what safeguards will be introduced to prevent this from happening again and review the pharmacy funding model? \p Stephen Kinnock: I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has said. It is completely and utterly unacceptable if a business such as Jhoots is not paying its staff. If there are indeed these reports that controlled drugs are not being handled properly, I would strongly recommend that any mishandling of drugs be reported to the General Pharmaceutical Council, which regulates pharmacy professionals and premises, so that appropriate action can be taken.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the payment of staff. Pharmacy staff are vital parts of the NHS part of what a pharmacy does. Pharmacy staff provide vital services to our communities and should be paid according to their contracts; any failure to do so is completely unacceptable. Of course, pharmacy staff are employed not by the NHS, but by the businesses they work for, so  any dispute between staff and a pharmacy business should be raised with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, ACAS. I am also in touch with the Pharmacists’ Defence Association—the PDA—which is doing important work representing its members. I will be meeting them soon as well. Of course, we have responsibility for the NHS part of the work, but it is up to individual businesses to ensure that their employees are treated fairly.

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions the review of suitability to operate, and we are now looking at that across the board. We are looking at the role of the General Pharmaceutical Council and what is taking place with ICBs taking contract action. Where there is no sign of improvement and pharmacies continue to be in breach, the next escalation is to strike them off the pharmaceutical register, which takes some time, because certain pharmacies—I am not going to name names, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman can imagine who—are trying every single thing they can to appeal, push back and stop the actions that we are seeking to take, which is elongating the process. However, I want to be clear: if there is clear breach and action is not taken to remedy that breach, pharmacies will be struck off the pharmaceutical register. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call our very own pharmacist, Sadik Al-Hassan. \p Sadik Al-Hassan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a pharmacist for nearly 20 years and the MP of North Somerset, I have the dubious pleasure of having two Jhoots pharmacies in the town of Portishead in my constituency. I cannot say two operating pharmacies, because they have shuttered their doors, with reports of them not having paid their bills, their rent or their staff. As a pharmacist, I know that this affects the perception and view of community pharmacy up and down the country. What plans do the Minister and the Department have to ensure that bad actors in the pharmacy space—as Jhoots, in my opinion, appears to be—are dealt with more quickly and effectively under new legislation? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Questions should not be statements. \p Stephen Kinnock: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s direct professional expertise and experience as a pharmacist. He is right to point to the fact that the regulatory framework is not as strong as it needs to be. I have spoken with officials in my Department who have worked in the pharmacy sector for many years, and they have never seen behaviour like this before. It is quite unprecedented. Nevertheless, it is shining a light on the fact that we do not have a strong enough regulatory framework. We need to look at the way that business owners are regulated. There is strong regulation of pharmacists and pharmacy staff such as technicians, but business owners are not regulated as strongly as they could and should be.

My hon. Friend is right that speed is also important, which is why we need to look at ways of fast-tracking particular cases where there is clear breach, because sometimes the appeal process can be very slow indeed. We are looking at all of this in the round, and I have commissioned urgent advice from my officials to see how we can beef up the regulatory framework. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Luke Evans: Only this weekend, the National Pharmacy Association chief executive, Henry Gregg, said that he is concerned that

“reports of Jhoots Pharmacy branches across England failing patients risks damaging community pharmacy’s reputation and could imperil its ability to secure a good 2026-27 funding settlement.”

Communities across the country have been left without functioning pharmacies. Doors have been locked without notice, patients have arrived to find no pharmacist, no prescriptions and no stock, and staff have gone unpaid and been threatened with the sack. Jhoots Pharmacy faces allegations of not paying wages, having premises repossessed and serious regulatory breaches. The General Pharmaceutical Council has already intervened several times, yet for many patients it is too late—they simply cannot get their medicines. This is not an isolated business failure; it exposes a deeper fragility in the community pharmacy network on which local people depend for basics and often lifesaving care.

I have four questions for the Minister. First, when was NHS England first made aware of these closures, and has the Minister met the Jhoots leadership? If not, why not? If he did, what was the outcome? Secondly, has the Department assessed how many people have been left without local pharmacy access as a result of Jhoots’s actions, and what is the Minister doing to remedy this, considering it is happening across the country? He mentioned ICBs, but there are several involved. Thirdly, what mechanisms exist to ensure continuity of care when a contractor collapses or walks away? Again, he mentioned ICBs, but is there a national contingency plan? Finally, will the Government now review whether the current model, under which chains are expanding rapidly through acquisition and debt, is fit to safeguard community pharmacies in the long term? Linked to that, can the Minister definitively confirm that the funding settlement has not been compromised?

The 10-year NHS plan states that it wants to move more care into the community, yet it is completely missing a delivery chapter on how to achieve that. At the same time, we have issues such as Jhoots. I hope the Minister will be taking steps to investigate this issue in its entirety and to safeguard against this type of incident happening again, and will spell out the delivery aspect of the 10-year plan. \p Stephen Kinnock: I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. He asked about first awareness of what was happening with Jhoots. He will be aware that it entered the market through the purchase of a number of Lloyds pharmacies that were no longer a going concern in 2023, so the question about due diligence on Jhoots as an operator is probably something he should be asking one of my predecessors from his party, which was in power at the time. Since those purchases, Jhoots has expanded rapidly, and that has been where we have seen the question marks around its ability to operate and the serious downgrading of services.

I have not met the management of Jhoots. We are looking at a whole range of legal and regulatory enforcement procedures, and the decision we have taken is that it is better not to interfere in any way in those  processes, but I am certainly monitoring that very closely. If we receive legal advice that suggests that such a meeting would be a good idea, I will of course be open to it. However, the current legal position based on the advice we have received is that it would not be appropriate at this time.

On local pharmacy access, integrated care boards have a statutory responsibility to ensure adequate pharmacy provision. Some ICBs, for example, have allowed dispensing GP practices to provide dispensing services to affected patients, while others have worked with local GP practices to advise patients to nominate alternative nearby pharmacies for their prescriptions. We have looked at the impact geographically, and our view is that in most cases there is alternative pharmacy provision to Jhoots within striking distance. However, there are four or five areas of the country where that is not the case, including in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), who secured this urgent question. I am very conscious of that. In those cases, extra provision needs to be made through ICBs and GPs—that may be through distance selling or by other means—to ensure that patients have pharmacy access.

The shadow Minister asks about continuity of care and national contingency. The situation is challenging because, as I mentioned in my remarks and as officials have said, we have not seen this rapid decline in service before. We are working at pace to strengthen the regulatory framework and we are looking at contingency plans. I do not see any reason why the overall funding settlement for pharmacy should be undermined. We will continue to protect community pharmacy as a crucial part of our NHS. \p Paulette Hamilton: I thank the Minister for his response. Community pharmacies, such as Lodge pharmacy in Perry Common in my area, play a vital role and offer an excellent service, and that is why I am concerned when places such as Jhoots pharmacy close or, maybe, fold. The winter months are coming, and I am passionate about winter measures. How will we ensure that our pharmacies can offer the winter vaccines needed this year if we lose large chains, such as Jhoots? \p Stephen Kinnock: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on the Select Committee. NHS England is assessing the situation and preparing contingency plans in case Jhoots becomes insolvent. Such plans involve working with other local pharmacies and dispensing GP practices to ensure that patients continue to have access to medicines. Continuity of care, as she rightly points out, must be at the heart of our response, and we are working at pace to ensure that is protected. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Helen Morgan: May I first thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for raising this appalling issue? Pharmacies are at the heart of our communities and are relied upon by millions. They are under increasing pressure across the country, where we are seeing irregular opening hours and unannounced closures. Families living in communities that rely on Jhoots pharmacies, such as  those in the constituency of my hon. Friend and many other parts of the country, will be deeply concerned that they and their loved ones could be about to be left without medicines that they desperately need. Staff have been placed in an intolerable situation.

The National Pharmacy Association’s chief executive has said, as we have heard, that Jhoots risks damaging the reputation of community pharmacies. The Government urgently need to grip this issue and ensure that patients and the staff of these pharmacies are not being let down. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State agree to meet all the Members in this place whose communities are affected by potential closures? Will he update the House at the earliest opportunity as to what steps he is taking to stabilise the crisis in community pharmacy across the country? Is he confident that integrated care boards, which are distracted by 50% cuts to their budgets and top-down reorganisation, have the capacity to deal with this urgent situation as they head into planning for the next winter crisis? \p Stephen Kinnock: I thank the hon. Member for those questions. I would certainly be happy to meet Members who have Jhoots in their constituency and are affected. I will update the House. We are looking at strengthening the regulation, but there are some constraints on what I can say, because so much of this is now going through legal process. There is pushback, and we do not want to do anything to jeopardise the legal action we are taking through the appeal process, so I will have to be relatively circumspect in what I say. I am happy to have those discussions and to update the House.

I am confident that ICBs can take this forward. In most cases across the country, our assessment is that there is a pharmacy within striking distance of a Jhoots, but certainly in those areas where there is not, that may require particular follow-up action. My officials and I will be following up with those ICBs to ensure that the appropriate action is being taken. \p Melanie Onn: Five members of staff from Jhoots pharmacy in Laceby Road have been to see me. They have been going into work, but they have not been paid since July. It is absolutely appalling. Can the Minister set out what pressure he and the Department can bring to bear on this chain, which has now unfortunately closed its doors for good? \p Stephen Kinnock: I agree with absolutely every word that my hon. Friend has just said. It is completely unacceptable that people are coming into work, doing an honest day’s work and then not receiving an honest day’s pay. Unfortunately, there is a limit to what we can do, because pharmacies are private businesses and each employer is required to fulfil their legal obligations to pay their staff. I recommend that the members of staff she mentions contact ACAS and their trade union the PDA, if they are not already in touch. For those who are not members of that union, I strongly recommend joining a trade union and seeking legal advice from it. That is a vital part of what trade unions do. They need to take action to force Jhoots to do the right thing. \p Simon Hoare: I thank my friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), for securing this urgent question. I have exactly the same problem as he and the hon.  Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), but in Shaftesbury in my constituency. I thank the staff of Boots, who are picking up such a huge amount of slack because Jhoots is not there. There is a danger to the member of staff who is on duty, because there are prescribed drugs on the premises, and she is the only person there, and I worry for her safety. What additional support can the Department give to existing providers, such as Boots, that are picking up the slack, particularly during the winter peak, in terms of advice to patients and administering vaccines?

This is a clear breach of contract, but I am told by our ICB that it does not fall within contract law. The regulations are moot on this point, because the circumstances that Jhoots finds itself in were never envisaged when the regulations were written. That is the problem that the Minister has identified. There seems to be some timidity among officials and others on the overhanging threat of a judicial review, were the Government to act in extremis to introduce some urgency. I urge the Minister to take that risk on behalf of all our constituents. I certainly welcome his offer, following the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), that all Members of Parliament with constituents affected by this dire problem should be involved in meetings. I look forward to that, so that we can provide timely advice, updates and support to our constituents, who are rightly worried. \p Stephen Kinnock: I pay tribute to the Boots employees in the hon. Member’s constituency where Jhoots is not providing the service that is required. We appreciate that. I can assure him that nothing is off the table. He has rightly identified the problem with the regulatory framework, which is strong on pharmacists, pharmacists’ premises and pharmacy staff, but there is something of a gap when it comes to regulating pharmacy business owners. That gap has been identified, and I have commissioned my officials to work on that at pace. I will happily keep him updated on that work. \p Naushabah Khan: I thank the Minister for the context and the responses he has provided so far. Jhoots in my constituency of Gillingham and Rainham has provided an incredibly poor service, not paying staff, not dispensing vital medicine and often not opening on time. However, any replacement pharmacy or provider cannot come in, because the local pharmaceutical needs assessment suggests that there is functioning provision. Will the Minister consider a review of the criteria surrounding PNAs so that they not only list those pharmacies that are available, but also look at failures, such as the ones we are seeing with Jhoots? By recognising that, other providers can take their place, if needs be. \p Stephen Kinnock: My hon. Friend has put her finger on an issue within all this, which is that if we are looking to bring in other pharmacies to replace Jhoots or, indeed, to take over a Jhoots store, we cannot do that in the latter case until such time as there is an insolvency and that business is no longer a going concern. There is a process, set out in legislation, for opening new pharmacies. Potential new pharmacy contractors can apply to open in an area and evidence how a new pharmacy can provide benefits for patients, but it is a challenge for them to make such a case if a Jhoots  pharmacy is still listed as open and providing services. It is something of a Catch-22 situation. We first have to resolve the issue with Jhoots and take the necessary action, and then we can see where we are with potential gaps in the market. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. \p Layla Moran: The case of Jhoots is clearly hugely unfortunate given the incredible work that community pharmacies do up and down the country for our constituents. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that this case will not negatively affect the funding settlement, but it is set against the backdrop of a very precarious sector where actors who want to do good by our communities and do a high-quality job often find that they simply cannot make ends meet, and bad actors find a way to move in. When the Committee looked last at this issue, the workforce was a key plank to why the sector is not sustainable. What update can the Minister give us on the inclusion of pharmacists in the workforce plan? \p Stephen Kinnock: I thank the hon. Lady and pay tribute to her work as Chair of the Select Committee. I am very proud of the fact that we delivered a £500 million uplift to pharmacy—19% across the two-year period. It was the highest uplift of any sector, not just of my portfolio but the entire NHS. I am also very proud of the fact that we are taking forward hub-and-spoke legislation to enable pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to operate at the top of their licence. The day before yesterday we signed off on a statutory instrument to improve the ability of technicians to do more in the area of dispensing. We are looking to empower the workforce and enable them to operate at the top of their licence. That is a fundamental part of the shift from hospital to community that is at the heart of our 10-year plan. \p Cat Smith: Jhoots pharmacy moved into the village of Knott End in 2023, and it was not long before constituents were getting in touch with me to explain that they could not access their prescriptions because pharmacies were closed and unreliable. We do have the very good Over Wyre medical centre, which has dispensing rights, but it is restrained by the one-mile rule, which means that it cannot dispense prescriptions within one mile of a pharmacy, whether that is open or closed. I feel like we are in a Catch-22 situation. What help can the Minister give my constituents to ensure that those who are within one mile of the Jhoots pharmacy that is never open can access their prescriptions from the dispensing Over Wyre medical centre? \p Stephen Kinnock: My hon. Friend rightly puts her finger on the Catch-22 situation in which we find ourselves. It is patently absurd that a pharmacy that is not operating, as she just described, is blocking the ability of others to step in and fill the gap. That is something we have to resolve, and it is part of the work I have commissioned urgently. We clearly have gaps in the regulatory framework. This is an unprecedented situation, and we are working at pace to address it, but she has rightly put her finger on this Catch-22, which needs to be resolved. We need to move one piece out of the way so that we can deal with the situation. \p Bradley Thomas: The way Jhoots is treating its workforce, the community and suppliers is frankly appalling. It is failing communities who desperately rely on it. The Government are planning to introduce a health Bill at some point in the coming months that will see the abolition of NHS England. Can the Minister update the House on when the Bill will come forward and what provision it will contain to strengthen accountability for the delivery of community pharmacy? \p Stephen Kinnock: I know that my colleague the Minister of State for Health is working hard on the drafting process for the Bill. I cannot give the hon. Member the exact date of its introduction, but I would be very happy to write to him with confirmation of the expected introduction date. \p Jonathan Davies: I am pleased that this urgent question has been secured, because I have written to the Minister about this company. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), who has given me advice in the matter. I am pleased that the Government are taking regulatory action in respect of the quality, safety and availability of the service, but I was horrified to hear that several of my constituents working for this company have gone unpaid for several weeks. Please could the Minister reach out to the relevant Minister within the Department for Business and Trade to see what else we can do for those people, because it is simply not right that they are out of pocket? \p Stephen Kinnock: That is an excellent suggestion; I will do that. We are hearing colleague after colleague say that staff are not being paid, and if there is clear evidence of a breach of employment law, we absolutely need to look at that. I will follow up on my hon. Friend’s suggestion. \p Richard Foord: We have heard again this afternoon the line from the Minister that pharmacy staff are employed not by the NHS but by pharmacy businesses, and that this is just a dispute between staff and the pharmacy business that should be raised in the first instance with ACAS. Holli Froggatt from Sidmouth, a former member of Jhoots staff, has written to me to say that staff have emailed Jhoots begging for their wages as they have empty bank accounts. In normal circumstances, the Government like to lean on pharmacies to take the pressure off GPs, with such schemes as Pharmacy First, so how can the Minister simply wash his hands of this situation when staff have gone for three months without pay? \p Stephen Kinnock: I do not think that is an accurate characterisation of what I am saying. I am saying that we are taking action against Jhoots from the regulatory point of view, and there is clearly a glaring issue with the payment of staff. That needs to be taken forward through the industrial relations process, both through ACAS and the PDA. We will give all the support we can to both those organisations to ensure that Jhoots is held to account. \p Lizzi Collinge: My constituents in Sedbergh, a rural market town, have suffered greatly from the terrible pharmacy provision by  Jhoots. Medicines have been unavailable, the pharmacy has often been closed, and staff and locum pharmacists are going unpaid, yet pay slips are being issued, so it is very hard for them to claim benefits. I have written to the Minister and met with the integrated care board. Doctors and neighbouring pharmacists—I say neighbouring, but this is in Westmorland, which is a 40-minute drive away—have stepped in to help, as has the parish council. Can the Minister outline what action he is taking nationally to force Jhoots to provide a better service for my constituents? \p Stephen Kinnock: We are actively working with integrated care boards, NHS England, the General Pharmaceutical Council and, indeed, trade unions to ensure that all of these issues are being taken forward and given the urgency that they require. Sadly, as I have pointed out, the regulatory framework is not adequate. It is very focused on pharmacists and pharmacy premises, and inadequately and insufficiently focused on business owners. That is something that must be addressed as a matter of urgency, and we are working on it at pace. \p Mike Wood: The failure of Jhoots is putting unsustainable pressure on other pharmacies across my constituency, but talks have not even begun on pharmacy funding beyond March of next year. Given the urgent situation with Jhoots, will the Minister review the timescale for those talks so that our pharmacies that are having to pick up this extra work can have some certainty about future funding? \p Stephen Kinnock: This is absolutely urgent, as the hon. Member rightly says. I have commissioned officials to work on this matter at pace. We can clearly see that this is a matter of national significance simply by the number of colleagues in the Chamber. I can give the hon. Member that assurance, and I would be happy to update him once I have a better sense of the exact timeframe and deadlines. We will be insisting that things happen as a matter of urgency. \p James Naish: Over the recess I met the Singh family, who run two pharmacies in my constituency. The family were clear that, despite improved funding, they are still struggling with overly complex funding formulas, delayed payments, high energy prices and drug shortages, among other challenges. However, the positive initiatives of Pharmacy First and the independent prescribing pathfinder programme offer a ray of hope. Will the Minister commit to continuing to invest time and energy in expanding those programmes and meet my pharmacies from Rushcliffe to discuss them further? \p Stephen Kinnock: We remain absolutely committed to the independent prescribing service and are working on the plans and strategy to make that a reality. We continue to support Pharmacy First, but sadly take-up of it has not been as good as we would have liked it to be. The way it was structured and incentivised has not enabled it to realise its full potential, and we are working on that as well. A number of errors were made by the previous Government, who did not set Pharmacy First up to succeed to the extent that it should have done. \p Sarah Dyke: Jhoots Pharmacy has revealed the severe financial strain facing community pharmacies. The towns of Glastonbury and Bruton are home to fantastic independent pharmacies, continuing to serve their communities despite more than half of pharmacy owners losing money last year. How will the Government ensure that the regulatory framework is robust so that community pharmacy services in rural areas can remain resilient and accessible? \p Stephen Kinnock: The hon. Member is right: this is about making the regulatory framework more robust. As I have pointed out, it is robust on pharmacists, on technicians and on pharmacy premises, but it is simply not strong enough when it comes to pharmacy business owners. The unprecedented case of Jhoots is throwing that into sharp relief. That is what we are working on at pace. I will be happy to update her once we have some clear progress on the plan and strategy to beef up the regulatory framework to ensure that this kind of thing can never happen again. \p Josh Dean: Last week I met staff from Jhoots Pharmacy in Thorley and was shocked when they told me that they had been unpaid for months but were still working. Some were struggling with their mortgages or unable to afford food for their children’s school lunches. Their concern was for their residents, many of whom are elderly and vulnerable, who have been left without essential medication because of stock issues and unexpected closures. They are good, decent people who want to provide a community service for our residents. Will the Minister assure my constituents directly that the Department will look at all possible options and work across Government where relevant to address the situation that allowed this to become a problem and the specific situation affecting my constituents now? \p Stephen Kinnock: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituents, who are clearly going through an extremely difficult and challenging time. I strongly recommend that they contact ACAS and the PDA, or another trade union if they happen to be a member of one. His key point is about how we can ensure that this does not happen again. The GPhC is taking enforcement action against individual pharmacies and we have to wait for the outcome of those actions—some of those are going through appeal processes. As soon as one of those actions has concluded, that will greatly facilitate and catalyse the process for going after any pharmacy that is not delivering to the service standards that we would expect. \p James Wild: Staff and patients at Jhoots Pharmacy in South Wootton in North West Norfolk have been let down, going months without pay or stock, and with no communication from management. The pharmacist left after non-payment. When I raised those issues with the company, it simply refused to respond. The Minister has referred to future regulatory changes, but given that the pattern is repeated across the country, what urgent steps is he taking to work with ICBs collectively to ensure that staff get the money they are owed and that commissioned services are delivered? Will he not rule out taking action against individual directors? \p Stephen Kinnock: As I said, we are in constant dialogue with ICBs and the GPhC. I absolutely get it: we need to speed it up as it needs to be faster and more urgent. I am clear about that, and we are taking this forward as a matter of priority.

In terms of taking action against individual directors, nothing is off the table. As I said, the regulatory framework as things stand does not facilitate that, so we have got to look at other options. But there are views in the GPhC that suggest there may be some ways of looking at interpreting regulations and legislation that could facilitate more immediate action. That is on the menu of actions that we are looking at. \p Steffan Aquarone: For almost two years now, the people of Sheringham have been suffering from completely unacceptable service from our local branch of Jhoots. Shortages of drugs, shortages of pharmacists, issues with paying staff and a litany of other issues have caused chaos, including one resident sent by NHS 111 to secure emergency antibiotics finding themselves standing in the rain outside a closed pharmacy, fearful that they would end up in A&E. Will the Minister tell people in Sheringham and the surrounding villages what protection there will be for services if Jhoots is no longer fit to provide them? How is taxpayers’ money being protected from being lost? Most importantly, how on earth was it allowed to get this bad in the first place? \p Stephen Kinnock: In terms of the replacement for Jhoots services, that is where we are in a Catch-22 situation, because until a pharmacy that is not providing a service has been moved out of the way, it is not possible to move in and replace that service with another, so the first step in all this is to take action against those pharmacies that are not delivering to requisite service standards. As soon as we can get that process moving, we can start to commission and bring in alternative providers. I share his frustration and the impatience of his constituents, and I assure him that we are taking urgent action on all these issues. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for his strong answers to restore confidence. Will he acknowledge that pressure on the NHS, especially into the winter months, means that pharmacies will be playing a bigger role in providing basic help and advice, and that being unable to rely on a pharmacy cannot be sustained? Will he please outline the professional standards expected of pharmaceutical chains throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and how these private companies can be held to their public obligations? \p Stephen Kinnock: I agree with the hon. Member on the vital role played by community pharmacy now and going into the future. We want that role to continue and, indeed, to be strengthened and expanded. If we look at our 10-year plan, with the shift from hospital to community, we see that community pharmacy is at the heart of that. Also, in the shift from sickness to prevention, we see the vital work that community pharmacy plays in delivering vaccines and a whole range of other services that really will support the prevention agenda, so community pharmacy is at the heart of our plan.

The standards set out by the General Pharmaceutical Council—robust standards that are robustly regulated—require a certain level of service to be provided and certain levels of expertise and experience. What we clearly now need to do is upgrade the way we regulate pharmacy business owners. My officials and I are working on that as a matter of urgency. \p Yvette Cooper: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the latest situation in Ukraine, on the recent strikes against Kyiv, on our continuing support for Ukraine, on our response to continuing Russian aggression, and on a major new package of sanctions against Russian oil and gas that I am announcing today. It is a pleasure to do so on the same day we have welcomed Ruslan Stefanchuk, the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, to the House of Commons—a sign of our strong and continued friendship.

It is a reflection of the importance of Ukraine’s security to the Government and to all of us here in the UK that my first statement to the House from the Dispatch Box as Foreign Secretary is on Ukraine, just as Ukraine was my first visit when taking up the role a month ago. Let me also thank and pay tribute to my predecessor in this role—the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—for his work in representing our country on the world stage with great principle and distinction, and in showing such strong and continued leadership in supporting Ukraine.

Three and a half years after Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, President Putin has failed in his war aims. He is failing on his military objectives, on the economy and on his political objectives for both Ukraine and Europe, thanks to the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people and the support and determination of Ukraine’s friends. As Ukraine stands firm against Russia, the UK stands firm with Ukraine. Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security, and the security and stability of the whole of Europe is vital for our security here in the UK. President Zelensky stands ready to hold talks for peace, but President Putin seeks only to escalate war. He will not succeed.

Now is the time not just to continue with our steadfast support for Ukraine’s defence, but to substantially increase the pressure on Russia’s economy and on Putin’s war machine. Major new UK sanctions against Russia’s biggest oil companies and shadow fleet and new concerted actions with our partners will choke off oil and gas revenues and hit at the heart of Putin’s economy and war machine. We are determined to support our Ukrainian friends and to stand up for our own security.

What was clear to me in Kyiv a few weeks ago, and what is clear to everyone visiting Ukraine, is the enduring courage and unbreakable spirit of the Ukrainian people. I saw at first hand the damage from an Iskander missile on Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers building just 10 days after the British Council offices were also damaged. I met families whose lives had been uprooted, their homes destroyed and their children’s education torn apart. I also met up with two teenagers who lived with us in Castleford during the first year of the war and who have now returned. Despite the drones, the bombardments and the disruption to their lives and their schooling, they continue to train as international standard ballroom dancers. Like Ukrainians across their country, they will not let Russia destroy their dreams.

That is what Vladimir Putin will never understand about the Ukrainian people. For three and a half years—indeed, since 2014—he has questioned their resilience. For three and a half years, he has doubted the commitment of their allies. For three and a half years, he has been proven wrong. Everywhere I went in Kyiv last month, I saw a nation resolute in its fight.

Despite the huge Russian mobilisation efforts in the last three years, Putin remains as far away from achieving those military goals as he has ever been. In this war that Putin started, Russian losses are now 20 times higher than Soviet losses in Afghanistan. In this war that Putin continues to pursue, Russia is now struggling to equip its forces. In some areas, stocks are so low that they have resorted to using military kit from the 1950s. As a result of this war that Putin refuses to end, the International Monetary Fund has revised down Russian growth forecasts and military spending now outstrips social spending for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We know, however, that with increased desperation comes increased danger. In recent weeks, Putin has engaged in provocative and reckless violations of NATO airspace in Estonia, Poland and Romania, and NATO stands together against that action, resolute and ready to act. His recent bombardment of Ukraine has seen some of the largest attacks in Europe since the height of the second world war. Civilian casualties have risen nearly 40%, with children killed in playgrounds, hospitals and schools destroyed, and civilian energy infrastructure targeted. Just yesterday, a UN aid convoy was hit delivering vital assistance to a frontline community.

While we continue to strive for peace in Ukraine, we must be steeled for the war to continue, and that means focusing on four priorities. First, we will ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs to stand up to this latest onslaught. In my meetings with President Zelensky and Foreign Minister Sybiha in September, I reaffirmed the UK’s ironclad support. We are providing £4.5 billion of military support for Ukraine this year—more than ever before—with over £150 million-worth of air defence and artillery delivered in the last two months alone. We have used our co-chairmanship of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group to galvanise partners, raising over £2 billion through the UK-run International Fund for Ukraine to support the most urgent military needs. During that Kyiv visit, I announced £142 million in UK aid to support Ukraine through the winter and into next year. That will include our largest emergency energy support package since the start of the war to restore and repair water, heating and electricity systems.

Secondly, we will ramp up the pressure on Russia to ensure that their escalation comes at a clear cost. I am today setting out a further and new set of sanctions—among our strongest so far—to tighten the pressure on Russia’s economy. This will be the second set of sanctions I have announced in a month and I am ready to go further still. This will take the total UK-imposed sanctions on Russia-related individuals and entities to over 2,900.

At the UN Security Council last month, I told Foreign Minister Lavrov directly, shortly before he walked out of the chamber, that

“we will target your ailing economy, your oil and gas revenues…the defence industry making your munitions, because we know for Russia, the price of war is piling up.”

With immediate effect, we are sanctioning Russia’s two largest oil producers, Rosneft and Lukoil, the two biggest Russian energy firms ever targeted by UK sanctions.  That is part of an extensive new sanctions package of 90 targets that include refineries around the world that are responsible for importing Russian oil, suppliers of drone and missile components and 44 shadow fleet vessels, further disrupting the network of tankers that transport Russia’s oil.

The UK has now sanctioned more shadow fleet vessels than any other partner, taking billions of dollars-worth of Russian oil off the market. We are sanctioning not just Russian individuals and companies, but organisations in third countries that continue to support the Russian war effort with all the damaging consequences not just for Ukraine but for Europe’s stability. The sanctions stop UK businesses and individuals from trading or transacting with the actors that we have targeted. Importantly, we are also strengthening our co-ordination with the EU, which is finalising a new wave of sanctions. We urge countries across the world to go further, working with us in targeting Russian oil and gas.

President Zelensky has made clear in recent months that he supports a full, unconditional ceasefire and is ready to meet Putin for talks to achieve a just and lasting peace. President Trump has urged peace and ceasefire talks. Instead, President Putin seeks only to escalate the conflict. That is why this co-ordinated economic pressure is so urgent and important to get him to change course.

Thirdly, we will ensure that Ukraine gets the financial support it needs to recover and that Russia is the one to pay. The whole House will be aware of Ukraine’s acute financing needs, both now and in the long term, so we are pushing at every level to ensure that frozen Russian assets can be used to meet those needs. They were on the agenda of the G7 Finance Ministers when they met on 1 October, and the Chancellor is in Washington today, again pressing for progress with her counterparts, as I have done directly with our European partners. We will continue to argue that the full value of Russian sovereign assets must be used to support Ukraine. The EU has developed a proposal for reparations loans for Ukraine, which we welcome. The Prime Minister discussed this with Chancellor Merz and President Macron on Friday, and we expect and hope that further progress will be made in the coming weeks.

Finally, while we are prepared for this war to continue, we must also keep working and preparing for peace. We have seen in recent days what is possible when the international community builds a consensus for peace. We know too the huge international co-ordination that has come behind the US peace initiative in the Middle East and the huge international effort that will be needed to ensure it is implemented. Those same principles on international co-ordination and effort over time are important for Ukraine. That is why, together with France, the UK Government has convened over 30 countries in several meetings of the coalition of the willing, encouraging contributions towards a multinational force that would stand ready to deploy to Ukraine upon a ceasefire or peace agreement to help regenerate Ukraine’s armed forces so that Russia is never able to attack again. We are also implementing the 100-year partnership signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky in January, making real our commitment to stand with Ukraine not just today or tomorrow, but over many decades to come.

While Ukraine continues to show its endless reserves of strength, Vladimir Putin continues to show his endless depths of depravity. Time and again he has shown his willingness to threaten the security and sovereignty of other nations, to threaten democracy and undermine the world order and to kidnap tens of thousands of children. From cyber-attacks in Moldova to the deployment of mercenaries in the Sahel, Russia’s actions seek to topple Governments, fuel conflict and spread instability far beyond Europe’s borders. That is why the UK continues to support Ukraine—not just to help brave people to defend themselves, but to make clear that aggression does not pay and that Putin does not win, that force will be resisted with strength and that criminals will be held accountable. Ukraine’s security is our security, and I commend this statement to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. As the Foreign Secretary, with prior agreement with the Chair, was allowed to speak a little while longer than the allocated time, the same will be allowed to those on the Opposition Front Benches. I call the shadow Foreign Secretary. \p Priti Patel: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of her statement. I would also like to welcome her to her place in her new role. We meet again at the Dispatch Box; we have shadowed each other in many roles, and this time around it feels like she is following me in this portfolio.

On the occasion of the visit of the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament to our Parliament, it is right that Britain should stand with Ukraine on what will soon be the eve of the fourth winter of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s relentless efforts to obtain the territory of a sovereign European state by barbaric levels of force have undermined peace in Europe and the established international order. In recent months, we have seen European and NATO airspace brazenly and deliberately violated by Russian fighter jets. From Poland to Estonia to Romania, such aggressive provocation must yield stronger deterrence against Russia.

The same applies to the intensified aerial bombardment of Kyiv. The hundreds upon hundreds of Iranian Shahed drones attacking civilians represent a cruel attempt by Putin to psychologically torture Ukrainians, but the bombing will not break their resolve. From Russia’s kidnapping of Ukrainian children to the daily bombardment of propaganda and bombs, Britain must stand firm to level the playing field for Ukraine so that it can repel those attacks. We must continually refuel our country’s ability to support Ukraine, and never stand still.

Is the Foreign Secretary brokering more packages, here at home or across NATO, to support Ukraine’s air defence? The 100-year partnership agreement with Ukraine must be leveraged to support innovation in defence technology and production within Ukraine right now, while we also learn from Ukraine’s successes in these fields. The way the Ukrainian people have conducted themselves and continued to fight for what is rightfully theirs in the face of the barbarity and savagery that many of us thought was confined to a bygone era will  go down in history. We must ensure that Russia’s defeat goes down in history, too. To do that, Britain must lead all allies to raise the price of Russia’s aggression by cutting off Russia’s financial lifelines, which continue to fund Putin’s war in Ukraine and fight against our democratic values.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcements today of the new entities, including the ships that have been sanctioned as of today. She will know that China, India and Turkey have become the mainstay of Russian oil exports, together purchasing around $380 billion of Russian crude. This provides Putin with a lifeline to fund this illegal war and invasion, at the cost of around $1 billion per day, so in addition to the new sanctions announced today, can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether she or the Prime Minister have had any discussions with India, Turkey and China about refineries in their own countries purchasing Russian oil and then re-exporting it? Is the UK in a position to spearhead a direct challenge and get this stopped? Will the Foreign Secretary challenge European countries who are still importing Russian liquefied natural gas to phase this out far more rapidly? I recognise and appreciate her comments about EU countries and the sanctions package.

Further to the new banking sanctions that the Foreign Secretary has announced, will she commit to review what we can do to limit Russia’s banking sector, including its regional banks? On the mobilisation of frozen assets, we need to go beyond just offering Ukraine loans from the revenues of the sanctioned assets and find a new formula under the law that mobilises the assets to fund Ukraine’s defeat of Russia in the immediate term. London is home to our world-class capital market, and the City of London must be deployed to help find solutions that our diplomats can then sell to our allies, because this needs concerted action. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the coalition of the willing, convened in February this year, is as determined as it was then not just to stand with Ukraine but to work to find solutions to these major issues?

The UK must commit to spending 3% on defence by the end of the decade. This is a vital step on our route to the higher sustained spending demanded by the new NATO targets. In her new role as Foreign Secretary, is the right hon. Lady in discussions with the Chancellor about this? Britain must be ready for continuous tension with Russia with effective deterrents against sub-conventional threats such as hybrid warfare, sabotage of infrastructure, disinformation, election interference and killings. If we do not put up boundaries now, Russia will come closer, but it is stoppable.

We have seen positive developments in recent weeks, including the decisive election result in Moldova that should cement its Euro-Atlantic trajectory, but Russia’s behaviour elsewhere, from Georgia to the Balkans and including the stationing of nuclear weapons in Belarus, is deeply alarming. Here at home, there are reports that the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover may have emanated from Russia. Is the Foreign Secretary able to confirm that attribution? The whole Euro-Atlantic alliance needs to be incredibly robust, because the lessons of the last 20 years are crystal clear and the outcome of the war in Ukraine will shape the future of European global security.

President Trump’s recent remarks were absolutely right. Our Ukrainian friends can regain the territory that is rightfully theirs, and we support them on that.  Britain and our European allies must now pull out all the stops to help our Ukrainian friends to expedite Putin’s exit from their country. We should be clear that territorial concessions must never happen, as this would be a reward for Putin’s barbarism. Britain should and can lead the way in weakening Putin’s war machine with a full range of hard-hitting new sanctions and brokering new military aid packages with our allies to ensure that Ukraine has the capabilities it needs to defeat Putin’s tyranny. \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary’s response, and I am glad to face her across the Dispatch Box again. I think she and I have probably missed each other. This time round, we agree on some things, which is perhaps a new experience for both of us.

I checked, and I think that the last time the right hon. Lady and I were opposite each other—although we were on the opposite sides of the House then—was on 5 September 2022, the day that Liz Truss was confirmed as Prime Minister. It was perhaps not quite such a good day for the right hon. Lady, who then lost her place as Home Secretary. It was also not such a good time for the country.

Interestingly, after our exchanges on that day, the next discussion was on Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), now the Defence Secretary, speaking from the Opposition Benches, began his remarks by observing that it was day 194 of a war that Vladimir Putin had expected to be over inside a week. He saluted the bravery of the Ukrainian resistance and pledged the Labour party’s full backing for every aspect of what the right hon. Lady’s Government were doing at the time. Now here we are on day 1,330, and all of us in this House are still full of admiration and respect for the Ukrainian resistance, and determined to support Ukraine in the face of the continuing Russian onslaught.

I welcome the continuation of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s cross-party support for the Ukrainian people, for the actions that we need to continue to take to support Ukraine in its defence, and for the pressure that we need to exert. I can assure her that we will continue to support Ukraine’s defences, and to look at what more we can do. The Defence Secretary has also set out new partnerships; in particular, we are working with Ukraine on developing new drone technology, learning from its technological experiences, and helping it with production.

The right hon. Lady raised issues about third countries—China, India, Turkey and other European countries that have continued to be involved in purchasing things from Russia. We want as wide a consensus as possible on economic pressure on Russia over Ukraine. I continue to raise this with many different countries, including some of those that that she referred to. Also, in our sanctions package, we are including sanctions against entities operating in third countries; we need to continue to do so.

We need to be clear that the ability to target Russian sovereign assets needs to be about mobilising the assets, and going further to ensure that there is an effective way to do that. We believe that there is, and we have been working with the EU on that. We will continue to put considerable pressure on as many countries as possible to join us in taking action on Russian sovereign assets.  I think that all of us in the House—or at least the majority of the parties here, with one unfortunate exception—are clear that we need to continue to stand in solidarity with Ukraine, not just now, not just tomorrow, but for the future. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. \p Emily Thornberry: I begin by publicly welcoming the Foreign Secretary to her new post, and by echoing her comments about the previous Foreign Secretary. I also welcome her commitment to finally using the Russian frozen assets. I hope that the situation will be resolved soon, because those assets are needed for the defence and reconstruction of Ukraine.

I am pleased to see that the Foreign Secretary is going to take further advantage of Britain’s unique sanctions regime by extending it against Russian individuals and companies, but she knows—perhaps better than most, given her previous experience—that a regime is only as good as its enforcement, and there are times when doors need to be kicked down. It worries me that officials from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation told the Treasury Committee a year ago that they had issued only one £15,000 fine against a British business for engaging with a sanctioned individual. How many British businesses have faced financial penalties for direct or indirect breaches of sanctions on Russia or the Russian state since then, and what has been the value of those fines? \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome the point that the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has raised, and I thank her for her considerable work and expertise, and thank the Committee for its work in this area. As she will know, the Foreign Office sets out the framework for sanctions and then works with the Treasury on enforcement. Following the publication of the cross-Government review on enforcement in May, the Government are committing to stronger action to make compliance easier, but also to deter non-compliance, and to ensuring proper enforcement.

I am advised that so far in 2025, Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation penalties have totalled over £900,000, and there has been a £1.1 million compound settlement with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In April, the National Crime Agency secured the first convictions for breaches of Russian financial sanctions, but I am happy to work with the Chancellor to ensure that my right hon. Friend has any further information that she wants on that topic. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p James MacCleary: I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I warmly welcome the announcement of fresh sanctions aimed at cutting Putin’s oil and gas profits. It is vital that we make use of all the tools at our disposal to undermine his war machine, and we know that oil and gas revenues are primarily used to fund it. These measures are a further step in the right direction, but I encourage the Government to go even further.

Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air think-tank shows that UK-owned or insured liquefied natural gas carriers have facilitated the transport of £45 billion of Russian gas since the start of the full-scale invasion. That means that 76% of the total export value of Russian LNG was carried on UK-owned or insured vessels. It is unconscionable that UK businesses are still contributing to Putin’s coffers, so will the Foreign Secretary commit to banning the provision of maritime services, including transport and insurance, for Russian gas? Will she engage directly with the maritime insurance sector, a large proportion of which is based in the UK, to find practical ways to implement such a ban?

I was very pleased to hear of the Foreign Secretary’s ambition to progress plans to use the full value of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s war effort. That is a measure that the Liberal Democrats have been pushing for action on for some months. The Government need to move at pace as Ukraine continues to face Putin’s relentless assault, so can the Foreign Secretary confirm the timetable she is looking at for new funds becoming available from frozen assets? Can she outline how those funds will be allocated, and if barriers to seizing those assets are put in place internationally, can she commit to the UK Government acting unilaterally when it comes to seizing the assets held in the UK?

It is more than three years since Roman Abramovich sold Chelsea football club. In June, the then Foreign Secretary said that the Government were ready and willing to take legal action to finally secure the £2.5 billion generated from the sale that is earmarked for additional support for Ukraine. It appears, however, that the Government’s bark has been worse than their bite so far, as we have heard no more about how the Government intend to pursue those assets. What concrete action have the Government taken since June to secure them?

We all hope to see a just peace in Ukraine. When we do, thoughts will switch to reconstruction. Can the Secretary of State commit to provide full UK backing, including funding, to the Council of Europe’s register of damage for Ukraine? \p Yvette Cooper: I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his questions and his continued support for Ukraine. We are determined to tighten the restrictions much further, not simply on the oil and gas companies, although this is the first time we have sanctioned these major companies, but on the distribution networks and those who continue to profit. On 12 September, I announced 100 new sanctions, including on 70 more ships in the shadow fleet. Today, in the second sanctions package that I have announced since being appointed, I have announced sanctions on a further 44 shadow fleet ships, because we are clear that the shadow fleet is undermining the impact of the sanctions that we have set out.

On Russian sovereign assets, if what we do is to have a proper impact, both on Russia and on the market, it is right that we should work alongside partners, and we welcome the statements from President von der Leyen and the G7 Finance Ministers. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this is a huge priority for me and for the Chancellor, who is pursuing those exact issues about timetables, and about the final steps we need to take around Russian sovereign assets in Washington today.

The issue of the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club is a priority for me personally. We must ensure that those proceeds can reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion. I am deeply frustrated that that has not been possible so far, but we are fully prepared to pursue this matter through the courts if required, while the door for negotiations remains open. Again, I have discussed this matter not just with the Chancellor, but internationally. \p Alex Sobel: I thank the Speaker, the Speaker’s Office and the Deputy Speakers for the gracious welcome they today gave Ruslan Stefanchuk, the Speaker of the Rada. Also, seeing the Foreign Secretary in Kyiv on her first foreign visit was a real fillip for the people of Ukraine.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for the sanctions package, but I would like to ask further questions about the seizure of Russian assets. I am pleased that we are ready to progress the seizure of Russian assets, and that we have announced work with France and Germany, but are we working at pace with our allies to ensure the seizure of Russian assets? Ukrainians know that their best chance of winning this war will come from the move from freezing to seizing assets. Will the United Kingdom provide finance for the reparations loan that the EU proposes? \p Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for his continued work for many years on Ukraine. It was certainly very good to see him at the event in Kyiv. I can assure him that we think that the new mechanism that the EU has drawn up and provided to mobilise effectively the assets that are being held is really important. We support that work, and we believe that we, the EU and other allies should try to make rapid progress now, because ultimately, the rebuilding of Ukraine and support for Ukraine should be paid for by Russia. \p Rishi Sunak: I welcome the Foreign Secretary to her new role and commend her on a very strong statement. I welcome the progress being made by the G7 Finance Ministers in DC on seizing Russian state assets. It is an issue I first started working on three years ago, and I know the Chancellor has continued that work. Because of that, there is a body of clear technical analysis that has been done in the Treasury that I think shows clearly at this point, first, that there is a sound legal basis for taking these assets and using them; secondly, that there is now a practical way to use them, especially as the bonds have matured into cash; and thirdly, that by acting in concert with allies, any risk to financial stability can be absolutely minimised. I urge the Foreign Secretary to show continued UK leadership on this issue, as I know she is, especially sharing that work with our European allies, because I know she would agree that this is an urgent issue that requires action. \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome all the points made by the former Prime Minister. I pay tribute to the work he did both as Chancellor and as Prime Minister to support Ukraine and the defence of Ukraine—in particular this work around Russian sovereign assets, as well as finding different ways to ensure that market stability remains and that we have the proper financial safeguards in place, while also ensuring that the money can get to Ukraine. I have spoken to colleagues in Belgium and  France over the last week. As the right hon. Member will know, the Prime Minister has discussed this with French and German counterparts in the last week as well. We will continue to press on every avenue to make the progress that he talks about. \p Johanna Baxter: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and I welcome her statement. In September, the Yale School of Public Health Humanitarian Research Lab revealed that the number of facilities that Russia is using in its forced deportation of Ukrainian children has risen from 53 to 210. That report highlighted that 110 facilities were being used to re-educate children, and that at 39 of those facilities military training was being provided to train Ukrainian children to throw the grenades and pilot the drones that are destroying their homes and killing their families. Could my right hon. Friend outline what further steps are being taken to relocate, rescue and return those children to their families? \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. The forcible deportation—the kidnapping—of almost 20,000 Ukrainian children by Russia is one of the most disturbing aspects of this war. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of supporting those families. We have been supporting organisations such as Bring Kids Back UA and Save Ukraine, which are supporting efforts to return Ukrainian children. Just two weeks ago, Baroness Harman attended the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children event at the UN General Assembly. We will continue to do all we can to support the return of those children. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: Fifty years ago, I was working down the corridor here for Margaret Thatcher. I make that point to give an opportunity to the Foreign Secretary to pay tribute, on the centenary of her birth, to the lady who won the cold war with Ronald Reagan. The other point I want to make is: why did we win the cold war? We did not fire a single bullet; it was all about economic pressure on the Soviet Union—Russia’s precursor, of course. Following the point made by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), I think the whole House is determined and united on the issue of Russian assets. I also serve on the Council of Europe, and everybody there is passing motions trying to propel this forward. Is the Foreign Secretary confident that we can make progress on this, because the way to bring down this regime and end the war is, as we did with the Soviet Union, to break them economically? \p Yvette Cooper: I think all of us, no matter our party, would recognise the challenging nature of the job for all Prime Ministers. The Father of the House will understand that in a coalmining constituency like mine, there were obviously very strong views against the former Prime Minister to whom he refers, but I pay tribute to his long service in this place, which he also mentioned.

There is strong agreement across this House: we have to get those assets mobilised, and get that investment and support into Ukraine. It is right that Russia should pay the price for reconstructing, rebuilding and also defending Ukraine. \p Nia Griffith: It was great to see the Secretary of State out in Ukraine; I know it was very much appreciated by our Ukrainian colleagues. She will be well aware that foreign investment is absolutely vital to the economy and to the reconstruction of Ukraine. What talks has she had with ministerial colleagues and others about schemes such as the one suggested by the British Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce, which proposes using frozen Russian assets and/or western Government guarantees administered by the World Bank to provide greater availability of risk insurance for British investors in Ukraine? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that we need to look at different, innovative ways of providing the financial support, and the commitment and investment, that Ukraine will need. Obviously, there are immediate issues around defence equipment and support, including support for the energy infrastructure that we are providing, but there will also be issues around longer-term investment and we should look at innovative ways to support that. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, and we have encouraged the last Government and the present Government to be much more aggressive about their sanctions regime. When we look at the number of people who have been sanctioned, it does not compare to what the United States and many others have done. First, it is long overdue that the whole business of the money from the Chelsea sale was settled; it beggars belief that we have not managed to get that one done. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—the ex-Prime Minister, rather; some of us live in hope. The shadow fleets could easily be attacked by sanctioning British marine insurers who have insured those ships. Without that insurance, they will not be put to sea because they will have no financial backing for it. Why we have not done that up until now is a complete mystery to me. That is surely something we should get on with straightaway, because we can act on it immediately. \p Yvette Cooper: I thank the right hon. Member for his long-standing commitment on sanctions, and on Russia and Ukraine. The impact of the sanctions is that any company or any UK company or resident that transacts with, as well as trades with, those sanctioned bodies, will therefore be covered by the sanctions as well. We will continue to look at what further we can do to keep increasing the pressure on Russia. On the Chelsea football club proceeds, I strongly agree that this needs to move as swiftly as possible, and I can assure him that it has been something on which I have focused significantly since I arrived in post. We will continue to do all we can in those areas to support Ukraine. \p Tulip Siddiq: My constituent is a refugee from Ukraine whose home and livelihood were destroyed in Ukraine. She contacted me because of the uncertainty of her visa situation. Her three-year visa will expire in December, but she cannot apply for extension until November, which is preventing her from getting a new job and securing a new tenancy agreement. She is at risk of becoming homeless in the coming weeks. I recognise that my right hon. Friend is now the Foreign Secretary, but she knows the Home Office well. What conversations has she had with colleagues  from the Home Office about reviewing the Ukrainian visa scheme so that Ukrainians can rebuild their lives in this country? \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for refugees and for those who have come here on the Homes for Ukraine scheme and other Ukrainian schemes. As she will know, the Government have set out provision for the extension of the visas. I think the point to which she refers is to do with the Home Office mechanism and the timings of when applications can go in. I will raise that issue with the Home Secretary. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. \p Richard Foord: The Foreign Secretary mentioned that Speaker Stefanchuk of the Ukrainian Parliament—the Rada—was in the Gallery earlier today. He also met members of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, when he drew a parallel between western sanctions packages and versions of the Apple iPhone: it feels like we see a new one every other week. Rather than the gradual introduction of sanctions on Russia, will the Foreign Secretary work with the United States and other allies to introduce a sanctions package that will really hurt Russian oligarchs in the pocket? \p Yvette Cooper: I want to see the strongest possible economic pressure on Russia—from every avenue, frankly. We have discussed that issue extensively with the US and Europe. I have discussed it with my Foreign Minister colleagues and the Chancellor discusses it with her Finance Minister colleagues. We want to see the strongest package. However, it is right to continue introducing new sanctions as soon as we have the evidence ready. I do not think that we should wait until more work can be done or more agreement reached. If we have the evidence to be able to introduce another set of sanctions, we should get on with it because we need to maximise the economic pressure as rapidly as we can to put pressure on Putin’s war machine. \p John Slinger: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that more must be done to inform not just the British public, but countries that are equivocal in their support for Ukraine, that Russia’s illegal invasion is particularly egregious in its cynical and cruel targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure?

I pay tribute to a member of Rugby’s Ukrainian community, who told me today:

“Russia strikes not only the frontline but homes, hospitals and power plants. Whole regions are left in darkness after systematic attacks. Just recently, a maternity hospital in Sumy was targeted. Yet people wake up after nights of bombardment and go to work and school—the unimaginable has become normal. That is the true horror.”

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that those horrors can only strengthen our resolve in supporting Ukraine? \p Yvette Cooper: We must maintain the strongest of resolves in supporting Ukraine. I have spoken to families and children who will have to sleep in corridors or underground car parks tonight to avoid drone attacks,  but will still get up for school and carry on with their lives each day. The Ukrainian people are showing resilience, and we will continue to support them. \p Julian Lewis: The only thing wrong with the Foreign Secretary’s admirable statement is the fact that it was made by a British Foreign Secretary rather than by the President of the United States, given that, only a few months ago, President Trump said that President Zelensky had few, if any, cards to play. The Foreign Secretary takes a much more optimistic view of the geopolitical situation as regards the invasion of Ukraine. Has she identified any signs that the leader of the free world is coming to a more realistic view of the nature of the killer in the Kremlin? \p Yvette Cooper: We have discussed this issue considerably with the US. I welcome President Trump’s decision to allow NATO allies to purchase vital US military equipment for Ukraine’s defence, including Patriot missiles. President Trump called for a peace process, and President Zelensky was ready to have those peace discussions, but President Putin has done the opposite. There is a growing sense of frustration, which everybody can see, about the fact that President Putin has just ignored the requests for peace discussions and is instead seeking to do the opposite—not just in Ukraine but in attempts to destabilise NATO airspace. \p Derek Twigg: The NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegation—of which the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), who is sat on the Opposition Front Bench, is deputy leader—met the Ukrainian delegation at the weekend and also heard from President Zelensky. The line that we heard time and again from them was about the need for more weapons, equipment and munitions, particularly deep-fire missiles and drone munitions. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. A lot has been said about the need to unfreeze Russian assets and use their full value. She said that work is being done on that. We in this House have on numerous occasions seen things happen quickly; things need to move at pace to ensure that the free industrial capacity that Ukraine still has, which can make those things, is funded and used as quickly as possible. \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. We want progress to be made as rapidly as possible. He will know that the UK has stepped up support for Ukraine this year, which includes £4.5 billion of military support—more than ever before—and thousands of air defence missiles and drones. We want to go further with the Russian sovereign assets process. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I remind colleagues that we have another statement followed by the business of the day. Questions do not require a preamble. They should be sharp and to the point. \p Stephen Gethins: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on her appointment and welcome her remarks about the consensus on the war in Ukraine holding up well across the vast majority  of the Chamber. She is a fresh set of eyes. Will she look at the efficiency of some of the aid? Might we work more closely with organisations such as the Come Back Alive foundation, or can more work be done in Ukraine? I think that the UK is doing a good job on this, but a fresh set of eyes is always welcome. \p Yvette Cooper: We always want to ensure that we provide aid and defence support in the most effective way and, crucially, in partnership with Ukraine, which, as a sovereign nation, knows where its greatest need lies. That is what we support. \p Harpreet Uppal: I welcome the measures that have been announced, particularly on oil and gas revenues. They come as Russia continues to target Ukrainian energy infrastructure, including a state-run power plant last night. How are the Government helping Ukrainian homes to stay warm over winter, and will the Foreign Secretary join me in paying tribute to the Huddersfield Ukrainian club, which has continued to support Ukrainians who have arrived in Huddersfield since the conflict began? \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome the support that my hon. Friend’s community is providing in her constituency. That has happened right across the country. She is right to focus on the impact on families. In targeting that infrastructure, Russia is deliberately targeting the heating and lighting of families across Ukraine as they go into winter. We have just announced—I announced it in Kyiv—a £42 million energy support package that is designed exactly to keep homes warm and support the resilience of the Ukrainian people through the winter. \p Bernard Jenkin: Given that time is the most precious commodity in war, and that, as former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller said, Britain may already be at war with Russia, why have we allowed Russia so much time to build up a stock of 155 mm shells, for example—three times the quantity of the entire European and American stock of 155 shells? How long does Ukraine now have to hold out against Russia, which has mobilised its entire economy and put it on a war footing to win the war at almost any cost to Russia itself? Do we not have to up our long-range weapons and other military support to help Ukraine finish and win this war? \p Yvette Cooper: As I just set out, the UK has stepped up support for Ukraine this year, providing £4.5 billion of military support. We will need to continue providing military support to Ukraine, but we also need to encourage as many other allies as possible to do likewise. When meeting the Ukrainian Prime Minister and President in Kyiv, I was struck by how much they saw the UK as a leading ally, but they recognise the need for international partnership and support. We need to continue escalating support. That is why we also need pressure on the economic side as well as on the defence side. It is only by that combined concerted effort that we will be able to affect the course of the war. \p Luke Myer: It was a privilege to meet the Chair of the Rada today and to add my voice to this House’s shared commitment to stand with Ukraine and in defence of  our democratic values. To increase economic pressure on Russia, we must sanction Russian-linked countries operating in third countries, including in the energy sector. Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that she will apply maximum pressure on such companies, even when they are based outside Russia itself? \p Yvette Cooper: I agree with my hon. Friend. As part of the sanctions packages announced in September and this month, we are looking increasingly at entities in third countries that continue to heavily support the transit and export of Russian oil and gas, in order to ensure that those sanctions can really bite. \p Helen Maguire: I have just returned from Ukraine, where I learned at first hand about the challenges that both the military and the emergency services face in dealing with unexploded ordnance; I saw its impact when I visited the heroic patients at Superhumans, the prosthetic supercentre in Lviv. There are over 60,000 amputees in Ukraine as a result of the war and the need is immense, so will the Secretary of State consider further strengthening the strategic health alliance and UK-Ukraine trauma recovery with additional funding to the £1.2 million already pledged?[Official Report, 11 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 71.] (Correction) \p Yvette Cooper: Alongside our allies, we will continue to look at the different forms and ways in which our support can be provided. We have particularly highlighted support for energy infrastructure and homes, but the hon. Member is right to highlight the resilience and determination of the Ukrainian emergency services, who have to respond every morning to see where strikes have taken place, and in the middle of the night when the drones arrive. We should all pay tribute to their bravery and strength. \p David Burton-Sampson: All of us who have visited Ukraine will know the stoicism of the people. Despite being bombarded night after night, they continue to rebuild, often supported by UK businesses and individuals, as well as others from across the European Union. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must do more to continue to encourage businesses and individuals to support Ukraine in any way that they can, but that ultimately it is Putin’s responsibility—and his alone—to pay for the damage that he is causing to the country? \p Yvette Cooper: I agree. We expect Putin and Russia to pay for the damage that they are doing through the unprovoked aggression of their invasion of Ukraine. We will continue to support Ukraine and encourage everybody else to do so, but ultimately we need Russia to pay for the damage that they have done. \p Lisa Smart: I welcome many of the measures that the Foreign Secretary has outlined today. Like her, I have visited Ukraine and seen the impact of the attacks from Putin and his flunkies and, like her, I have seen the resilience of the Ukrainian people. I believe, as we all do in the Chamber, that Putin and his flunkies must pay for their crimes. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the UK Government would support pursuing legally those individuals responsible for the crimes, through the International Criminal Court? \p Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Lady will know, we continue to support international law and international court processes. She is right to say that Russia ultimately needs to pay the price and to be held accountable for the damage it is doing. I hope she also agrees that Kyiv is an incredibly beautiful city, where many people are going about their daily lives undeterred, determined not to let Russia win. \p Mark Sewards: The politicians, civilians and soldiers I spoke to last month in Kyiv were unambiguous when asked what was the best thing the UK could do to help them win the war. The hundreds of billions of dollars of frozen Russian assets that they currently cannot deploy could help them bolster their military and swing the war decisively in their favour. On their behalf, will the Foreign Secretary use every power available to her to unlock those assets and put them in the service of the people of Ukraine? \p Yvette Cooper: I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for unlocking Russian sovereign assets. The Chancellor is raising that issue in Washington with international partners as I speak. \p Jim Shannon: I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place. The experience that she brings from her previous role will benefit us all and I thank her for her answers. Putin will have watched the Israel-Gaza problem carefully, and he will know that all eyes are turning to Russia to end the unnecessary conflict in Ukraine. What further steps can we take, in co-operation with our American allies, to seize this opportunity to end bloodshed and to restore education and hope for Ukrainian children, thereby ensuring that Putin realises that he has no option other than the cessation of Russian aggression? \p Yvette Cooper: I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. I agree with him that there must be no other option for Putin than to cease aggression and that this is ultimately about hope for Ukrainian children. \p Joe Powell: I strongly welcome the sanctions targeting the $108 billion in oil revenue that the Kremlin received last year and the progress on the $350 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets. I applaud the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor for their efforts in building a coalition with the EU and others to move from using the interest payments to using the capital. Does she agree that that recent breakthrough shows that legally this money should be treated as a downpayment on the reparations for the horrific harm that Russia has caused, which we know it will do everything to avoid paying? \p Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The EU has set out work linking the issues around assets to reparation payments. We welcome that work and we believe that there is a strong basis to go forward. We need to do so in a co-ordinated way and recognise the importance of supporting Ukraine. \p Chris Coghlan: I welcome the Government’s progress on the frozen Russian assets, but it is disappointing that, as yet, they are allocated only to recovery and not military capability, because Russia is spending $40 billion more than Ukraine and  her Western allies on the war in Ukraine. The courage of Ukrainian forces has brought Russia to a standstill, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that if those frozen assets were used today to close and exceed that military spending gap, Ukraine would have a path not just to stop Russia but to win? \p Yvette Cooper: We are already increasing UK military support, and we want to see that happen across the board. The way to put the greatest pressure on Russia will always be through a mix of different measures, including direct defence support, support for the resilience of the Ukraine people through their basic energy infrastructure and ensuring that they and their communities can keep going, and by establishing strong economic pressure on Russia, so that it is put in a position where it has to change course. All those things need to happen at once to have a significant impact on the way that Putin is behaving. \p Laurence Turner: I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for her recent decision, when she was Home Secretary, about the Ukraine permission extension scheme. Does she agree that when Putin probes weakness we must respond by demonstrating strength? Does she further agree that the post-war development of Ukraine’s significant energy resources, which may require British technical expertise, would serve the dual purpose of helping to reconstruct Ukraine’s shattered economy and increase Europe’s security of energy supply? \p Yvette Cooper: I agree with my hon. Friend that Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security in many different ways, including in defence and in energy. That is why it is so important that we should continue to support Ukraine and Ukrainians in the UK, who came to find safety at the beginning of the war. \p Danny Chambers: Earlier this year, I joined a brilliant organisation called Mighty Convoy to drive some refurbished ambulances full of medical supplies to Ukraine. While we were there, we bumped into another organisation called FIRE AID that takes refurbished fire engines to Ukraine from the UK. That equipment is vital for the war effort, but in addition the Ukrainians we met said that it is a great morale boost to know that not only are the British Government behind their war efforts, but the British public are too. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in thanking all the volunteers from the UK who drive equipment to Ukraine to help with that war effort? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member makes an important point about the strength of support from across the country, from communities and civil society. At a time when Ukrainians are showing such resilience and strength, it is important for them to hear about that support and to know that people across the UK have huge respect for what they are doing and will continue to support it. I welcome the work of different organisations to raise funds and provide support for Ukraine. \p Martin Wrigley: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for extending the Homes for Ukraine scheme by two years in her previous role? I welcome her to her new role. This morning, the Chair  of the Rada spoke to the parliamentary group and talked of how Russian manufacturers are using advanced electronics from white goods to build their drones. What will the Foreign Secretary do to prevent such vital equipment going to them through the export of seemingly harmless white goods? \p Yvette Cooper: The hon. Member is right to raise issues about broader technology. That is why we need to ensure that our sanctions regime is continually updating and responding. We have seen immense improvements in Ukrainian technology on different responses, particularly around drone technology and countering drone technology. We need to recognise the expertise and strength of the Ukrainian people and the country of Ukraine and to continue to show our support at every level. \p Nusrat Ghani: That concludes the statement on Ukraine. I will allow the Front Benchers a few moments to shuffle over as we prepare for the second statement. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Mr Waugh, you do not cross the Front Bench, even to take a shortcut. It is not on. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the action we are taking to restore pride in place. Britain’s renewal is a driving mission of this Labour Government, and we know that that must be seen, felt and heard in every single neighbourhood. Our identity, sense of patriotism and feeling of belonging can all depend on the condition of our local area and the view from our doorstep.

Our neighbourhoods are the nation’s barometer for whether all of us in this House are doing our jobs. Under 14 years of Conservative failure, the needle of that barometer has increasingly pointed in the wrong direction. The effect of this decline in pride in place has been corrosive. It has eroded people’s trust in politics and the state, created a sense of unfairness and that some places have fared better than others, and opened the door to the plastic patriots in the Reform party, who say that there is a simple answer. Let me say from the start that we are under no illusions about the complex causes of, and answers to, this decline.

The failure of the Conservatives properly to fund local government, the sharp transition away from industry and the broken Tory promises of levelling up must shoulder part of the blame. We cannot and will not pretend that the legacies of any of those issues can be reversed overnight, but, as both a Labour Government and a Parliament, we can be confident that the way in which we restore pride in place lies not in this Chamber or the corridors of Whitehall; the answer is in the communities that we each represent.

Our job is to give our constituents the investment and powers that they need, so that they can deliver the change they want to see in their communities. That is why we have announced the pride in place programme, backed up by £5 billion. This is a priority for the Prime Minister, choosing renewal over decline and unity over division. This is our plan for change in action, giving power and pride back to the people who make Britain great.

There are two categories of investment. The first, the main programme, is the flagship pride in place programme, which will provide up to £20 million of funding and support to each area over the course of a decade, focused on specific neighbourhoods. Communities will need to decide how that funding is spent. We will establish a neighbourhood board in every place, made up of local people. Residents, business owners and community leaders will come together alongside their Member of Parliament to come up with a 10-year plan for this investment. They could choose to bring a derelict pub back into use for the community, transform a boarded-up shop into a wellbeing hub, improve local transport links, create a new playground or roll out a community-level service to help with the cost of living. Local people know best what change is needed.

This programme is about local communities taking back control. As long as the plan provides value for money, the board will have our full support to deliver the change that the community needs. We are taking inspiration from the new deal for communities, which, under the last Labour Government, put local communities in charge of renewing their neighbourhoods, but we are also adapting to the world as we find it today and learning the lessons of what did and did not work from the last time around.

The second programme, the pride in place impact fund, will provide a short-term injection of £1.5 million per place. It will be delivered by local authorities for the most immediate results in three phases: community spaces, public spaces and high streets and town centre revitalisation. Despite the shorter timeframe of the fund, there is still an important emphasis on local collaboration. We will ask local communities to work closely with MPs and local authorities to ensure that investment decisions reflect local priorities and community needs. Our economic situation means that we are not in a position to cover everywhere that would benefit from this programme. We have therefore prioritised places with the highest level of need—those places that have been left behind and let down, and those communities that were hollowed out over 14 years of Conservative austerity, for which the Conservatives should hang their heads in shame.

It is important to this Labour Government that every community has the power to renew their area, so alongside this investment we have published the pride in place strategy. The purpose of the strategy is to promote the same principle of community power across the entire country, and it centres on three aims.

The first aim, building stronger communities, means bringing people together. We see that as the foundation for a greater sense of belonging and local pride. When people spend time with each other in their community, including those from different backgrounds, they see that they have more in common than separates them. This sense of shared endeavour means that communities are more likely to take steps to improve their local area. As part of that, we will fund locally led interventions to build community resilience, encouraging volunteers through co-produced policies, and tackle loneliness. We recognise that that can be delivered only by a whole-of-Government approach, so this section of the strategy includes policies from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office.

The second aim, creating thriving places, is how we promote pride in place in the most direct sense: by improving how the public realm looks. As a Government, we see a direct link between the declining appearance of our local neighbourhoods and how people feel about not just their immediate area, but the country and the world around them. We acknowledge that the performance of the public realm is often a reflection of the economy and the work of local authorities, which is why we are focused on growth and on fixing the foundations of local government, but even in times when the economy has been strong and local government was funded properly, the effects have not always been felt in the public realm. Fixing that disconnect is the inspiration for policies to encourage the application of shopfront design guides as  well as the use of clean-up powers. What links all the policies in this section of the paper is that they empower our communities to create thriving places. This is not an attempt to micromanage change from Whitehall.

The final strand, helping communities to take back control of their own lives and areas, sets out our plan to give people a stronger voice in what matters to them. Each of us in the House will have spoken to constituents who talk of helplessness, when the place that they live in is changing in ways that they did not ask for and that they feel they have no control over. Sometimes it is about antisocial behaviour on their estate; other times, it is about the shops being lost from the high street. People want to be in control of their surroundings, but that is such a distant concept when they do not feel safe going out at night or do not have a say over how their town centre looks.

A lot of those feelings stem from the effects of the Conservative Government’s 14 years of austerity, which took libraries and leisure centres from some of the most deprived and disadvantaged communities. When combined with the closure of pubs, sports clubs and social clubs, it means that for much of the country there are fewer and fewer places for people to come together and take pride in. We are therefore introducing a community right to buy, to give local residents new powers to save treasured assets; giving more people a say in their local economy by creating a new co-operative development unit in my Department; and requiring all authorities in England to establish effective neighbourhood governance.

This Labour Government’s pride in place programme is an investment in the UK’s future, backing the true patriots who build up our communities across every corner of the country. Alongside our strategy, it aims to spark a new way of governing, where power and resources are more readily shared with our communities. However, like devolution, this needs to be the start of a process rather than a single event. We have specifically designed both investment programmes with a guaranteed role for local Members of Parliament, so I finish by encouraging Members from across the House to get involved. At a time when trust is low and the demand for change is high, this is an opportunity for all of us to make a real, tangible difference to our communities by giving real power to those we are elected to serve. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p David Simmonds: This statement speaks of pride. Conservative Members have pride in our local pubs, 200 of which have closed in the past six months, hammered by the Labour party’s business rates rises. We have pride in our restaurants, which are closing in record numbers under the business rates burden imposed by this Government. We are proud of our local shops, which—according to the British Retail Consortium—are buckling under an additional £7 billion of annual costs imposed by this Government. We are proud of our family businesses, the bedrock of our high streets, which are buckling under new taxes introduced by this Government. We are proud of our family farms, which are also buckling under the new taxes imposed by this Government.   We are proud of our local councils, which face maxing out their council tax rates. We hear of £20 million at a local level, but councils across the country are maxing out their council tax, not to invest in new local services, but to pay an additional £1.5 billion of annual costs imposed on them by this Government’s job tax—every year, when it comes to delivering services, a net £1.5 billion worse off. We are proud of the workers of this country, of whom there were 4 million more when the Conservative party left office last year. In the retail sector alone, 97,000 have lost their jobs since this Government took office. As such, this programme is a fig leaf—elements relabelled from past programmes such as the long-term plan for towns, slightly redirected to Labour areas—that covers up a collapse in the ability of our elected local representatives to invest in their communities. As with so many things, that collapse gets worse every day under the Labour party.

Let me pose some specific questions to the Minister. First, why is there so much complex governance around this? Why not listen to the cries of our local leaders in Croydon, Somerset and Hertfordshire—people across the political spectrum who are saying, “Why not just give the councils the money to get on with this? Why tie this up in bureaucracy and red tape?” How much of this money has simply been rebadged from other, previously announced Government programmes? Why the change in methodology? In the interests of transparency, can the Minister set out for the House why the funding now seems to be landing in areas that are more likely to support the Labour party?

How much of this funding sits outside of the 2025 spending review, and is therefore deeply in question from the start? How much of this money—like so many of this Government’s announcements, such as on housing—has been put in the public domain, but promised as spending towards the tail-end of the next Parliament, perhaps the very definition of jam tomorrow? Finally, can the Minister tell us how today’s announcement will help small businesses on all our high streets across our country to recover from her colleague the Chancellor’s £2.7 billion tax hike in this year alone? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I am disappointed by the hon. Member’s lack of contrition and his failure to say sorry. The Conservatives presided over 14 years of failure, during which, over a period of austerity, local government and local civic institutions were denuded and deprived communities were hollowed out. He says that we are funding areas of deprivation—that is because we actually care about funding those areas. Candidly, if I had the record of the last Government, I would not stand at the Dispatch Box and give us lectures.

Let me pick up the specific questions that the hon. Member asked. First, why are we tying this up in process? There is no process, but we have said that communities should be in charge. The difference between this scheme and the things done by the last Government is that we want to put communities in the driving seat and give them power. We want local authorities to enable and facilitate, but we absolutely need our community leaders. Members across the House will know them—the people who are networking, championing and making change happen. We want them around the table, driving the change that their community needs.

On the methodology, the Conservative party obviously did some fiddling, but we do not do that. We have focused on two metrics: multiple deprivation and community needs. That is putting investment into the areas that most need it, because they are both deprived and, critically, have low social infrastructure and social capital. That is why we are funding the areas that we are funding. We all remember the Conservatives’ last Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), saying that they actively diverted funding away from areas of deprivation. That is something that the Labour party will not do and has not done.

Finally, turning to the funding profile, we are desperate to move with momentum. We want to get the investment out. It is a 10-year commitment—that is an absolute game changer. No Government have ever said to communities, “Come up with an investment plan and we will fund you over a decade.” We think that is game changing for communities on the ground, but we are not going to wait. We are already giving programme capital investment to the 75 places that were in phase 1, in order to start the work of kick-starting that programme, and then their funding will flow next year. For those places in phase 2, capital and capacity investment will be going into them from next year and then flowing in the year after. We are very clear about this opportunity for our communities.

This is not about party politics, so I am incredibly disappointed by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). This is an opportunity to support parts of our country that have been absolutely hollowed out. I would expect a bit more contrition. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] Because of your record. Because you sat— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. “Because of your record”? My record? “Because of you”? Me? Let us temper our language, lower the temperature and continue. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Because of the Conservatives’ record, I would expect a little bit more contrition.

We are focused on the task ahead, which is the opportunity to drive change in our communities. I hope Members across the House can join us in that endeavour. \p Navendu Mishra: The £5 billion investment in the pride in place programme means that Brinnington and Stockport will benefit from a £20 million investment. What does the Minister think of the former Government’s levelling-up slogan, which in reality was a levelling-down agenda for opportunity, ambition and trust? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right—levelling up was a hollow slogan. We see from the record that there was no substance behind it. Unlike the Conservative party, we are doing the job of investing in our communities, putting them in the driving seat. That will be a game changer in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Gideon Amos: I welcome the Minister to her place. Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to invest in high streets and communities—making our local centres thrive is a cause that all of us across this House share. However, despite the strategy talking about empowerment and the Government previously announcing that they would simplify the system and consolidate grants, this strategy does the opposite by creating a patchwork of small ringfenced grants for certain areas with strict rules on how local authorities can spend their funding.

However, what goes unsaid in the strategy is perhaps as important. The importance of community assets such as libraries and swimming pools is acknowledged in the strategy, as is the lamenting of their loss, but the strategy neglects to mention the deeper causes of those sell-offs. Local authorities face ever-growing crises in funding statutory services that they have to fund according to Government rules, particularly social care and provision for special educational needs and disabilities, and are forced to sell assets to keep those services going. In this year alone £1.3 billion of public assets have been sold off, nearly three times the amount of the annual funding announced today. In my constituency, and in Somerset as a whole, more than two thirds of council tax payments go towards the funding of care for children and adults. Last year the county succeeded in plugging a £55 million shortfall, but that feat will become harder to achieve each year.

Pride in place will struggle to succeed unless the Government fix the care crisis. Council tax payers should not be bailing out the Government when it comes to their duty to provide a care and SEND system that works. Investment in the high streets is welcome, but is no substitute for giving local authorities the means to protect their services and assets into the future. Will the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to relieve the care funding crisis at local level, so that communities can keep and maintain the services and assets that they value most? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I will take each of those points in turn. This is about empowerment. We are driving through what we believe is the biggest boost to devolution in a generation, and there are three strands to that.

First, we are putting communities at the heart of the strategy. We have designed it in a way that does not just mean that local authorities are in the driving seat, because we consider it critical to put community leaders at the heart of it. This is an opportunity for us to galvanise our communities, to get people from diverse backgrounds round the table and, crucially, to build momentum to drive the change that they want to see. We do not resile from that, because we think it is absolutely the right approach.

Alongside it, however, we are giving more power to local authorities, whether that means multi-year funding or consolidating the local government finance system so that authorities have more flexibility. We see them as a key partner in the driving of change on the ground.

Thirdly, as we create strategic authorities there will be the biggest tranche of devolution to our city region and county region mayors that we have seen so far. Taken together, those three strands are about fundamentally shifting and transferring power from the centre to places, so that we can deliver the change that people want.

There has been a huge sell-off of assets. That is the legacy of the last 14 years, and it is a tragedy for our communities. We have introduced the community right to buy so that communities are able to identify assets of community value and to buy them, and support from pride in place gives them an opportunity to put investment behind that.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the critical issue of local government funding. Labour Members entirely understand the pressure that local government is under. There have been 14 years of austerity, driven by the Conservatives, and local authorities are having to deal with a very difficult context. That is why we have moved towards a multi-year funding settlement, and why we gave a huge boost to local government financing last year. Over the course of the spending review, there will be a real-terms increase in local government spending power. It is tight, but we are doing our part as a Government to ensure that local government can deliver for our communities. My colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are driving through critical reforms that will address some of the pressures that we know exist in our social care system. \p Paula Barker: I welcome this Labour Government’s £22 million investment in Fairfield in my constituency, which was ignored by the Conservatives. Does the Minister agree that it is crucial for this programme to provide not just new money, but new powers for local people to decide how it is spent? Will she confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that the money should not be used to deliver core council services? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: Absolutely. Let me put it on record that we want communities to be in the driving seat. That is how this differs from programmes organised under the last Government, and if we get it right, it will have a huge, galvanising potential. What we want to militate against is the possibility of its just going towards “business as usual”. If we can bring people from communities to the table and get them to invest in the things that matter to them, but can also generate community wealth, this will be a potential game changer. \p Andrew Mitchell: May I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new role, and, perhaps, strike a more slightly consensual note?

In Sutton Coldfield we welcome this initiative. It is good that it builds on the towns fund set up by the last Government, and we in the royal town are very pleased to be part of it. I can tell the hon. Lady that we are undertaking extensive community consultation, led by Royal Sutton Coldfield Town Council and its leader, Simon Ward, and that our local board, under the chairmanship of Doug Wright MBE, is forging ahead and already making considerable progress. May I invite her—as I invited her predecessor—to pay a state visit to the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where she can see how we will use this money to the best possible advantage? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for telling us about the progress on his patch. It is incredibly encouraging to see the work that has already been done, whether through the local authority, existing boards or the coming together of community leaders. I ask all Members who can give examples of this  working well to reach out to other Members, on both sides of the House, so that those examples can be shared. I look forward to travelling across the country and seeing pride in place in practice. \p Laurence Turner: I warmly welcome the £20 million pride in place funding for the Hawkesley estate in my constituency. It stands in stark contrast to the hopes and expectations that were allowed to be built under the last Government for £11 million for Northfield’s high street in the second-round bid for the levelling-up fund, which were cruelly dashed when not one penny was allocated to the city of Birmingham. Does my hon. Friend agree that this will not be, and cannot be, some lengthy bureaucratic process? Of course our councils must be essential partners, but will she confirm that the priorities will be set in the communities themselves? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: Absolutely. We are trying to make this as permissive as possible, and we want communities to genuinely choose the schemes and projects that will work in their areas. As long as the community represented in the neighbourhood board are behind an area and are confident that it delivers value for money for them, we will step aside and let them get on with it, because that is absolutely the right approach. \p Caroline Dinenage: My constituents in Rowner were delighted to hear that they had been chosen for pride in place funding, but they are now a little bit worried, and I hope that the Minister can help us. My constituents fear that rather than the money being spent on projects that will change lives in Rowner in a meaningful way, our Liberal Democrat council will attempt to siphon some of it off to bankroll one of its vanity projects, namely the Criterion, a dilapidated former bingo hall. I am pleased that this funding comes with some flexibility, but what protections will the Minister introduce to prevent the money from being frittered away on white elephants by unscrupulous councils? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I shall not comment on the specifics of the council, but what I will say is that we are very clear about the fact that the local community should be in the driving seat. The funding is flowing through councils because they have accounting officer responsibility, but the decision needs to be made by the neighbourhood boards. My plea to Members on both sides of the House is this: get the neighbourhood boards up and running. The recruitment of the chair is key, and that is a joint endeavour between local authorities and MPs. The MPs must be consulted, and must have the final say in who the chair is. The chair can then ensure that the right voices are sitting round the table. Ultimately, the funding will go to back an investment and regeneration plan that the board will develop. That will make it very hard for particular long-standing projects to be funded: this must be part of a plan that is supported by the neighbourhood board, and the investment will flow into that. \p Gerald Jones: Like others, I welcome this investment, particularly the investment initially in Merthyr Tydfil and latterly in Rhondda Cynon Taf, which covers the Aberdare part of my constituency. It will make a real difference to the  community. I am sure the Minister agrees that it is crucial, indeed critical, for real engagement to take place with communities when it comes to how this money is spent, but can she say a little about any discussions that are taking place about a replacement for the shared prosperity fund, which will remain until March next year? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: The shared prosperity fund will come to an end in March next year. We will set out the details of a local growth fund, which will be geared towards the areas of the country that we think need it the most: our mayoral authorities in the north and the midlands. We will share details of that in due course. \p David Mundell: Borderlands was a fully-funded initiative launched by the former Government, and it is now supported by the Department, the Scottish Government and the Scotland Office here in Westminster. It is designed to meet all the objectives that she has set out in the south of Scotland, Cumbria and Northumberland, but for some reason, only a very small proportion of the money has got out the door. Can the hon. Lady, in conjunction with the Scotland Office, do a full drains up to understand why the money is not getting to the community projects that it is designed to support? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I am very happy to take it away, and to work with the Scotland Office to understand why the money has been blocked. We are really keen to move at pace. We want to get investment into our communities, and we want things to start happening, so if we can find ways to unblock the investment, we absolutely shall. \p Justin Madders: May I welcome the Minister to her place, and say what an encouraging start this is? All the funding that my community is receiving is very welcome, and it is such a contrast to the previous regime’s approach, where we had the crumbs off the table, and a politically motivated process in which communities had to bid against each other in a system that was essentially rigged. It was always about what the Government wanted to spend the money on, not what communities decided their priorities were. Since the announcement of pride in place, I have had so many constituents come forward with great ideas. What assurances can the Minister give me that their voice will really count? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the difference in approach—both in allocation and in the power that we are genuinely trying to give communities—between this Government and the last Government. We are very clear that communities are in the driving seat. The Conservative party pointed out that things were being made “complex”, but I do not think they are. We are creating a route that allows communities to be in the driving seat; we have designed the programme with that intent. We have community delivery units that will be working on the ground alongside Members of Parliament to make sure that communities are genuinely driving and shaping this, and that we can unlock the huge potential to change our places. \p Steve Darling: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and welcome the core principle that she described: giving our communities the power to decide how to put money to best use. I am delighted that Torbay has been awarded two tranches of pride in place funding. However, it is a perverse badge of honour, because it demonstrates that we are the most deprived local authority in the south-west of England, the Conservatives having short-changed us. Another challenge in Torbay is the fact that social rented homes account for only 7% of our housing. Will the Minister reflect on how the whole Government can try to meet the desperate need for social housing in Torbay, which has less than half the national average? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank the hon. Member for raising the critical issue of housing. I am incredibly proud that this Government are putting record investment into social and affordable housing—£39 billion—because we absolutely recognise that if we are to tackle poverty and deprivation, we must get to the root cause of the housing crisis. We have to make sure that affordable housing is an absolutely right, so that people in our communities can afford a roof over their head. That should not be a distant dream for so many. \p Natasha Irons: After 14 years of neglect under the previous Government, it is refreshing to see that under this Labour Government, communities such as New Addington in my constituency come first. I welcome the £20 million long-term investment that this Government are making in New Addington, its people and its future. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that local people get to decide how this money is spent, and can she outline what new powers will be given to local people in New Addington, so that this money is spent on their priorities? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that at the heart of this must be the community. That is why we have made the neighbourhood board absolutely critical, and there is a huge job for Members of Parliament from across the House in helping to organise, convene and bring together community leaders who can populate that board. We are very clear that regeneration plans will be driven by that board. Critically, it will not just be the board in the driving seat; big swathes of the community will be engaged, and they will have a voice and a say in what this looks like. Alongside that, we are making sure that there is a community right to buy, which I have spoken about, so that the community is in the driving seat, taking on community assets of value. There is a huge opportunity, but Members of Parliament and local government must play an enabling role, so that we can put communities in the driving seat for the first time. \p Andrew Murrison: The future high streets fund worked well, because to get any funding, areas had to demonstrate that they had a plan, and that the money would be used effectively, in accordance with local priorities. Pride in place is structured in a very different way. I accept that the Minister’s intent is to ensure that redundant premises are repurposed and reused; that is really good, and as chairman of the Trowbridge Place Partnership, I certainly welcome that. However, how will she ensure that the whole thing is not  just bunged up with endless legal challenges, as her unelected boards make diktats that will be subject to endless review? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: There is the pride in place impact fund—£1.5 million that will go to local authorities across the country to bring about high-street regeneration. Alongside that, there is this programme. We are unapologetic about the fact that we want communities in the driving seat. We know that this is a different approach for Government, but it is the right approach, because we cannot and will not address the huge distrust, anger and frustration in our deprived communities unless we give people power and agency to shape and drive the change that they want. We will work as a Department to enable that. I have talked about the community delivery units; they will work alongside areas to make sure that we provide capacity-building support and enabling support, so that the investment not only works for the community in the short term, but fundamentally builds community wealth. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Members can see how many colleagues wish to contribute. Unless they keep their contributions short, they will deny their fellow Members the opportunity to speak. Show us how it is done, Shaun Davies. \p Shaun Davies: I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I warmly welcome the £20 million investment in Telford, which has been match funded by Labour-led Telford and Wrekin council. That means that £3 million will go to Woodside, Brookside and Sutton Hill each and every year for the next decade. Will the Minister confirm when that money will come to the community frontline? Will she also challenge Government agencies and Departments right across Whitehall to get behind the ethos of this scheme, and make sure that communities are in charge, and that there is pride? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We will start investing. Phase 1 places are already receiving capacity funding, and £2 million will flow from next year. Phase 2 places—the places we recently announced—will receive capacity funding from next year, with full funding flowing from the year after. This is potentially a way to revolutionise the way that government works. We are very keen to work with Departments across Whitehall. We are saying, “Here is a way of investing in communities that genuinely puts communities in the driving seat.” Hopefully it has the impact that we want. \p Ben Maguire: I was really disappointed that Cornwall, despite having some of the most deprived towns in the country, will not receive a penny of pride in place funding. At a time when our shared prosperity funding is to stop, I am concerned to hear the Minister mention that the north and the midlands will receive pride in place funding. I hope she clears that up. Will she meet me and my constituent Fin Irwin, who has really exciting plans for Bodmin’s Fore Street in my constituency? They could be the basis for a great pilot involving social housing, opportunities for small businesses and community spaces, and it would prove that the Government want regional growth everywhere. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We are not able to fund all areas—I wish we were—so we have focused on particular areas of deprivation that also score high on the community needs index. However, we are also putting in place a whole set of powers and provisions so that every community can take control of its high streets and other areas, and can use the community right to buy. I am very happy to meet the hon. Member and other Cornwall Members to talk about how we can ensure that that part of the country thrives. \p Nusrat Ghani: I will try again. Dr Lauren Sullivan will show us how it is done. \p Lauren Sullivan: I welcome the Minister to her place. I thank her for Gravesham’s share of the pride in place impact fund; £1.5 million over two years is a really great investment, so that we can restart building communities and place—and there are new possibilities that once could only have been imagined. These priorities have been neglected over many years. Does she agree with me that the impact fund will make a real difference to Gravesham? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I do. It is a huge opportunity, and if we get this right, we will see tangible benefits in my hon. Friend’s constituency. \p Nick Timothy: I welcome the Minister to her new position. I enjoyed shadowing her on the energy brief. I really welcome the inclusion of Lakenheath in this announcement, and I look forward to working with her, and with residents and councillors, on making sure that the funds are well spent.

I want to ask the Minister how we build pride in place by improving local economies. Her Department is contemplating its plans for the development of Cambridge. My constituency is very affected by that development, and there is rising demand for new housing. I would appreciate it if I could meet her, or one of her colleagues, to discuss how we integrate new housing with transport connections. In particular, I am thinking of connections from Cambridge to Haverhill in West Suffolk. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank the hon. Member, and I am very happy to meet him. \p Julie Minns: I warmly welcome the Government’s investment of £20 million in the Raffles and Morton neighbourhoods of my Carlisle constituency. As I am very fond of reminding Members, Carlisle is the most northerly city in England—120 miles north of Manchester, and a very long way from this place. Does the Minister agree with me that what is truly transformative about this programme is not simply the money, but the fact that decisions about how it will be spent are put in the hands of local people, not politicians and civil servants in what we in Carlisle call “that London”? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right. Putting local people and communities in charge is game changing, if we get it right. I think it will lead to better decisions, and to an impact on places that matters to people. However, there is a big collective onus on all of us to get that right. The instinct to hoard power at  the centre and to control is strong, and we all have to work to make sure that we put our communities in the driving seat. \p Pete Wishart: I congratulate all Members who have secured funding in this pride in place settlement, but once again Perth and Kinross has been totally and utterly ignored. We did not receive one penny in levelling-up funding from the Tories, and we have received nothing from this Labour Government. Worse than that, they actually took away from Perth and Kinross the £5 million that we had finally secured from the Conservatives. The people of Perth and Kinross are sick and tired of being ignored in this merry-go-round of pork barrel politics. When are we going to get our share, and just what have the UK Government got against the people of Perth and Kinross? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We have allocated local growth funding to Scotland, which we will announce in due course. In addition, we are working with the Scotland Office on the allocation of the Scottish component of pride in place. This Labour Government are investing in Scotland and in our communities, but the Scottish Government are in charge, and if our communities are struggling in Scotland, responsibility for that sits with the SNP. \p Paul Waugh: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Paul Waugh, who will not want to let me down after his earlier infraction. \p Paul Waugh: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Rochdale, we warmly welcome this £20 million investment in Smallbridge and Hurstead, which is very much overdue. I am the Labour and Co-operative MP for Rochdale, which is the home of the Co-op, and we know more than anyone elsewhere the power of local people coming together, setting their own priorities and taking back control. Does the Minister agree with me that this investment is overdue because of the years of neglect by the Conservative party and Whitehall, and is a vote of confidence in local people? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right. Like him, I am a Co-operative MP, and I think the values of our Co-operative movement run through this programme. It puts local people in charge, but it also says that it is by giving local people a stake, giving them ownership and allowing them to generate community wealth that we make our places prosperous. \p Gregory Stafford: The Minister described those receiving the money as “true patriots”, but in my constituency we have not received a single penny of this funding. Are my constituents not true patriots? There are plenty of places in the north of Farnham and potentially in Bordon that could really do with using this money. I invite the Minister to come to my constituency so that I can show her the places that need the money, and the amazing job that others are doing already. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We would have loved to have had funding for every part of the country. Sadly, because of the inheritance—the hon. Member has encouraged me to raise this again—of 14 years in which the public finances were decimated and the Conservatives crashed the economy, we are having to navigate through that situation. However, alongside the investment in the places that have been chosen because of deprivation, we are giving all places the tools and the levers to reclaim their high streets and invest locally. \p Rosie Wrighting: It is a damning legacy of the Tories that being born in Avondale Grange in Kettering rather than three minutes down the road means that people’s opportunities are less, they face more health inequalities and, under the last Government, they were told to accept decline. This £20 million funding shows that this Government believe that no matter where someone is born, they deserve to have pride in their community. While Reform continues to seek division, can my hon. Friend outline how people having pride in their home and bringing communities together is a real example of true patriotism? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right, and she put it incredibly eloquently. We can change the country by bringing our communities together and giving them the tools and agency to change their place so they have pride. Labour Members are on the side of unity, and of bringing communities together to drive renewal. I note that there are no Reform MPs here, but they are on the side of dividing, and of simple slogans and simple answers that—to be candid—will not change the lives of people in our communities. \p Munira Wilson: The Minister said in her statement:

“Our job is to give our constituents the investment and powers that they need”.

Of course, we all agree with that, and today’s announcement is welcome. However, as a fellow London MP, she will be aware that the so-called fairer funding review will actually decimate the funding of many London local authorities. My own borough of Richmond is set to lose a staggering amount—over 90% of its core Government funding—and our most vulnerable and disadvantaged residents will suffer. [Interruption.] If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am being heckled by Labour Members— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. There isn’t time—get to the point! \p Munira Wilson: Will the Minister at the very least commit to an impact assessment of the fair funding review changes for local authorities such as Richmond, and will she grant transitional funding? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We have been consulting. We have closed the consultation, and we are looking through the responses at the moment. We have had representations from authorities across the country, including London. This Labour Government are very clear that we will continue to invest in our local areas and our communities. There is a need to rebalance, but we will do that in a fair way that does not negatively impact deprived communities. \p Antonia Bance: Last week, I went to the toddler group at Open Heaven church in Friar Park. The mums there told me there is nothing for young people to do in Friar Park—no playground, no youth club. Does the Minister agree with me that the £20 million is going to make the most massive difference to Friar Park, especially given that it is local people, like those mums, who will decide how it is spent? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right. The opportunity to invest through this in local community services and youth services is absolutely huge, and putting local mums in the driving seat is always a good thing. \p Ashley Fox: I welcome the fact that south Bridgwater has been included in this programme. These funds come on top of the £23 million allocated to Bridgwater under the last Government’s town deal. Parts of Highbridge in my constituency are equally deserving of funding, so can the Minister advise whether there will be any further rounds of allocating funding in this Parliament? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I think the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do the Chancellor’s job, which I shall not be able to do. We think that this is an exciting way of investing in our communities, and that there is a huge opportunity for us to leverage in additional investment. We are very keen to talk to social impact investors and philanthropists about how we can invest. There is also a lot of interest among the business community—local businesses and business improvement districts—in bringing this together. If we get this right and the funding in place leverages in additional funding, we will have shown that this is a way of operating that we can then roll out across the country. \p Jon Trickett: The Featherstone people have great pride in their place, but they are also shrewd. They know that the Tories did austerity, trickle-down economics and cuts across the health service, so they will very much welcome this announcement. May I push the Minister a little bit further on the question of a new economic model? Top-down economics has failed. Treasury mandarins do not understand what is happening in a place like Featherstone, whereas Featherstone people do. Does she see this measure as a way of community wealth building from the bottom up, rather than economics from the top down? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: Absolutely. The Prime Minister spoke about grassroots growth, which is growth rooted in our communities and our places, where we build community wealth, which fundamentally changes and rewires the economic model and the economic settlement. We are very deliberate about the fact that we want to put communities at the heart of both driving change, and driving wealth and economic opportunity. That is how we drive up living standards. \p Llinos Medi: The Government are presenting the pride in place programme as a win for communities across the UK, but the focus of this particular scheme is on neighbourhoods of around 10,000 people.  On Ynys Môn, only one town even meets that population threshold. That is not unique to my constituency; it is the case across Wales. Will the Minister explain why rural communities are excluded by design from this specific programme? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We are investing in rural communities, whether in Somerset or Wiltshire. We have used very clear metrics—we have used deprivation and the community needs index—to focus the programme on the areas that need it the most. We recognise that this is part of a bigger strategy, whether that is giving communities the power to reclaim their high streets, the investment we are trying to do through local government, or, critically, the job we are doing with our regional mayors to fundamentally drive economic prosperity. There is a bigger plan to invest in all parts of the country. \p Catherine Atkinson: For years in Derby, we have been pushing for this kind of long-term investment—investment that the fantastic community of Chaddesden richly deserves. It will take time and hard work to recover from the 14 years of neglect that communities like Chaddesden experienced. I would like every Chadd resident with ideas of how they can get the money spent and get involved to contact me. Does the Minister agree that it is key that local people have a say in how that money is spent? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right. This is a huge opportunity to bring the community together and for them to be in the driving seat. Therefore, reaching out to all parts of the community is one of the most powerful things that Members of Parliament can do. I have an organising background and this is an organising moment, because it is the ability to bring people—those who are not normally around the table and who cannot normally shape their places—around the table and to give them voice, power and agency. \p Sorcha Eastwood: Minister, the statement makes reference to engaging with the Northern Ireland Executive. Can you tell me what discussions you have had with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. It is not “Can you tell me?”; it is “Can the Minister tell me?”. Yes? Quick! \p Sorcha Eastwood: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister please tell me what discussions you have had with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive? You will be aware of the fact that the shared prosperity fund, which other Members have referenced, is not being replaced. The local growth situation is already jeopardising jobs in Northern Ireland. Can you make any comment on that, Minister? Thank you. \p Nusrat Ghani: Correction twice—it is not “Can you make a comment?” Let us please make sure we get our words right next time around. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We are working very closely with the Northern Ireland Office, which is in constant contact with the Northern Ireland Executive in terms of pride in place and community investment, and local growth  investment more widely. We will be working closely with them and ensuring that we are engaging with, and trying to design this with, the Northern Ireland Executive. \p Chris Webb: In my area of Blackpool, the damning legacy of the Tories means that we now live in the most deprived borough in the country. High streets such as those in South Shore—Bond Street, Waterloo Road and Lytham Road—have been left to ruin. Will the Minister outline how the £1.5 million that can be used to restore high streets can be used quickly and efficiently in South Shore? Will she join me in Blackpool to meet residents and businesses in South Shore, and get some fish and chips along the way? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I would love to join my hon. Friend and I would love some fish and chips. On the £1.5 million, we are getting out the first tranche this autumn, so places will already be getting the investment. We are already signing memorandums of understanding to ensure we can move quickly. There is a critical role for Members of Parliament, working with the community, to ensure that the investment goes into the things that the community wants. \p Lisa Smart: More money and power going into communities is of course a good thing, and it would be only right and proper for me to welcome some money going into my neighbouring area, represented by the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). I want to return to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) about the broader question of funding for local government. Stockport council covers my patch. Some £3 in every £4 it spends goes on adult and child social care. That is not sustainable. Three years to do a social care review is a long time. Will the Minister explain what conversations she is having with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to shorten that timeframe so we can crack on? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: We are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care. We understand the pressures that the social care system and its failures—which, again, we have to lay at the door of the Conversative party—are having on local government finance. We are doing what we can to give local government the flexibility to respond and increase the funding envelope, but there is a fundamental question about social care reform that is difficult and complex and that has been kicked into the long grass. We are determined to take this forward, but we have to do it carefully and we have to do it well so that it delivers the impact that everyone across the House wants to see. \p Lizzi Collinge: The £20 million pride in place funding going into the west end of Morecambe shows that this Labour Government are really trusting local people to spend money locally, without lots of bureaucratic hurdles—and I really welcome that. Whether it is smartening up Yorkshire Street or Regent Road, or getting under the bonnet and helping people with their health problems, in Morecambe we are ready to go. Will the Minister tell me if we can work together to get this going as quickly as possible and speed up the pride in place timescales? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right. We want pace, we want momentum and we want to get on with investing in our communities. Our community delivery unit will be working really closely with communities. If places want to run, it is our job to work alongside them so that they can run. \p Ayoub Khan: I welcome this new funding package. The city of Birmingham will receive £160 million over the next 10 years. My constituency, which has been in the media recently, undoubtedly has some of the highest levels of unemployment, child poverty, deprivation and health inequalities, but it has not received any of the funding. May I invite the Minister to meet me, so I can seek to persuade her that we need more funding, given that the eight neighbourhoods in Birmingham are patches that, unfortunately, have Labour MPs? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I would be happy to meet the hon. Member. We know there is deprivation across the country, and everything the Government are trying to do, from our strategy to drive growth to the work my colleagues in other Departments are doing on child poverty—we are taking action across the piece—is to tackle that. We have focused on certain communities, but we know that there is work to be done in all our communities. \p Grahame Morris: Peterlee is the place to be. Interestingly, Peterlee is the only town in the country named after a trade union leader. There will be great celebration of the Labour Government’s £20 million investment from pride in place in Peterlee. I welcome this money, which is going to make a real difference to people in my constituency who were ignored by the previous Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that it is important to note that this programme is not just new money, but gives new powers to local people to decide how it is spent? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right. What is game changing, in my view, is putting local people and communities in the driving seat and giving them powers to decide where they want to put the money. That will deliver impact, but critically it will also bring our communities together; it will bridge and create a sense of pride and a sense of community. \p Paulette Hamilton: I welcome the Labour Government’s £20 million investment in Kingstanding in Birmingham. For 14 years, my constituency was repeatedly overlooked; it was even denied levelling-up funding on two occasions. Can the Minister assure me that after 14 years of Conservative neglect, local residents will come first, going forwards? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right. The approach this Labour Government are taking is to put local residents and communities first. We will all have examples of communities that have been hollowed out; we will all know that sense of despair and distrust. We absolutely need to turn that around, and we are committed to doing so. \p Andrew Pakes: I warmly welcome the £20 million coming to Paston, Gunthorpe and the Welland area of Peterborough. This is pride in place being delivered by my hon. Friend the Minister—the  pride of Peckham—and I thank her. I am deeply proud as a Co-operative MP that the co-operative development unit is part of this strategy. Earlier this week, along with Peppa Pig and the Education Secretary, I visited Honeyhill’s childcare centre, which is a family hub in the centre of the area that will receive this funding. Can the Minister confirm that this money will be not just about bricks and mortar, but about changing lives? Facilities such as family hubs will be at the centre of how we can give children the best start in life. We can use this investment to change things for the long term in Peterborough. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right. If we get this right, it will be about not only the investment in the next 10 years, but how we create momentum around that and catalyse greater community wealth and, critically, how we invest in our communities for the long term. As a proud Co-operative MP, I think there is a huge opportunity for us to ensure that communities have a genuine stake and that communities are benefiting in the long term from the wealth that is being generated. \p Rachel Taylor: The Conservatives hollowed out our communities and Reform is exploiting it, and yet this Government are helping communities like mine to thrive. We have already had the announcement of our £20 million in the towns fund. We have set up our Believe in Bedworth board, because my residents believe in their town, and the chair of that board has said that he feels energised to have a hand in shaping the future of his home town. We have already had thousands of responses to our survey and are organising a family fun day on 25 October. We would be delighted if the Minister could join us for that. Can she outline how the £1.5 million of impact funding can help to turbocharge the groundbreaking work already being done by Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council to bring empty properties back into use? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank my hon. Friend for setting out the huge amounts of work and progress in her community. That is a great example of exactly how this can work really well. There is a huge opportunity with the impact fund to build on that; where neighbourhood boards and governance structures are already established and where people like my hon. Friend have done huge amounts of engagement with the community, we should absolutely be thinking about leveraging in more investment. \p Sureena Brackenridge: In June, I led a Westminster Hall debate calling for better investment in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, so I am delighted that my call was heard. I welcome the £20 million for Low Hill and an additional £1.5 million of pride in place impact funding. Does the Minister agree that the people who live in my communities, who know their strengths, their struggles and their solutions, must be at the heart of deciding what this money is spent on—not investment done to them, but investment by them and with them? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank my hon. Friend for the huge amounts of work she has done to champion this agenda and to come up with ideas to tackle deprivation. She is completely right: it is about communities in charge, driving change. It is not about change done to them, but about change with them in the driving seat. \p Caroline Nokes: I remind Members to keep questions short so that we can get try to get everybody in. I would not want Members to miss out on the opportunity to speak about their constituency because other Members had taken so long. \p Mark Sewards: I warmly welcome the £20 million for Old Farnley, but now is the time for action. Hundreds of people have already completed my survey. I have more than 100 volunteers for the neighbourhood board alone—it will not be that big—and we have plenty of ideas that we want to spend the money on. Given that we are ready and impatient to deliver, will the Minister empower my residents to crack on and spend this money and deliver the change that we know they deserve? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work and the huge progress he has made, both in reaching out across his community and in convening and galvanising people to join his neighbourhood board. We want communities to run this. We want pace and we want impact, and we are committed to working alongside him and his community to drive the change that they want to see. \p Tom Collins: The people of Warndon in Worcester feel immense pride in their identity, and they know that for far too long they have been unheard, let down and left behind. This commitment of £20 million to Warndon could be transformative, especially as it is long-term funding over 10 years. However, more than money being spent, the people of Warndon need to be heard, respected and empowered. Can the Minister assure the people of Warndon that she shares my determination that the power, the decisions and the money are in their hands? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend puts it eloquently and correctly. The power will be in their hands, and it is our job to ensure that is the way it plays out. \p Amanda Martin: On behalf of the people of Portsmouth, I am delighted that we have received £41.5 million under Labour’s pride in place impact programmes. Some £20 million of that is for Paulsgrove, which is close to my heart. It is a proud and resilient place, but it was neglected and ignored under 14 years of the previous Government. As pubs, shops and facilities have closed, volunteers and community champions have been running them out of their own pockets to keep that part of the city going. Will the Minister confirm that the community of Paulsgrove will now be able to have a say and put into action what the community wants and needs, with real investment from the Government, rather than from their own pockets? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend highlights the patriots I talked about—the people in our community who have been holding things together despite all the damage done by the Conservatives. We are clear that those people are the ones who we must champion and put in the driving seat. \p Michelle Scrogham: I welcome the pride in place funding announcement and, in particular, the £20 million that has been allocated  to Barrow Central ward in Barrow-in-Furness. It is one of the most deprived in the whole country, and it is refreshing to see that under this Labour Government, we are delivering to those who were left behind by our predecessors. Does the Minister agree that the people who live there not only know the opportunities and the barriers, but understand where we need to spend the money to put things right in these left-behind communities? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is 100% right. Understanding what is needed is game-changing, and I hope that this programme will deliver the ability to ensure we can act on that understanding. \p Alice Macdonald: The Labour Government’s £20 million investment for Heartsease and Pilling Park in my constituency will be transformative. For too long our communities have had stuff done to them, not with them, and this model will help change that. Will the Minister join me in encouraging all people who live in these areas to get involved? Does she agree that it is important that people of all ages and from all backgrounds, including people who have perhaps never thought before about doing something like this, get involved? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right. This is a huge opportunity for our communities to get involved. As I have said, I think there is a powerful role that Members of Parliament can play in putting out the clarion call. I encourage anyone, particularly those who have felt politics and decisions about their lives to be remote, to become involved. This is their chance to get around the table, to shape their place and to make sure that they drive the change that they want to see. \p Lorraine Beavers: After 14 years of Tory neglect, the town of Fleetwood has been buzzing with ideas about how to make the most of this fantastic pride in place fund. My community is ready to hit the ground running. We are hungry to deliver the investment we so badly need. Can the Minister assure me that the people of Fleetwood will get the resources we need to begin the work at the earliest possible opportunity? We cannot afford to wait any longer. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I completely agree that we need pace and urgency. Communities have been let down and held back for far too long, and this is our chance to act with purpose and speed. We want to stand behind communities so that they can crack on and make the change that they want to see. \p Elsie Blundell: The pride in place funding will be transformative for my constituency. I thank the Minister for working with me and for giving advice to urban areas such as Middleton—urban areas that a former Conservative Prime Minister bragged about diverting funds away from. I was delighted to convene a meeting at Burnside community centre recently where calls for improvements to Middleton were decisive. What steps are being taken to ensure that places with the most acute need, such as Middleton, are given priority within local authority areas? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is right to remind us that resources were deliberately taken away from some of our most deprived communities under the last Government, which is a shameful record. We are very clear that this is an opportunity to invest in our communities. We want local authorities to ensure that they are working alongside our communities and enabling them, and that the money and resources are going to the places that the communities believe need the investment. \p Jonathan Brash: I warmly welcome the £21.5 million pride in place investment for Hartlepool, which will go directly into our neighbourhoods. It comes off the back of the biggest deal in Hartlepool’s history of £6 billion for new nuclear and 2,500 jobs, and a brilliant Labour council delivering £150 million of capital investment in our town. Does the Minister agree that after years of being left behind, this shows that the people of Hartlepool have a Government and an MP who are on their side? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I 100% agree. That example shows the difference that a Labour Government working with a Labour council can make. We inherited a decade and a half of decline and neglect, and it is—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) is sighing from the Conservative Front Bench. He should be far more ashamed about his Government’s record. It is our job to turn around their failure and neglect. \p Kevin McKenna: Since the announcement of £20 million for the east of Sheppey, my constituents have been fizzing with excitement. I am getting loads of responses to my online surveys, and the coffee morning I held on Saturday—the first of many I will hold—was very well attended. People had really great ideas, but they had two main things to feed back. First, they want local people to be at the heart of this initiative. The citizens of Eastchurch, Warden, Leysdown and Shellness all want to be part of it, but they want to make sure it is centred on them, not on outside voices. Secondly, they want the funding to be a catalyst for further change and investment in the area. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that, and I would also quickly remind her that I have three more neighbourhoods in the bottom 10% of the country—just to add that to the list. \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his amazing work to reach out to his community and get that engagement and feedback from people. That is what will drive the change. I thank him for the feedback from his residents and community; will take it on board. We completely agree that residents need to be in the driving seat and that this initiative needs to be a catalyst. If we get this right, we can take the model to Whitehall, local businesses and philanthropy and say, “This is how we drive change in our communities. Continue to co-invest.” \p Terry Jermy: I am thrilled that my hometown of Thetford in rural South West Norfolk is to receive a share of this funding. Just last week I was at the board meeting where we made our first funding commitments to increase capacity and reopen a derelict medieval church in Thetford town centre as a community space. Does the Minister agree  that projects such as those will bring footfall back into our towns, support local businesses and improve our local economy? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that example. I completely agree; that is an incredibly exciting project. Those sorts of schemes can have a huge galvanising impact on our local areas. I look forward to seeing the progress that he and his community are making, and we will make sure that we do our part to support them. \p Dan Aldridge: To their great credit, the Bournville, Coronation and Oldmixon communities have survived in spite of previous Westminster disinterest. Does the Minister agree that this huge £20 million investment in Weston-super-Mare is an endorsement of our faith in every community champion who has kept our most vulnerable communities together while Westminster looked the other way? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the heroes who helped to hold our communities together through 14 years in which they were neglected and faced huge pressure. Pride in Place is a vote of confidence in those local heroes. Our job is to give them what they need in order to drive the change they have been rightly calling for. \p Darren Paffey: I am delighted that this Labour Government are investing £20 million into Weston and a further £1.5 million into the wider Southampton Itchen constituency. Ideas are already flooding in from a group of people who are relieved not to be overlooked yet again, as they were under the last Government. Does the Minister agree that such long-term, stable and—most important—community-led investment is absolutely the right way to transform communities like Weston for the better? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right. Long-term, stable investment that is anchored in our communities and puts them in the driving seat is a game changer. I am incredibly excited about the programme, but it is examples like his that show us just how transformative it could be. \p Luke Myer: I am delighted to confirm that the entire community of Park End and Beckfield will be able to benefit from the £20 million of investment through the Government’s Pride in Place scheme. Will the Minister confirm that the funding should be spent not by the council or by any politician but by the community themselves on the priorities they want to see? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: Absolutely, 100%. Communities are in the driving seat, with the neighbourhood board of a cross-section of members of the community—people who have never sat around the table—being around the table and driving the change that they want to see. \p Helena Dollimore: I really welcome the £21.5 million of extra funding for Hastings, and I am delighted that hundreds of residents have been in touch with their ideas about how to spend it. As the Minister said, it is better spent on people’s  priorities and not wasted as in previous schemes under the Conservative party, like the £150,000 wasted on Owens in Hastings. Public money was also spent on reopening the Bridge community centre in Ore, which has sadly been closed for seven years, so many in Hastings were shocked to hear that Parchment Trust, which was given the centre for free, plans to sell it on the open market for £650,000. Does the Minister agree that Parchment Trust should look at how it can return the centre to public hands and take up the Charity Commission’s offer to meet to discuss that? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: Absolutely. My hon. Friend gives us the example of how not to do this, as we saw that under the Conservative party. If we get this right and we put communities at the very heart of it, that is how we will drive change. I commend her on the amazing leadership she is showing in her community, working with others to bring them around the table to ensure that investment that has a long-term impact will drive change in her community. \p Richard Baker: Two neighbourhoods in Fife are benefiting from £40 million of Pride in Place funding, showing the Government once again delivering for the people of the kingdom of Fife. Given the centralisation of power in Scotland under the SNP, how does the Minister believe those funds can support local decision making in Scottish communities, particularly in areas of deprivation? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. We believe that communities should be in charge and in the driving seat—that is how we drive transformative long-term change. We desperately hope that the Scottish Government will look at what we are doing. The Scottish Government have been hugely centralising, but not always making decisions in the best interests of the communities we want them to. We think there is something that they can learn, and we will work with them to share the lessons and, critically, to advocate and encourage them to take a similar approach. \p Markus Campbell-Savours: I thank the Minister for this fantastic funding announcement. I know that my constituents in Maryport and Broughton Moor will make good use of this £20 million investment. Thinking back to the last Government’s approach to levelling up, I recall that the Public Accounts Committee criticised the lack of transparency in how levelling-up money was allocated. As pork barrel politics and levelling up are two very different things, will the Minister reassure us that lessons have been learned and this Government will be transparent? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The pork barrel politics we saw under the last Government were shocking. At a time when our communities were under huge pressure and we saw such deprivation, it was pretty egregious and unforgivable. This Labour Government would not do that. We are clear and transparent about the metrics that we have used; it is all published and it is there. Critically, we are trying to reach the communities that need the greatest help. \p Judith Cummins: For the final question, I call Richard Burgon. \p Richard Burgon: Not only as the Member of Parliament, but as an east Leeds resident, I am delighted that £20 million has been secured for Seacroft North and Monkswood, which really needs it. Does the Minister agree that the ideas and answers on how this vital money should be spent lie with the local people in Seacroft North and Monkswood, who were sadly left behind and let down by the previous Tory Government? \p Miatta Fahnbulleh: My hon. Friend is completely right. The answers lie with our local communities. If we do the job of creating the space for them, empowering them and building their capacity, they have the ability to fundamentally transform lives in our communities. I am determined to support that, we are proud that, as a Labour Government, we are putting it at the heart of our approach, and we are determined to deliver it. \p Liz Twist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members will be aware that the Upper Waiting Hall is this week hosting the Speak Their Name exhibition of suicide memorial quilts from across the UK. This would not have been possible without the help of House staff who have gone way over and above to ensure that the exhibition and last Friday’s launch with the Baton of Hope could take place. May I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to thank all the staff involved for their help and to pass on my appreciation? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. She has now helpfully placed on the record her thanks to those responsible for the exhibition and I will ensure that Mr Speaker is made aware of that gratitude, so that it can be passed on to staff. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Matt Western: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the accountability of police and crime commissioners; to make provision about the measurement of police and crime commissioners’ performance; to make provision about the setting of priorities for police and crime commissioners; to require the Secretary of State to commission a review of the operation and functions of police and crime commissioners, including consideration of options for their abolition and replacement; and for connected purposes.

My constituents are worried about crime and disorder across their communities. It is the same for a great many colleagues, if not the vast majority. For years now, they have seen a rise in crime, be it anti-social behaviour in their neighbourhoods, crime on their high streets, or, in more extreme cases, violence. Those concerns really matter; people deserve to be listened to and taken seriously by the police.

I am pleased that this Government are taking action, with the Crime and Policing Bill making massive strides to protect our communities. However, it will take time to reverse the impact of the original cuts to police numbers and the erosion of experience over the previous 14 years. The problem is that the public feel helpless: they feel that no one is listening to them and they do not know who to turn to, who to talk to and who is responsible for the police in their area. That brings me to the purpose of my Bill: that too often, police and crime commissioners have not delivered for their communities.

I will argue that PCCs need to be replaced and reformed with police and crime panels while the wider devolution process takes place. However, first, to understand the problem, we must look back 15 years to the changes introduced by the then incoming Government and their promise to bring “democratic control over policing” through the creation of PCCs. That proposal resulted in PCCs replacing police authorities and becoming the sole authority. As Prime Minister, David Cameron explained that police and crime commissioners would

“lead the fight against crime”

and be someone

“to hold to account if they don’t deliver.”

Today, how many of our constituents can name their PCC? Indeed, how many know what a PCC is? How many of our constituents think that their PCC is leading the fight against crime? Many would say that the promises of that original Bill have not been delivered and that we need to amend these shortcomings for the sake of our constituents.

How did we get here? Back in 2012, the first PCC elections were held. Turnout in the first election was just 15%, making it the lowest-ever turnout for a peacetime national election. As Prime Minister, David Cameron promised that turnout would increase over time, and it did, but it was hardly impressive and certainly not representative. In fact, turnout last year, 2024, reached 23% across England and Wales but it coincided with certain mayoral elections on the same day. The apathy for PCCs remains.

The problems run far deeper. Indeed, in 2024, the Home Affairs Committee said that the PCC approach faced “a number of challenges”, the foremost being the lack of public awareness of PCCs and their functions, the relationships between PCCs and chief constables and the lack of accountability. The Committee was concerned that the introduction of PCCs had seen the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy and additional cost, with questionable impact on the outcomes for police forces. It also noted that there was considerable variability in the relative performance between PCCs across the country, and that the nature of the relationship they have with their chief constable can damage the model entirely. The Committee concluded that their effectiveness was highly variable and questionable.

There is also the matter of legitimacy. As elected representatives, PCCs are held to account at the ballot box, but with turnout percentages often in the mid-teens, the public are clearly not taking them seriously. Also, while police and crime panels exist to scrutinise PCCs, they are constrained by funding and formal powers. The panels are limited in their funding to £53,300 a year, and this does not reflect the workload required to proactively hold the commissioner to account. In terms of formal powers, the police and crime panels lack the proper mechanisms to hold the PCC to account. The panel can only veto a decision once, be it a budget or a chief constable appointment. Furthermore, PCPs can investigate police and crime commissioners, but in real terms it is no more than a polite inquiry.

Across the country, we see examples of PCCs failing constituents. This became an issue for me in Warwickshire, and not just through casework and wider constituents’ concerns, of which there are many. It was truly crystallised by the news story of a cover-up between Warwickshire hunt, Warwickshire police and the police and crime commissioner. I will not go into the details, but the allegations are that the PCC, Philip Seccombe, and the then chief constable, Debbie Tedds, engineered a cover-up that prevented a case of illegal foxhunting by Warwickshire hunt from going to court. The PCC is supportive of Warwickshire hunt, and so was the chief constable, whom he alone appointed in 2021. That was rubber-stamped by the PCP.

Between October 2023 and November 2024, I wrote to the PCC and the chief constable six times on this issue. They blanked me. They withheld information   from me, an elected MP, and also from the police and crime panel. The PCC claimed that he did not have the information and that he had not seen it. I believe he obstructed me from getting that information. As a result, neither I nor the residents of Warwickshire have any trust or confidence in Commissioner Philip Seccombe or the senior leadership team at Warwickshire police. There was clearly collusion. That is what the public believe, and that is what I believe, too. The chief constable, whose daughter worked for Warwickshire hunt, retired early in September 2024, just three years after her appointment.

Public concerns across the country are not simply confined to ineffectiveness or collusion, as in the case of Warwickshire; they also centre on costs. In my home county of Warwickshire in 2023-24, the running costs of the PCC and his office were a staggering £1,175,000. That is just for one year. That is the equivalent of 38 trainee police constables in Warwickshire for one year. Across England and Wales, the total budget for the 41 commissioners is just shy of £50 million. Given that context, I am encouraged by the Government’s ambition to move the responsibilities of PCCs across to mayors through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but these changes will take at least two years to come into effect, so more immediate action is needed. In the meantime, we could be saving tens of millions of pounds a year and diverting that money straight to frontline policing.

It is increasingly clear that for, the most part, PCCs have failed to meet the needs of their communities. They have not brought greater accountability or improved police outcomes. I would argue that the time has come for us to change the system and do away with police and crime commissioners.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Matt Western, Chris Bloore, Adam Jogee, Debbie Abrahams, Sam Carling, Rachel Taylor and Matt Western present the Bill.

Matt Western accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 May 2026, and to be printed (Bill 312). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee \p UNKNOWN: “(1) Within twelve months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish a report into the merits of converting disused oil refineries and other relevant existing industrial sites into facilities for the production of sustainable aviation fuel.

(2) The report required under subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—

(a) an assessment of the technical and operational feasibility of such conversions;

(b) an evaluation of the economic viability of such conversions;

(c) the cost effectiveness of such conversions compared to new build production facilities, taking into account—

(i) the ability to use existing infrastructure such as tanks and pipelines;

(ii) the complexities of environmental remediation and site preparation;

(iii) the availability and suitability of a skilled workforce within proximity to such sites;

(d) recommendations for government actions to facilitate and incentivise such conversions, where they are deemed beneficial for enhancing the resilience and increasing the domestic production of sustainable aviation fuel industry.

(3) In preparing the report required under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to—

(a) sustainable aviation fuel producers;

(b) representatives of the oil and gas industry and workforce;

(c) environmental organisations;

(d) local authorities; and

(e) academic experts.

(4) The report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed through Government action.”—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause mandates the Secretary of State to publish a report within twelve months, reviewing the merits of converting disused oil refineries and other industrial sites for sustainable aviation fuel production.

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Olly Glover: 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:

New clause 2—Review of the supply of bioethanol for use in sustainable aviation fuel production—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a report reviewing measures to encourage the supply of materials for sustainable aviation fuel.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an assessment of the impact of the closure of bioethanol plants on the ability to encourage overall increases in sustainable aviation fuel production;

(b) options for mitigating any adverse impacts on the availability of supply of sustainable aviation fuel by the closure of bioethanol plants;

(c) recommendations for any necessary Government action to promote a stable supply of bioethanol for sustainable aviation fuel.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report outlining measures to encourage the supply of materials for SAFs, including considering the impact of bioethanol plant closures on encouragement to increase supply.

New clause 3—Increasing greenhouse gas saving potential of sustainable aviation fuel—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament a report which sets out a strategy for increasing the greenhouse gas emission saving resulting from the promotion of sustainable aviation fuel production in the United Kingdom.

(2) The report required under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to—

(a) proposals for incentivising the research and development of sustainable aviation fuels that maximise greenhouse gas emission savings;

(b) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, the minimum required greenhouse gas emission reduction in order for a sustainable aviation fuel to be issued a SAF certificate;

(c) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, minimum ratios for renewable content in blended sustainable aviation fuels, for the purpose of more quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(3) Twelve months after the publication of the report required under subsection (1) and within every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a further report which—

(a) sets out progress against the strategy; and

(b) makes any necessary adjustments to the strategy as a result of developments in the sustainable aviation fuel industry.

(4) In this section, “SAF certificate” has the meaning given in article 2 of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024.”

New clause 4—Reporting of Sustainable Aviation Fuel targets—

“(1) The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024 is amended as set out in this section.

(2) In paragraph (3), after sub-paragraph (5) insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State may vary the table in paragraph (7) in order to increase the obligation in any given year.”

(3) In sub-paragraph 33(2)(c) leave out “, and”

(4) After sub-paragraph 33(2)(d), insert “and

(e) consider whether the SAF obligation set out in the table in sub-paragraph 3(7) of this Order should be increased for any given year, and if so, set out steps the Secretary of State will take to effect such an increase.”

(5) After paragraph 33(2) insert—

“(2A) A copy of a report published under this article must—

(a) be laid before Parliament; and

(b) be sent to the relevant select committee of each House of Parliament.

(2B) In sub-paragraph 33(2A)(b), “the relevant select committee” is—

(a) in the House of Commons, the Transport Committee, provided that—

(i) if the name of that Committee is changed, reference is instead taken to mean the new name, and

(ii) if the functions of that Committee with respect to Sustainable Aviation Fuel become functions of a different committee of the House of Commons, reference is instead taken to the committee by whom the functions are then exercisable;

(b) in the House of Lords, any such Committee as the Chairman of Committees may appoint.””

New clause 5—Air travel providers’ use of sustainable aviation fuel: reporting requirements—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a requirement for air travel providers to report annually on their use of sustainable aviation fuel.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must specify—

(a) that the annual reports include figures for sustainable aviation fuel usage which can be easily understood, including expressed as—

(i) an absolute volume, and

(ii) proportion of all aviation fuel used; and

(b) that the annual reports are accessible to members of the public including by being made available on their websites.

(3) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the negative procedure.”

New clause 6—Economic Impact of the Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the Act.

(2) This report must include, but shall not be limited to—

(a) the impact on the UK’s aviation fuel industry;

(b) the impact on the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel supply including the impact on all small, medium and large producers and potential importers of sustainable aviation fuel;

(c) the impact on international and domestic tourism in the UK; and

(d) the impact on passenger air fares.

(3) The report required by subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within one year of this Act being passed.”

New clause 7—Targets for power-to-liquid aviation fuel usage—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the power-to-liquid aviation fuel targets as set out in section (3) of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024.

(2) The review carried out under subsection (1) must only consider—

(a) the effectiveness of the existing power-to-liquid aviation fuel target and;

(b) whether the target should be increased.

(3) In carrying out the review under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) producers of power-to-liquid aviation fuel;

(b) airlines;

(c) experts in sustainable aviation fuel production; and

(d) any other persons the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(4) A report setting out the findings of the review must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

Government amendment 1.

Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) The terms under subsection (4)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”

Government amendments 2 to 5.

Amendment 11, in clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out from “pay” to end of line 22 and insert

“to the designated counterparty in each month a standardised levy on their relevant disposals of aviation fuel products in the preceding month that must be publicised on invoices expressed in pence per standard litre.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to set a standardised levy rate payable by all suppliers of aviation fuel, that must be publicised by suppliers of aviation fuel on invoices to their customers.

Government amendment 6.

Amendment 8, in clause 12, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty to report on—

(a) the impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the proceeding 12 month period;

(b) a projection of the expected impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the following five year period.

(4) A report under paragraph (a) must be made within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under paragraph 3(a) before Parliament.”

This amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact that the revenue certainty mechanism has on passenger air fares.

Amendment 9, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty, where a venue certainty contract would result in a new production facility, to prioritise entering into any such contracts with producers that will use UK owned technologies in that facility.”

This amendment would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts.

Amendment 12, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make a direction under subsection (1) which requires the designated counter party to prioritise entering at least one revenue certainty contract with a producer of Power to Liquid sustainable aviation fuel if doing so will allow for at least one plant to reach Final Investment Decision by 31 December 2026.”

Government amendment 7. \p Olly Glover: Global demand for aviation continues to grow; it is projected to be two or three times bigger by 2050. In 2024, there was a record rate of increase in carbon emissions, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, and there was a new daily record for global aviation emissions in July 2025. Nearly half of all the carbon emissions to date from aviation have occurred since 2000.

Sustainable aviation fuel has been talked up for years as the solution, yet there has been a poor track record of unambitious targets not being matched by delivery. For example, in 2010, Boeing announced the target that 1% of aviation fuel globally should come from SAF by 2015, and in 2019, the International Air Transport Association set out hopes of reaching 2% by 2025, but   today, globally, the figure is just 0.3%. The UK’s published figure this year of 1.29% is better, but it nevertheless shows how far we have to go.

The Conservative Government promised back in 2022 to have five commercial UK SAF plants operational by 2025, but there is still only one. It is therefore right of the Government to have introduced legislation to attempt to make sure that the latest set of SAF targets move from fantasy to realistic, credible and deliverable plans, although these will ultimately need to transition us towards the development of truly zero-carbon flight technology. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for their contribution to the Bill Committee, and I hope that Members from across the House will consider the Liberal Democrat amendments.

New clauses 1, 2 and 3 all increase the chances of the intention behind the Bill being realised. New clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to assess and report on the potential for disused oil refineries and similar industrial sites to be used for the production of sustainable aviation fuel. New clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to assess the measures being taken to encourage the supply of materials for production of sustainable aviation fuel, and has a focus on bioethanol plants. That is especially important in the context of the expected closure of the Vivergo bioethanol plant near Hull, following the Government’s decision not to provide it with financial support.

New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the development of a strategy for analysing and maximising the potential of sustainable aviation fuels to contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

I also speak in support of two new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), both of which would improve the Bill by providing greater rigour and scrutiny of progress towards sustainable aviation fuel targets. New clause 4 would give the Secretary of State the power to increase SAF production obligations where necessary, and to ensure that reports on progress are laid before Parliament and relevant Select Committees. New clause 5 would introduce requirements for air travel providers to report on their use of sustainable aviation fuel, and to provide annual reports to the public via their websites. Collectively, new clauses 1 to 5 would strengthen the Bill and increase its credibility when it comes to SAF production and reporting on progress.

The Government’s SAF mandate requires just 22% of aviation fuel to be sustainable by 2040. That compares poorly with the European Union’s target of 32% by 2040. It is hard to square an objective of net zero aviation by 2050 with just 22% of fuel being sustainable a decade earlier, unless we put in place measures alongside SAF to cut emissions and make climate-friendly flight a reality. We urge the Government to clarify their plans for achieving their targets, particularly as hope for SAF progress is being used to state that Heathrow and Gatwick expansion are compatible with our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. \p John Milne: As my hon. Friend says, sustainable aviation fuels are being used by the Government to justify major airport expansions. One  such expansion would be at Gatwick, adjacent to my constituency. A target of 10% SAF by 2030 is optimistic in the extreme, as the Climate Change Committee said. If the Government’s own advisers do not believe in this target, why should we? \p Olly Glover: My hon. Friend makes a good point about what the Climate Change Committee has said. That is why I hope the Government will consider these Liberal Democrat amendments, which are intended to strengthen the Bill, so that its provisions become reality this time, and contrast with the many missed targets in the past on sustainable aviation fuel.

Making aviation genuinely sustainable will require the Government to go beyond securing investment in SAF, and to ensure that in the longer term, the SAF measures complement, rather than detract from, investment in zero-carbon flight technology. I hope that the House will support our amendments, so that our country makes a bigger and more rapid contribution to decarbonising aviation. \p Brian Leishman: This year, Petroineos—that is, Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos and PetroChina from the Chinese state—closed the Grangemouth oil refinery. Closure was not about some passionate quest for net zero. Closure happened because private capital and a foreign Government owned vital energy infrastructure, and because corporate profits are more important than community good to the billionaire Jim Ratcliffes of this world. There were 435 jobs lost at the refinery, and hundreds more lost in the shared services that are housed on site; 2,822 jobs were lost in the wider supply chain. That is mass de-industrialisation.

But closure is not just about job losses. The exodus of talented, skilled workers is awful, but closure also means that the site is no longer a positive destination for many local young people leaving school. We have seen an end to a generational employer in my community. The economic consequences are also absolutely enormous for local Grangemouth businesses, which relied on the custom of refinery workers and their families. Once again, I want to give credit to all the small local businesses that have kept town centres going in recent years. The pressure of running a small business when austerity and the cost of living crisis have hammered people’s disposable incomes can be all-consuming and incredibly stressful. I should know; I tried it for some years.

The economic turmoil of stopping refining is also a national issue, because the refinery was worth more than £400 million per annum to the Scottish economy. Politicians often talk about black holes. Well, that is a sizeable, industrial-shaped black hole to fill. I do not doubt that the Government understand the magnitude of how important it is to re-industrialise communities like mine in Grangemouth. The other day, I read my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who has done so much work to bring this Bill to the House, describing in Hansard the situation that he grew up in on the east side of Manchester, which lost its chemical and mining industries. He said:

“We are still getting over that in my great city.”––[Official Report, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Public Bill Committee, 17 July 2025; c. 108.]

He undoubtedly understands the social consequences of industry finishing up. No community can afford this continued spiral of industrial decline.

To go back to my original point, we have for decades been an economy controlled by private capital, multinational corporations and foreign Governments whose policy has been to make things elsewhere, and to sell here. Have the last four decades not shown that the country’s complete reliance on private capital means profits over people? We must adopt a new industrial strategy that meets the needs of working people and their communities by securing at least some form of public ownership of the new industries that we will need—that is a mainstream political view.

The Government must learn lessons to stop history repeating itself, and to prevent workers and communities having every last ounce of work extracted from them before they are discarded on a corporate whim. For the Government to create and benefit economically from the necessary green industrial revolution, which we need for our economy and for the planet, some form of Government ownership of future industries is necessary. Surely, that view should be at the heart of any Labour Government.

If the Government want to put their faith in private capital to mould Britain’s new industrial future, I urge them to think again. They need to be more active in the process of creating Grangemouth’s industrial future. They need to seize the initiative and invest in workers, communities industry and Scottish manufacturing. Producing sustainable aviation fuel is an enormous objective—one that we have committed to—and sites like Grangemouth are ideally placed for it. The infrastructure needs some degree of conversion and upgrade, of course, but it is there. The workforce and expertise are there. My local community needs to be re-industrialised. The Labour Government have ambitious SAF targets to meet, but, more importantly, they also have obligations to communities in our forgotten industrial heartlands. \p Sarah Olney: New clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), would require the Government to publish a report within six months of securing the supply of bioethanol for sustainable aviation fuel production. The Government have repeatedly cited the increased use of SAF as the answer to questions about how the UK will meet our net zero targets while expanding multiple airports in London. It was wishful thinking nine months ago, but that argument has now dissolved almost into impossibility. Not only did the summer proposal submitted by Heathrow Airport Holdings for a third runway include a request to add nearly 300,000 flights to our airspace each year, but the concerns regarding the production of SAF have become more prominent. That concern has grown following China’s implementation of its own SAF mandate, which will result in it using more of its production domestically. That will undoubtedly cause a challenge for the UK given that over 90% of our current SAF is imported from China.

The challenges to the UK’s ability to produce and import SAF were underscored by the Climate Change Committee’s recent report, which estimated that only 17% of the UK’s aviation industry will be using SAF by 2040. That is 5% lower than the Government’s own mandated targets, and 8% below the EU’s target. The estimate does not even take into account the additional flights that would come in and out of the UK as a result of the proposed airport expansions. In fact, in 2024 only 10% of bioethanol certified as renewable and  consumed in the UK was produced domestically. That was down from 17% in 2023 and 15% in 2022—a concerning trend and one that the Government must report back on.

In addition, the UK-US trade deal presents a threat to the UK’s domestic bioethanol production, as the agreement removed tariffs on US ethanol and replaced it with a zero-tariff quota of 1.4 billion litres. The US bioethanol industry is heavily subsidised and its companies will be able to undercut UK bioethanol industries. Vivergo Fuels’ plant in Hull, which had the largest capacity of any UK bioethanol producer, has already closed, with the managing director citing the US-UK trade deal as a significant factor that contributed to the site’s closure.

New clause 2 would require the Government to assess the impact of future plant closures on the production of SAF, and would ensure that options to mitigate the supply risks are investigated. This is a sensible proposal given the uncertain future facing our production sites. The amendment is necessary not only to protect our domestic plants, but to enable the roll-out of cleaner energy sources.

The Government’s plans to increase the capacity of our airports will result in unavoidable environmental damage, and falling short of our mandated SAF targets will only result in more pollution over our airspace. Following the Government’s invitation to Heathrow to submit a proposal for a third runway in January, I asked the company for a percentage projection of the flights that will run on first, second and third generation SAF by 2035. Alarmingly, that question could not be answered. Last month, I asked the same question again, but a response has not been forthcoming. It is unacceptable that Heathrow can propose a £49 billion project but not have the figures to substantiate its environmental mitigations.

Stemming from the Chancellor’s announcement in relation to the third runway, it is evident that support for that runway is driven by misguided financial incentives, with our environment being forced to take a back seat. The Government must not discard their environmental commitments, and the Liberal Democrats will continue to hold them to account on them. The first step towards protecting our air quality is for the Government to support new clause 2. If they do not plan to get behind it, will the Minister explain why? \p Tom Collins: I will speak to new clause 1. Context is important, as this Bill is a first step on a long pathway to decarbonising aviation. At the moment, SAF components are blended with existing fossil fuels to create usable aircraft fuel, as I will go on to discuss, but I think it is helpful for us to be aware of the context: the various generations of sustainable aviation fuel that will form a road map as we move into the future.

First-generation aviation fuels use oils, often of biological origin, as feedstocks, and they produce a kerosene-type fuel that can be blended with our existing jet fuel. Second-generation SAF is derived from solid waste that goes through a digestion process, producing alcohols that can then be formulated into aviation fuel-type products. Third-generation fuels—I remind hon. Members that there are four generations—use wet mass as feedstock. Again, that wet mass might be biological, but it is  incapable of competing with food crops for production, and the process produces an output that is much like a bio-crude oil.

As we move through the generations of sustainable aviation fuel production, it is important to remember that the outputs are different and are able to slip into different parts of the existing fuel production supply chain. The fourth generation is derived from gases, maybe even atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide drawn from the atmosphere. It is often referred to as a power-to-liquids process, and is an entirely non-biological process that requires a lot of new technology. It is a future solution, but an advantageous and attractive one as it can provide us with a purely synthetic fuel.

The point that I am illustrating is that the Bill is the first step in a long-term vision for aviation, in which sustainable aviation fuel is able to play a progressively larger role. In future, we may even move to different fuels all together. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen, I would like to give a shout-out to its role in the potential long-term future of power for aviation.

These generations of fuels also interact with the technology in our aircraft. Although current blends of sustainable aviation fuel can go into aircraft now, the aircraft will need to be upgraded as we move to higher fractions of sustainable components in that fuel, because some of the aromatic components in fossil fuels are not available in synthetic fuels. They are currently required by some of the seals in the engines, and the aircraft will need to move into future generations to accept high proportions of aviation fuel.

All of this is about having a strategic road map. The Bill is one step—one vastly enabling piece of legislation—and it follows a model that is well proven to help establish new technologies as part of a green and sustainable future. We have seen the similar progress in offshore wind, for example, where it has been utterly transformational beyond anybody’s expectations. This vehicle should be able to do similar things for the beginning of our journey on decarbonising aviation, but it needs a long-term plan. That is why there is a really important piece of work to be done in the secondary legislation enabled by the Bill. It is very important that that legislation takes account of all the factors being discussed through the various amendments that have been tabled.

I oppose new clause 1, because we must not oversimplify the journey before us. In fact, we must allow the Government the freedom to create a sophisticated, technically-led strategy to deploy these different types of sustainable aviation fuel, taking into account all factors, including our existing infrastructure, the production of biomass and the advancement of aviation technology. If we get this right, and if this game is played well, we have the opportunity to start successfully—and even lead—a journey that will be absolutely transformative, and to envisage a thriving, positive and sustainable future for aviation. \p John Cooper: For many years, I commuted by aircraft from Scotland to Dublin—so many years, in fact, that I can still recall there are eight emergency exits on a Boeing 737-800.   There are two at the front, two at the rear and four over-wing exits. What a great pity that this Bill does not have an amendment that is an escape slide.

While sustainable aviation fuel sounds wonderful, it is burdened with many inconvenient facts. The first is that there is no SAF production industry at the scale required. While new clause 1 is a bold attempt to jump-start production by repurposing old facilities, it is a jumbo jet of a task. The World Economic Forum estimates that by 2030, global demand for SAF is expected to reach 70 million tonnes per annum—around 4% to 5% of total jet fuel consumption.

Meeting likely demand in just five years requires an additional 5.8 million tonnes of capacity. What is the investment required to reach even that relatively modest goal? The WEF pitches it at somewhere between $19 billion and $45 billion globally. If that does not give our legislative autopilot the warning, “Terrain! Terrain! Pull up!”, then it should do. New clause 1 is unaffordable, whether backed by public or private finance, and I am afraid it is doomed to fail.

It is certain that the vast input costs will result in massively higher costs for passengers and air freight. I support the vital new clause 6, which would force an assessment of the economic impact of this Bill, which I fear will be nothing short of devastating. Some might piously accept fewer flights to the Costas or a little less airfreighted Kenyan mangetout on the dinner table, but making air travel ruinously expensive will have implications for thousands of jobs—millions globally—in not only aviation, but tourism. Many flights are not indulgences, but lifelines. We are an island nation, and many communities within the UK are entirely reliant on air links.

Will Britain—so long the pioneers of aviation, with a history stretching back to the first scheduled international passenger flight and the first jet airliner—be foremost in SAF? Probably not, for mandating SAF is easier than producing it, especially in a country with power prices as exorbitant as ours. Energy bills in Dumfries in my constituency are four times what they are in Dumfries in Virginia in the United States, and they are cheaper still in China.

We need a lot of power to make SAF. Many question its green credentials when so much carbon is generated in its production. Amendment 10 is a bid to explore the serious issues around SAF derived from either organic or synthetic sources. Much is made of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases using SAF sourced from waste fat and oil feedstocks, but, as we have heard, those basic building blocks are in limited supply. That issue is also addressed in, though not solved by, new clause 2. Using crops as feedstock may not reduce greenhouse gases at all, and there are huge implications of turning prime agricultural land and billions of gallons of water over to producing crops for fuel, rather than food. Again, Britain is at a disadvantage. America’s vast corn belt might get involved, but the British bioethanol industry is a warning to us, for it was not able to survive on current targets for the content in road fuel.

Other amendments, including amendment 11, concern themselves with how a revenue certainty mechanism will operate. My concern is that we risk creating a self-licking ice cream—a self-perpetuating system with no purpose other than to sustain itself. This Bill could guarantee moneys that simply offset the costs of manufacturing SAF, which is itself made expensive by  green levies. Would it not be better to put what money we have available into aviation excellence, driving up the efficiency of jet engines and airframes? Aviation is already playing its part in reducing its carbon footprint—according to some experts, engine efficiency is already up by as much as 83% from the early days of the de Havilland Comet jet liner. That progress can continue, although super-efficient jets need superalloys to handle the extremes of temperature in their engines, and those require the sorts of rare earths that China is hoovering up. Canada, by the way, has many of the same critical minerals; might we be better off investing in those than subsidising SAF?

If we want really big carbon savings, we ought to look to the sea. Much of what we trade—in and out—goes by sea, and cargo ships are heavily reliant on bunker oil, a tar-like substance with heavy emissions. If we want novel fuels, this island nation should look once more to Tennyson’s “boundless deep”, where the salt-caked smoke stacks belch still. Meanwhile, the wild blue yonder of the skies must not be made inaccessible simply by expensive green dogma. \p Baggy Shanker: Aviation is central to our economy and our way of life, whether it is delivering well over 300,000 jobs here in the UK, contributing over £22 billion to our economy, driving inbound tourism, or connecting communities, businesses and families the world over. I am proud of our world-leading aviation sector in Derby and many other places across the UK, and while aviation is an integral part of our economy, it is also one of the most challenging to decarbonise. Despite the scale of the challenge, though, we must keep pushing forward, because—as I have said before, and as I will say again now—without net zero in aviation, there is no net zero, full stop.

To ensure that future generations are able to access the opportunities that air travel can provide, we need to make sure that flying is greener. This Bill does exactly that. It will unlock the potential of UK SAF by delivering the confidence and stability that SAF producers need to continue to turbocharge growth as they drive forward green innovation. I welcome the Bill as a clear statement of intent that this country is absolutely serious about decarbonising the future and future-proofing our world-leading aviation sector. It is the right thing to do, and we must do it. \p Luke Taylor: I chair the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, and the debate on SAF has been a focus of many of our meetings. As a cover-all, I should declare my interests, having met with AirportsUK, Airlines UK, ADS Group, LanzaJet, Back British SAF, Valero, alfanar and others over the past six months. I also worked in the aviation industry for 16 years prior to being elected. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 1 to 5, tabled by my colleagues, and new clause 7. I also encourage the Government to support amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the Conservatives, which would strengthen and improve the Bill and give us the best chance to achieve its targets. I will tell the House why.

In 2023, aviation accounted for 2.5% of global energy-related CO2 emissions; however, when non-CO2 effects are included, its contribution to climate warming increases to approximately 4%. Although that is a small fraction  of global emissions, it is not insignificant. However, in my experience, few sectors take their role in bringing down emissions and tackling climate change as seriously as aviation, primarily because fuel burnt and emissions released is money spent.

As other Members have already made clear, decarbonising aviation and achieving net zero carbon UK aviation will require a huge range of different measures. Measures such as Operation Blue Skies, a global contrail avoidance system, will reduce the density of the heat-trapping contrails produced by aircraft, which creates nearly half the overall climate-warming impacts. Continuing improvements in aircraft engine and airframe efficiency are also critical, and that too has been mentioned by others.

British innovation in aviation is something of which we should be incredibly proud. Projects such as the Airbus Wing of Tomorrow programme—which I saw at the plant in Filton in Bristol this summer—deliver continued improvements in carbon emissions per revenue passenger kilometre. That will form a huge slice of the reduction in fuel consumption. Other innovations and schemes that are already in the mix also present opportunities for greener aviation. Airspace modernisation will produce more direct flight routes, less congested airspace and fewer en-route delays, and smarter investments in capacity-building have the potential to reduce landing and take-off delays that burn fuel as aircraft circle airports or idle on taxiways waiting for slots.

In the long term, I have confidence in our world-leading aviation industry to develop true zero carbon aircraft power plant alternatives such as battery, hybrid and hydrogen-powered flight. An example is ZeroAvia, which is at the cutting edge of pure hydrogen-powered flight in the Cotswolds and which I also visited in August. In the meantime, however, we must look to sustainable aviation fuel to reduce the carbon emissions of our current technology aircraft, and bridge the gap until technology can catch up. This technology can deliver proportionately the greatest reduction in emissions by 2050. SAF can achieve an average of more than 70% greenhouse gas emissions savings on a lifecycle basis, and we can achieve twice as much energy capture by producing SAF as from producing energy from waste, for example. Third-generation SAFs, at the most exciting cutting edge of SAF production, could produce aviation fuel from thin air by combining carbon dioxide and green hydrogen, powered by renewable energy.

When it comes to the major contributors to climate change emissions around the globe, almost every use of fossil fuel has a readily available alternative that can be swapped in for immediate use. The only barrier is availability. We have made huge strides in industries where we recognise the benefit not just to the economy but to society, and to individual liberty and quality of life, which means that we must preserve and enhance them for future generations.

Over the past 250 years, our trains have developed from coal to diesel to electricity power. We never countenanced the idea that we should use our rail network less, or travel less around the growing network of railways that built Great Britain for 200 years; instead, we invested in the technology that allowed us to continue to trade and travel with reduced emissions and pollution. Our electricity  generation has gone from coal to gas, and now to solar, wind and nuclear; again, we did not suggest that we should phase out the lightbulb or electric kettle, or the factories powered by electricity that build the exports that are now traded around the world. We stepped up and became a world leader in carbon-free power. Petrol-guzzling road vehicles are now being replaced at an encouragingly fast rate by their hybrid and fully electric alternatives—and, again, we did not suggest the retirement of the buses that carried the people, and the lorries that carried the goods and served as the backbone of Britain. We pushed forward with battery and hybrid power plants, and the tightening of emissions standards for fossil fuel vehicles.

Britain has long been able to bank on its wealth of innovation and expertise. We reject short-termism, and refuse to accept that the energy transition is a zero-sum game. In an age of populism—and, I dare say, eco-populism, whatever that is—it is more important than ever that we fall back on that proud tradition. We should not, in fact we cannot, give in to a world view of climate action that is stunted by the blinkers of a zero-growth, miserly, defeatist mindset. The British people deserve better than that. They cannot be expected to go willingly into a greener future if that future is one in which they are poorer, or face restrictions on their mobility and liberty, but that is exactly what restricting the ability of our communities and industries to travel and trade around the world via our global aviation network would do.

Let me be clear: if I did not think we could make this transition in aviation, I would not be taking this view. Although I share and support the healthy scepticism of many of my colleagues, I tend to approach issues like this with a “Yes, if”—yiffy—attitude. Yes, if we can deliver the SAF required to meet the SAF mandate targets and the resulting emission reductions, we must go ahead with it. From everything I have learned from my own experience, everything I have heard and seen from the industry, and my faith in great British innovation, I know we are capable of delivering that SAF. Measures like those in this Bill provide a good starting point for this revolution.

The Bill is supported by all parties and by UK airlines and airports, and it should be straightforward to pass this afternoon. Again, we are competing to make it better. I am glad to see that most of us in this place recognise that the UK’s world-leading aviation sector supports over 1 million UK jobs and is an enabler of key UK growth-generating industries and exporters, as recognised in the industrial strategy. I ask all Members to support the burgeoning domestic UK SAF industry as it seeks to add 10,000 new jobs by 2030 and up to 60,000 by 2050, thereby incentivising billions of pounds of investment into former UK industrial heartlands, as mentioned by colleagues.

I welcome the Minister to his place and thank him for finally delivering this Bill, following his contribution in Committee. I encourage the Government to take on board the amendments and new clauses, which I am sure are meant to improve this Bill and make our climate change goals that bit easier to achieve. \p Sadik Al-Hassan: I greatly welcome the progress of this vital Bill, which will help ensure that the United Kingdom takes a genuine global lead in the development and use of sustainable aviation  fuel. Sustainable aviation fuel is the key to solving many of the challenges we face today and those we will face in the decades to come. Aviation currently accounts for around 7% of the UK’s total emissions. As demand for travel continues to grow, that figure will only rise, unless we act now.

If we are to meet our net zero commitments while keeping flying affordable and accessible, sustainable aviation fuel must be at the heart of our strategy. It offers one of the most practical and immediate ways to decarbonise flight, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and secure the economic future of one of Britain’s most successful industries. That is why this Bill is so essential for our environment, our economy, our technological leadership and the future of British aviation.

I would like to draw attention to the £4.5 million investment by Exolum in the existing Redcliffe Bay facility, in my constituency of North Somerset, which is already happening without the need for new clause 1. It will be the home of the UK’s first independent sustainable aviation fuel blending facility. When it becomes operational in 2026, it will underpin green fuel supplies for some 65,000 flights to major airports, including Heathrow, Gatwick, Cardiff and, of course, Bristol. \p Andy McDonald: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Will he join me in thanking our hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) and his predecessor, Alex Cunningham, for securing the Alfanar investment in that constituency, and our right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) for securing investment at the Wilton International Centre, which will lead to many hundreds of secure, permanent jobs? \p Sadik Al-Hassan: My hon. Friend is, of course, right to highlight such advocacy in the sector. I welcome his contribution.

The Exolum project is not just a boost for our regional economy; it is a clear signal that the UK can combine its climate ambition with a sound industrial strategy. The production subsidies for SAF introduced by this Bill are therefore already very welcome and are the right step forward, but production plants are only as good as their ability to get their product to market. Without that capability, they cannot attract investment or access the very subsidies that this Bill rightly establishes.

Fortunately, the UK is blessed with an extensive aviation fuel pipeline and storage network—one of the most advanced in the world. Companies such as Exolum are already using that network to deliver cleaner fuels across the country. From my visits to Redcliffe Bay, I know that Exolum has additional storage capacity that it would like to bring back into use to help deliver even more SAF. Companies at the forefront of this shift, such as Exolum, must be supported to deliver further investment at Redcliffe Bay in my constituency—and at other sites—and across the national pipeline network to create a new SAF super-highway for the UK. Such a network would allow producers to get their fuel to market efficiently, and it would secure our long-term position as a global leader in green aviation.

Crucially, my constituency is also home to Bristol airport, which has demonstrated real leadership in this sector. In March, almost a year ahead of the Government’s mandate, Jet2 began operating flights from Bristol airport  using SAF, cutting emissions by an impressive 70%. However, our ambitions for cleaner flights cannot stop at SAF. Bristol airport’s same leadership can and should be applied to hydrogen in aviation, ensuring that the south-west continues to lead the UK’s journey to greener skies.

Hydrogen is a key element of the future aviation landscape and the broader energy transition. As we stand at the crossroads and decide which industries and technologies to support, we must not overlook the infrastructure that will support hydrogen tomorrow, as well as its supply chain, its production and its distribution. Investment in hydrogen benefits both the industries of today and the industries of 2050. However, that investment requires certainty, which only Government direction and leadership can provide via a road map already laid out in this Bill.

I believe deeply in the potential of hydrogen, and I am proud that the south-west is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this opportunity. We have world-class research facilities such as those I have visited at the University of Bath, innovative small and medium-sized enterprises such as Hyflux in North Somerset, and a cluster of industries already looking to the hydrogen future. For my constituents in North Somerset, this Bill in its current form delivers both cleaner skies and a sustainable future for a vital industry. Looking ahead to hydrogen in aviation, the opportunities are particularly exciting for our region. The research, development, production and infrastructure required for hydrogen fuel are rightly taking root in the south-west, near Bristol, which is the home of AI in the UK, where the fantastic Mayor, Helen Godwin, is creating jobs, driving innovation and positioning us at the forefront of this emerging technology.

This Bill is not merely climate policy; it is economic strategy, industrial ambition and national leadership combined. Sustainable aviation fuels are essential to the survival of our aviation industry, but let us not allow our ambition to cease there. Hydrogen represents another key to unlocking our sustainable future in the UK, and this Bill provides us with the learnings we will need to make hydrogen in aviation a reality. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I am pleased to rise to speak to my new clause 7 and amendment 12. I support the intentions of the Bill, and I want to strengthen it with my amendments, which I believe are essential to ensuring this legislation delivers a real, lasting impact for our climate, our economy and our position on the global stage.

The Bill rightly seeks to unlock private investment in UK sustainable aviation fuel through a revenue certainty mechanism. This is a welcome and necessary step that gives certainty to businesses looking to invest in this world-leading mechanism to decarbonise the aviation sector. However, if we are serious about climate leadership, preventing the worst effects of climate breakdown and long-term energy resilience, we must do more than build a framework; we must prioritise the right fuels.

That is why my new clause 7 focuses on power-to-liquid sustainable aviation fuel. Not all SAF is equal. Power-to-liquid SAF is the cleanest, most sustainable option we have, in my opinion. It is made from renewable electricity and captured carbon, and it does not rely on limited or environmentally questionable feedstocks such  as used cooking oil or palm derivatives. It is future-proof, and it is essential if we are to hit our net zero targets without compromising environmental integrity. The Government themselves, in their SAF mandate guidance, recognise power-to-liquid fuels as having the greatest potential. The Committee on Climate Change has said that we need 13 TWh of synthetic fuel by 2040 to stay on a credible path to net zero. The potential is there, but it will remain untapped unless we take deliberate action to bring this industry to life.

New clause 7 is simple but strategic. It would require the Secretary of State to use the powers under the Bill to prioritise entering into at least one revenue certainty contract with a power-to-liquid SAF producer, where doing so will allow a project to reach final investment decision by the end of 2026. I am not asking for handouts. I am asking for the Government to show the leadership needed to de-risk the first mover, just as other countries are doing across Europe and North America. Without that certainty, no bank will lend and no project will proceed. New clause 7 would send a clear message that the UK is open for clean aviation, self-reliance and energy security. \p Ayoub Khan: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is making some very persuasive points. I support the intentions of the Bill and pushing for these fuels is absolutely the right thing to do, but does he agree that we must also keep a focus on the wider opportunities—for example, in hydrogen, battery electric systems and next generation e-fuels—if the UK is to be a leader in this technology? \p Iqbal Mohamed: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I wholeheartedly agree. We in the UK have the capabilities to be a leader in these technologies and we must take a collective approach on green energy for both environmental and economic gains. We need certainty for private capital to flow in and the delivery of long-term taxpayer returns.

Amendment 12 looks at the SAF mandate itself. It requires a review within 12 months of the sub-target for power-to-liquid fuel to assess whether it is ambitious enough and whether it reflects the urgency of the climate challenge and the pace of international competition. This is not about setting targets in haste; it is about ensuring our targets are based on evidence, consultation and real-world feasibility. The amendment explicitly requires engagements with power-to-liquid producers, airlines, experts and wider stakeholders, and it requires that a report be laid before Parliament.

Let me be clear: I do not stand alone in calling for this. More than 130 organisations, from airlines and clean energy firms to researchers and investors, have called on the Government to prioritise PTL through the Bill. They have called for urgent engagement, timely regulation and a clear pathway to a commercial-scale plant in the UK by 2026. We already know the EU is moving faster, alongside Canada and the United States, with more ambition on PTL. If we fall behind, we will become importers of clean fuel, not exporters of clean technology and we will miss the industrial opportunity staring us in the face. Time is of the essence, and we must all work together to get this right. \p Edward Leigh: I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says and I completely support his good intentions. The problem with sustainable aviation fuel is that it is perhaps five times more expensive than what we are currently paying, and that stocks are very limited and—we have been talking about livestock feeds—even more difficult. I am completely with him on the ambition, but we must also protect consumer rights, the right to fly at a reasonable cost and the cost to the economy. As with all green energy policies, there must be a balance. I am sure he will agree with that. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I do understand his point. This is a transition. We are moving away from fuels that are killing our environment and our ability to survive on planet Earth. It is a responsible thing to do to find ways to reduce our reliance on carbon-generating fossil fuels through cleaner alternatives. This may not be the final solution for aviation—it might be a transition. Future technologies and innovations might allow us to stop the use of such fuels altogether.

More than 130 organisations from airlines and clean energy firms to researchers and investors have called on the Government to prioritise PTL through the Bill. They have called for urgent engagement, timely regulation and a clear pathway to a commercial-scale plant in the UK by 2026. As I have mentioned, the EU, Canada and the United States are moving faster. We must not miss this industrial opportunity to take a lead in progressing innovative SAF alternatives and licensing that technology around the world. We must act decisively, not incrementally.

I support the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, but I believe we have a responsibility to make it stronger, bolder and more targeted towards the fuels that will truly deliver net zero. My amendments are practical, proportionate and widely supported. They add not cost, but clarity, confidence and a commitment to a sector that needs all three. If we want to lead the world in clean aviation, we must lead with action, not just ambition. I call on friends and colleagues across the House to support the amendments in my name, and in doing so to give PTL the foothold it needs to take off in the UK. \p Edward Morello: Sustainable aviation fuel offers us a route to decarbonise one of the most carbon-intensive industries and to secure the future of our aviation sector in a way that is compatible with our net zero goals. Climate change remains the greatest challenge of our time. It is an existential threat to us, our children and our grandchildren, and every decision made in this House must be measured against the scale and the urgency of the crisis.

Aviation, while connecting people and driving our economy, is a contributor to the problem. In 2022, it was responsible for almost 30 million tonnes of CO2, equivalent to about 7% of the UK’s total emissions. Even as emissions from other sectors decline, aviation’s share is projected to rise to 16% by 2035. That is not compatible with our net zero targets, nor with our moral obligation to keep global temperature rises below 1.5°.

Sustainable aviation fuel is not a silver bullet, but it is a step towards addressing the challenge. As someone who spent almost a decade working in renewable energy, I have seen how technology, innovation and the public  trust must work hand in hand if we are to make lasting progress in addressing climate change. However, with innovation must come accountability, which is why I have tabled new clauses 4 and 5. These new clauses would strengthen this Bill and aim to make the transition to clean flight more accountable, more transparent and, yes, more ambitious. New clause 4 would support the Secretary of State to raise sustainable fuel targets in any given year and introduce a duty to consider annually whether the target should be increased. The Secretary of State would also be required to set out what steps the Government will take to make any increase possible. In short, to ensure that the Government cannot forget the targets, it would require them to revisit, review and, wherever possible, raise their ambitions for cleaner flight.

New clause 4 would strengthen the parliamentary scrutiny. It would require the Government to lay a copy of each annual report before Parliament and share it with the relevant Select Committees in both Houses, meaning proper oversight and public accountability. Progress must not just be made; it must be seen to be made if we are going to take the public with us.

New clause 5 would build on that principle of transparency and public engagement, requiring air travel providers to report annually on their sustainable aviation fuel in a way that passengers and the public can actually understand. Too often, data about emissions and fuel use is buried in complex technical reports that mean little to consumers. Under this proposal, airlines would publish both the total amount of SAF used and the proportion it represents of their overall fuel consumption. \p Julia Buckley: The hon. Gentleman is giving a very detailed speech. Would he agree that we already have the annual carbon budget audit, which looks each year at exactly those emissions and was what drew to our attention the growth in this sector and why we need to focus exactly on driving down emissions from the aviation sector, which led us to the SAF mandate? Does he acknowledge that we already have a mechanism for this, which has helped us to get to where we are today with this excellent Bill? \p Edward Morello: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She managed to make a detailed speech sound like a backhanded compliment. I do not disagree with her point that we have several reporting standards, and my only counter-argument would be that I do not believe there can be too much transparency. If that results in information being presented in a way that gives the public further clarity and puts greater pressure on any Government to speed up the transition, that can only be a good thing.

Those figures must be presented clearly in a format that is accessible and easy to find on websites and in public material. That matters, because whether it is demonstrating that solar and wind power lower bills, that carbon removal technology will provide jobs or that sustainable aviation fuel can cut emissions, we must be transparent to build public trust and belief in what we are doing. The powers in this Bill to fund the strike price mechanism to levy fines on fuel suppliers who fail to pay are all welcome, but they must be matched by equally strong accountability to this House and the general public. The amendments I have proposed would ensure that the Government are required to review  progress every year, to explain how targets will be strengthened, and to make transparent the actual use of sustainable fuel across the aviation industry. \p Tom Collins: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Edward Morello: The hon. Member is just in the nick of time, so I will. \p Tom Collins: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I would like to speak to his comments and those of the Father of the House about the impact on consumers. In Committee, the Government made it clear that they are alive not only to the considerations of cost and the impact on consumers, but to the extreme complexity of how aircraft logistics and fuelling function across global markets, and how aircraft are operated on a day-to-day basis. That makes some of these reporting requirements extremely difficult for airlines to deliver. We do not want to create a burden of bureaucracy that drives airlines away from sustainable fuel and back towards unsustainable pure fossil sources. I support the Government’s position that we should stay where we are and build processes that provide accountability. \p Edward Morello: I think I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am afraid that I do not agree that increasing reporting burdens on industry is a bad thing. Every industry will argue that reporting is onerous. The liturgy starts with water companies. Companies will hide behind not having to report. On the need to move forward with technology, I am reminded that Henry Ford once said, “If I asked people what they want, they would say a faster horse.” The reality is that technology will be the route to our achieving our net zero goals, and this is one step on that pathway.

I will finish. New clauses 4 and 5 would strengthen this Bill, strengthen public confidence and demonstrate the UK’s global leadership, and I very much hope the Government will support them. \p Caroline Nokes: That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Olly Glover: This has been an informative debate on all the new clauses. From a procedural point of view, we are happy not to push new clause 1 to a Division. \p Greg Smith: To begin, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to the synthetic road fuel provided to me for a constituency surgery tour last year. That is not strictly relevant to sustainable aviation fuel, but I want to be entirely transparent about it, as I have been throughout this Bill’s passage.

May I also welcome the new Minister to his place? He has a big pair of shoes to fill, and I equally want to commend the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—we did not always see entirely eye to eye—for the effort and attention he put in to getting this Bill through the House and to his other duties in the House.

I begin with new clause 6, which requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the Act once it is in force. This amendment goes to the nub of what is important. Does the Bill  enable growth or stifle it? Does it support our world-class aviation industry or go against it? More importantly, does it enable our constituents to do what they have always done and fly, be that on holiday, on business or to visit family and friends overseas, or does it hinder them in doing that; and does it hinder our businesses in bringing goods in and out of the country by air?

New clause 6 forces the Secretary of State to confront the realities of the Bill on multiple fronts. It covers the impact on the UK’s aviation fuel industry and the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel supply, and the impact on small, medium and large producers and potential importers of sustainable aviation fuel. \p Iqbal Mohamed: Could the hon. Member clarify over what period the Government would do the cost impact assessment, if they were to do one? Does he agree that the transition to any new technology requires significant initial upfront investment? All the trillion-dollar companies in the world were losing millions before they became profitable. \p Greg Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come on to some of the technological points he made earlier, which it may surprise him to hear that I was incredibly sympathetic towards. On the timescale he asks for, I think it reasonable that, when a new Act comes into force, the Government should review it on a yearly basis at least, if not more frequently, to check that it is working. The point he makes is valid, and I thank him for it.

Last on the list of impacts covered by new clause 6 is the impact on international and domestic tourism in the UK and passenger air fares. We in this House can pass all manner of laws and schemes, and we can mandate new things, but their impact, including on the wider economy, matters. Reviews like the one proposed by new clause 6 would ensure that Governments of all political persuasions monitored real-life outcomes and, if necessary, tweaked provisions—or completely changed course. I cannot for the life of me understand why any Government would run scared of such a clause; it would help them govern better in the long run. \p Scott Arthur: The hon. Member will know that countries right across the world are moving towards SAF. Has he reviewed them to understand what is unique about the UK that means that we are vulnerable, while other countries are able to drive ahead? Are these countries undertaking the same bureaucratic reviews of their own legislation, and which country is he modelling his approach on? \p Greg Smith: I think it is necessary for any Government to review the legislation they are passing to check that it actually works, does what it says on the tin, and does not negatively impact real people and businesses going about their day-to-day lives. If he has paid attention to the debates in previous stages of this Bill, he will know that I support a move to sustainable aviation fuel; I will come on to that shortly, when I speak about other amendments. I think, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) does, that some technologies are superior to others when it comes to power-to-liquid, but the move to those fuels is very important. We have to get it right. If we do not, and we do not make it affordable, it will not happen. \p Edward Leigh: I commend my hon. Friend on his speech. Does he agree that the Conservative way is to ensure practicality over mere ideology, and consumer rights over Government imposition of controls and regulations that can do serious damage to the economy and people’s livelihoods? \p Greg Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House; I could not have put it better myself. It is essential that whatever measures, on any matter, are brought forward by any Government—be it the current Government or any future Government—real people’s lives and the cost base be reviewed regularly, so that we are not making people poorer, or stopping people from being able to do what they want, be it go on holiday, travel for business or move goods around.

With that, I come to amendment 8 and the cost impact on passengers. The amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism on passenger air fares. One of the most contentious areas surrounding the Bill, and indeed the Government’s whole approach to net zero, is: what does it actually cost real people? The amendment seeks to clarify that, and it gives the Government the opportunity—in theory, they should cheerfully embrace this—to lock in a claim that they profess to believe, namely that the Bill will have an impact of plus or minus £1.50 on air fares. The previous Minister repeated that statistic time and again on Second Reading and in Committee. The new Minister has the challenge today of either sticking with his predecessor’s assertion, backing the amendment and locking in protections for consumers, or admitting that this may well be more costly to air travellers.

It is worth noting that during the evidence stage of Bill Committee, none of the witnesses was willing to affirm the Government’s figure. In fact, some noted that the estimated price appeared low. For example, Jonathon Counsell from International Airlines Group stated:

“We think there are potentially some elements that have not been included in that calculation, but £1.50 per passenger feels quite low when you think the costs of the SAF itself will be nearer to £10.”––[Official Report, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Public Bill Committee, 15 July 2025; c. 17, Q12.]

Consumers need peace of mind that the Bill will not cost them dear, and will not act as a financial barrier to the family holiday or any other trip, so failure to back the amendment can only mean uncertainty.

I turn to amendment 11, which is focused on transparency. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to set a standardised levy rate, payable by all suppliers of aviation fuel, that must be publicised by suppliers of aviation fuel on invoices to their customers. Valero, for example—one of the world’s largest renewable fuels producers—has contacted the Opposition arguing for the amendment, saying that it would offer a workable solution; it would support the development of new SAF production without significantly impacting the industry as a whole. The amendment would apply the levy equally to all jet fuel suppliers, providing a fair and transparent mechanism for supporting the broader SAF industry.

Just this week, I have been contacted by Virgin Atlantic, which is arguing that transparency safeguards must be in place to keep costs low for consumers. As organisations including the International Air Transport Association have highlighted, since the mandate came into effect in  January 2025, fuel suppliers have been adding compliance risk premiums to the cost of mandated SAF, contributing to the price of SAF and doubling it for some carriers. That is to cover the eventuality that they do not meet the 2% mandate target and must pay the buy-out price for any missed volume. Virgin Atlantic has argued that to prevent SAF prices increasing further, the revenue certainty mechanism must have sufficient safeguards in place to ensure transparency over cost pass-through. There must also be a transparent process for refunds in the event of over-collections, and all revenues generated under the RCM should be ringfenced, rather than going into the general taxation pot.

Amendment 9 looks at British technology and intellectual property. It would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts. As I said from the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, there is a historical reality that we need to confront, and the amendment would stop history repeating itself. The historical error that I refer to is this: a great many projects supported by grants from the advanced fuels fund use foreign-owned technology. It cannot be right that the British state, while arguing for domestic fuel security, funds overseas technology when we have incredible innovators and manufacturers right here.

Domestic fuel security must mean domestic fuel IP, manufacture and supply. It is important both to develop a UK market for SAF, eSAF and local production, as is provided for by the Bill and the mandate, and to support and encourage the use of home-grown technology for the manufacture of those products. That not only retains revenue in the United Kingdom but leverages a huge amount of revenue for future exports through technology licensing. The amendment tackles that head-on, and a failure to back it would be a failure to back United Kingdom innovators.

Lastly, amendment 10 is on technological choices. It states:

“The terms under subsection (4)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”

I feel incredibly strongly about this amendment. It is on a matter that I have championed in this House for many years—in the last Parliament, during my time on the Transport Committee and, since July, from this Dispatch Box. The amendment is in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and it is relevant to new clause 7 and amendment 12 in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley, both of which I have a great deal of sympathy for.

Governments of all political persuasions have professed to be technologically neutral. They seldom are. There is a natural tendency to pick winners and losers. We need to look through that lens, and ask ourselves what the Bill is promoting and using the levers of primary legislation to enable. The disappointing answer to that is the potential to bring alive SAF plants using technologies that have already been superseded—plants that would therefore be temporary at best. Stepping up something with no longevity, and with an estimated build cost of between £600 million and £2 billion, would be no small mistake.

Power-to-liquid solutions, otherwise known as eSAF or synthetic fuel—liquid hydrocarbons literally made out of air and water—are surely the better and sustainable  future for aviation fuel. We had debates on Second Reading and in Committee about other solutions. I cannot imagine that anyone is ready to defend growing food to burn it, but equally, waste-derived fuels simply are not sustainable in the long term. Solid waste is not readily available; the primary source is local authorities, the majority of which are on contracts with energy-from-waste facilities and incinerators that have decades to run. Likewise, I am not sure there is enough chip oil in the country to meet our aviation fuel needs.

That leaves power-to-liquid solutions and eSAF. Many say that it is not ready; some say it is too expensive; but those of us on the Public Bill Committee heard loud and clear from Zero Petroleum that it is ready to scale right now. It just needs the green light from the regulators, and with scale will come affordability. Amendment 10 is in many ways a light-touch amendment to bring this debate to the fore. It does not close down other technological routes, but forces the Government to acknowledge the risk, both to the environment and in terms of cost, when choosing contracts under the RCM.

As other speakers have said, the Bill can still be improved. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments, which would improve the Bill, and to ensure a strong and affordable future for sustainable aviation fuel in our great United Kingdom. \p Keir Mather: Before I turn to the amendments before us, I would like to thank the many hon. Members who have made considered and helpful contributions. This legislation has been long in the making, and few have been more central in bringing it to fruition than my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who I would like to thank personally for his efforts throughout the Second Reading and Committee stages.

Likewise, I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), for Worcester (Tom Collins), for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Halifax (Kate Dearden) for all their work in Committee.

It now turns to me to pick up the task and continue the work on this piece of legislation that introduces measures to support the production of SAF in the UK. Until now, there has been consensus across the House about the need to act fast, get it right and drive investment into the SAF industry while ensuring that flying remains affordable for the British public. Those priorities, and the central aims of the Bill, remain clear: to create a market for UK SAF production; to progress our aim of decarbonising aviation; and to create green skilled jobs across the United Kingdom.

First, I will turn to some of the points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) asked what plans we had in place to achieve our decarb aims. Through the mechanism in the Bill, UK SAF production could account for 6.3 megatonnes of carbon savings by 2040. That provides an attractive business case for businesses to scale up their existing SAF efforts in the UK—but it goes far broader than that.  The Government’s other priorities around airspace modernisation, low and zero emission aircraft, meeting our UK emissions trading scheme and carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation—CORSIA—obligations and addressing the non-CO2 impacts of aviation will also be instrumental in this work. \p Iqbal Mohamed: The Minister mentioned a reduction of 6.3 megatonnes, but what is that as a proportion of the current emissions? \p Keir Mather: No piece of legislation can deal with all the emissions that we are facing through challenges in the aviation sector. That is why we have this comprehensive package of measures to make decarbonising aviation while allowing passengers to fly at an affordable rate a reality.

The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke with his usual fervent passion in support of his constituents. The National Wealth Fund stands ready to encourage investors to join us in finding a long-term industrial future for Grangemouth, standing ready to invest £200 million once an investable proposition has been identified.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) raised the unfortunate closure of Vivergo. The Government have been working with the plant to understand the financial challenges that it has faced over the last decade, but I would like to reassure her that we do not anticipate supply issues in bioethanol provision. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester for his decided and confident support for the measures in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) said that the market was too nascent, but I encourage him to look at the detail of the Bill. He will see that that is exactly the problem we are seeking to solve through this legislation, by allowing SAF producers to scale at pace and pursue those innovative technologies. He also spoke about Britain as an aviation leader. The RCM is a first-of-its-kind global initiative to allow SAF producers to produce the fuels we so desperately need. He also encouraged me to sort out decarbonisation challenges in maritime. I draw his attention to the fact that the UK Government announced £448 million of funding to decarbonise the maritime sector only a fortnight ago.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) has Jaguar Land Rover within his constituency and is a passionate advocate for both the automotive and aviation sectors there. He spoke about the urgent need to encourage people to fly—to enable them to access the rest of the world, to see their families and to pursue business opportunities. That is something that we are passionate about championing through the Bill.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) was pleased to see that the Bill was supported across the House. I can only hope that he is correct in his prediction. We shall see. I note that there are no representatives from the Green party here today to focus on these important measures to decarbonise aviation. Hon. Members from across the House can take from that what they will. The hon. Gentleman was right to outline the broader work that is required to decarbonise aviation, including airspace modernisation, but also to talk up our fantastic UK aviation sector and the hard work that it is undertaking to pursue decarbonisation.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) pointed to the very important fact that we are endowed with key infrastructure, such as pipelines, pioneered by firms like Exolum, the research facilities in his constituency to which he pointed and the pioneering work of Bristol airport. We need to develop a market to facilitate that infrastructure further. The 70% cut in emissions through SAF is an exciting proposition indeed.

There are a number of Government amendments that I would like hon. Members to consider. Government amendment 6 allows for levy regulations to require the Secretary of State to assist the designated counterparty by collecting information and sharing it with the designated counterparty. It will also allow for the regulations to be used to impose requirements on a person to provide information to the Secretary of State. It is a technical amendment that will ensure that the information required to calculate individual levy contributions is provided at sufficient frequency, while not creating additional administrative burdens for industry.

Government amendment 1 allows the Secretary of State to direct a Government-owned company to provide assistance for the purpose of identifying to whom revenue certainty contracts should be allocated. The allocation process for RCM contracts will be fair and transparent to give confidence to any applicants. In other renewable schemes, contract allocation is often carried out through an auction process. The allocation process for contracts for difference for renewable electricity is carried out through the National Energy System Operator, or NESO, which is an operationally independent, publicly owned body.

That type of approach to allocation may also be suitable for RCM contracts, so the amendment will allow the Secretary of State to direct a body like NESO to support in the allocation process. The final decision on allocation, however, remains with the Secretary of State. Without the amendment, the same allocation process could be pursued, but that would need to be done on a contractual basis through a procurement process, which would add unnecessary cost and complexity to the process. The amendment avoids those unnecessary impacts. I therefore commend it and all other Government amendments to the House.

I would ask that new clauses 1 to 3, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, be withdrawn. They were introduced in identical form in Committee, and my remarks will closely reflect the points my predecessor made then. The amendments seek a review of the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism within the next 12 months. I am afraid that that is not reasonable, as the revenue certainty mechanism triggers only once SAF is being produced, and even at pace, that is some years off. It will take time to build SAF plants, initially starting with a contract allocation round with SAF producers. Therefore, we will not see sufficient developments in the next 12 months to warrant a review of the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism. I agree, however, that it is important to have parliamentary scrutiny to measure the impact of the Act and to propose actions if necessary. The SAF mandate already includes a review clause to assess the impact of the statutory instrument, with the first review scheduled within five years. That is in line with comparable schemes.

With regard to new clause 1, I can reassure the House that work is being carried out at pace across Government on the future of our refineries. Commissioning a separate report, as the new clause proposes, risks a delay to future decisions and any subsequent benefits that may be realised. Overall, we expect low-carbon fuel production to support up to 15,000 jobs across the country and to make a contribution to the economy of up to £5 billion by 2050. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the Minister, and wish him well in his new role and in all that he does. The legislation extends to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so what discussions have been taking place with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can see its benefits—to both employment and the wider economy—in Northern Ireland? \p Keir Mather: The hon. Member raises a very important point. We need to ensure that the benefits of the Act are felt across the length and breadth of our United Kingdom, and that includes engaging with our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I turn to new clause 2. We do not anticipate a substantial impact on SAF production in the event of a decline in UK bioethanol production. The bioethanol market is a global one, and we do not currently foresee any supply issues. Furthermore, the recommendations in new clause 2 are already under way and duplicate measures can already be found in the SAF mandate. In July, a total of £63 million was awarded to 17 projects via the advanced fuels fund. That includes projects that use bioethanol, municipal solid waste and green hydrogen as feedstocks, among other sources. The Chancellor also announced in the spending review 2025 that we will continue to support SAF production throughout the spending review period. The SAF mandate also includes a formal review mechanism embedded in its legislation, with the first review scheduled to take place within five years.

New clause 3 would also duplicate measures that already exist in the SAF mandate. The mandate awards more certificates per litre to SAF with higher greenhouse gas savings, which will encourage SAF developers to continuously improve on their greenhouse gas savings. This will be monitored through the formal review mechanism, with the possibility to update legislation as required.

I hope that this reassures the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that, in many respects, the concerns he outlines are allayed by existing measures in the Bill. I therefore urge him not to push his new clauses.

New clause 6, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the legislation within a year of it being passed. Such a report would not show the full economic impact of these measures. Contracts will need to be negotiated, signed, plants built and SAF produced and sold before economic impacts are released. Transparency on reporting in relation to the Act’s economic impact can be achieved through regular updates to the House. Therefore, I do not see the new clause as being effectual, if he wishes to evaluate the economic impact of the RCM. I therefore ask him not to move his new clause.

New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), would require the Secretary of State to introduce a regulation requiring airlines to make an annual report on their use of SAF, both in absolute volumes and as a percentage of overall fuel used. I welcome transparency on carbon emissions to help consumers make informed choices. However, we will be providing data on the supply of SAF under the mandate, including what proportion of the total aviation fuel supply is SAF. Furthermore, many airlines already provide public information on their decarbonisation efforts, and I therefore do not believe this new clause is necessary and ask the hon. Member not to move it.

New clauses 4 and 7, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) respectively, relate to power-to-liquid obligations. On new clause 4, the Government have already committed to keep mandate targets under review. The existing legislation enables the Secretary of State to amend obligations under the SAF mandate, subject to consultation with those affected and scrutiny by Parliament. Allowing amendments to the obligations without consulting appropriate parties could be detrimental to our shared ambition of increasing the use of SAF. On new clause 7, the legislation that gave effect to the SAF mandate already makes provision for a review no later than 2030. Given that the mandate has been in place for less than 12 months and the PtL obligation does not come into effect until 2028, it would not be helpful to review earlier than planned. I therefore ask the hon. Members not to move their new clauses.

Amendment 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, would put a requirement on the counterparty to report on the effect of the introduction of the RCM on air travel prices. This was spoken to by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). The Government are committed to delivering value for money in the RCM scheme by controlling the scale and number of contracts entered into, and through the prices negotiated in each contract. The impact on air fares are likely to rise or fall by less than the cost of a cup of coffee. The costs of the scheme and the impact on ticket prices will be kept under continual review. Passengers should also benefit from the lower prices generated from the lower project risk and reduced cost of capital for SAF producers. Therefore, the Bill and the measures in it will not limit people’s ability to fly. Given that, I ask the right hon. Member not to move the amendment.

I turn to amendments 9 and 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, and to amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley. The decisions on the specifics of contract allocation will be made during the contract allocation process. There will be a fair and transparent allocation process that evaluates the key costs, benefits and risks of each project. That will be developed over the coming months and will be subject to consultation with stakeholders. These amendments would reduce the Government leverage in negotiations by setting criteria in advance and would likely reduce value for money in the contracts signed, which I am sure all of us would seek to avoid. I therefore ask that these amendments are not moved.

Finally, I turn to amendment 11, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay. In May 2025, the Government published the response to the consultation  on funding the SAF revenue certainty mechanism. It confirmed that a variable levy on aviation fuel suppliers would be introduced, and this was included in the contents of the Bill. The Government plan to consult imminently on the detailed design of the levy, but this amendment would pre-empt stakeholder responses, which will be considered in any design decisions. I therefore ask the right hon. Member not to press the amendment.

I hope that my responses have provided the explanations and reassurances that colleagues were seeking. The Bill is a crucial step towards establishing a SAF industry in the UK and driving investment, growth and jobs across our great country. Once again, I urge the House to give the Bill its full support. \p Caroline Nokes: Mr Glover, is it your pleasure that new clause 1 be withdrawn? \p Olly Glover: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn. \p UNKNOWN: (1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a requirement for air travel providers to report annually on their use of sustainable aviation fuel.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must specify—

(a) that the annual reports include figures for sustainable aviation fuel usage which can be easily understood, including expressed as—

(i) an absolute volume, and

(ii) proportion of all aviation fuel used; and

(b) that the annual reports are accessible to members of the public including by being made available on their websites.

(3) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the negative procedure.”—(Olly Glover.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 316.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State may—

(a) direct a relevant company to provide any assistance the Secretary of State may require for the purpose of identifying producers in respect of which to make a direction under subsection (1), and

(b) make payments to the relevant company in respect of that assistance.

(4B) In subsection (4A) “relevant company” means a company that is limited by shares each of which is held by a Minister of the Crown.”—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment allows the Secretary of State to direct a government-owned company to provide assistance for the purpose of identifying to whom revenue certain contracts should be allocated. The company might, for example, be directed to carry out an auction process. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 2, page 2, line 10, after “1” insert “(1)”.

This is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 12, after “1” insert “(1)”.—(Keir Mather.)

This is consequential on Amendment 1. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 4, page 3, line 19, leave out subsection (9).—(Keir Mather.)

The is consequential on Amendment 7 which relocates the definition of “company” to clause 16 so that it applies for the purposes of the whole Bill (since amendment 1 refers to companies). \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 5, page 4, line 16, at end insert—

“(apart from costs incurred in complying with a direction under section 1(4A))”.—(Keir Mather.)

The is consequential on Amendment 1. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 6, page 5, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) Levy regulations may—

(a) confer functions on the designated counterparty in connection with the administration and enforcement of the levy;

(b) require the Secretary of State to assist the designated counterparty in connection with those functions by collecting information and providing it to the designated counterparty.

(1A) Levy regulations may require a person to provide information to the designated counterparty or the Secretary of State (on request or otherwise) for purposes connected with the administration and enforcement of the levy.”—(Keir Mather.)

This amendment allows levy regulations to require the Secretary of State to assist the designated counterparty by collecting information and sharing it with the designated counterparty. It also allows the regulations to impose requirements on people to provide information to the Secretary of State. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 8, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty to report on—

(a) the impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the proceeding 12 month period;

(b) a projection of the expected impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the following five year period.

(4) A report under paragraph (a) must be made within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under paragraph 3(a) before Parliament.”—(Greg Smith.)

This amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact that the revenue certainty mechanism has on passenger air fares.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 319.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 9, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty, where a venue certainty contract would result in a new production facility, to prioritise entering into any such contracts with producers that will use UK owned technologies in that facility.” —(Greg Smith.)

This amendment would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 324.

Question accordingly negatived.

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 11 June).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 7, page 8, line 15, at end insert—

““company” means a company registered under the Companies Act 2006;”.—(Keir Mather.)

This is consequential on Amendment 1. \p Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Prime Minister promised that certain papers would be published as soon as they could be, but he did not give a time. Has there been any indication of when those papers will be published? We are still waiting for them. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. While that is not a matter for the Chair, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he said.

Bill read the Third time and passed. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.—(Deidre Costigan.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.—(Deidre Costigan.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Ordered,

That Marie Goldman be discharged from the Modernisation Committee and Bobby Dean be added.—(Deidre Costigan.) \p Sonia Kumar: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to present a petition this evening on behalf of the constituents of Dudley. Despite the Conservative council pledging funding in a public question and answer session in April, the Sycamore Adventure Centre is due to be privatised, with a risk of a hike in entrance fees. The centre must remain solely controlled by Dudley council.

The petition

“declares that Sycamore Adventure Centre has served as a vital, safe and inclusive community space for children, young people…in the area; that for decades, it has been more than just a play site—it has fostered community cohesion, supported children’s physical and mental health, and given young people a place to explore, learn, and grow…The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to stop the privatisation of Sycamore Adventure Centre, guarantee that access to the centre remains open and free (or affordable) to all families, preserve the current number of play sessions and hours of operation, and work with local residents, staff, and young people to protect and enhance the centre as a valued community resource.

And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Dudley.

Declares that Sycamore Adventure Centre has served as a vital, safe, and inclusive community space for children, young people, and families in the area; that for decades, it has been more than just a play site—it has fostered community cohesion, supported children’s physical and mental health, and given young people a place to explore, learn, and grow; that the petitioners call for an immediate halt to the proposed privatisation of Sycamore Adventure Centre, which would reduce accessibility by introducing fees or limitations that restrict entry for families already facing financial hardship, cut down play opportunities and available hours, leaving children with fewer safe and constructive activities, undermine community ownership of a space that belongs to all of us, shifting its priority from public benefit to private profit; and that public recreational spaces like Sycamore Adventure Centre must remain publicly funded, publicly run, and accessible to all.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to stop the privatisation of Sycamore Adventure Centre, guarantee that access to the centre remains open and free (or affordable) to all families, preserve the current number of play sessions and hours of operation, and work with local residents, staff, and young people to protect and enhance the centre as a valued community resource.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003117] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Deidre Costigan.) \p Catherine Atkinson: In my early years as a barrister, I sometimes came across defendants who knew the criminal justice system better than me. Their antecedents—their list of previous convictions—was pages long, showing multiple stints in prison. I used to do both prosecution and defence, and I remember some defendants even sharing with me their top tips as to what might be the strongest arguments for bail or the best mitigation points in sentencing, because they had been through the process so many times.

I also saw offenders sentenced to custody for the first time, taking their turn in what is far too often a revolving door of prison. Sometimes, they were sent to prison far from home. It is so common to see offenders lose family ties, their housing, their job and any sense of purpose. After weeks, months or years, they would come out having achieved nothing, often with little or no money, no job and little confidence or self-worth. \p Paul Davies: I compliment my hon. Friend on her excellent speech. Does she agree that improving literacy in prisons is a powerful tool for rehabilitation and reintegration? Literacy equips prisoners with essential communication and comprehension skills, laying the foundation for further education and vocational training. By fostering reading, writing and critical thinking abilities, inmates become much better prepared for employment opportunities within prison and upon release. That not only enhances their self-worth and confidence, but reduces reoffending by opening pathways to stable work. Does she agree that investing in prison literacy is an investment in safer communities and more productive lives? \p Catherine Atkinson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Investing in education and work is a key part of preventing reoffending.

Frustratingly, without rehabilitation the alternative is a return to the easiest path—one of crime. We then see the revolving door of prison take another turn. Without intervention, one in two prison leavers reoffend within six months of release. Some 80% of offending is reoffending, and reoffending costs the UK an estimated £18.1 billion per year. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. When I heard what she was going to speak about, I wanted to intervene: first, because it is an admirable subject, and secondly, because I fully support what she is trying to achieve. I hope that the Minister will come back to her along those lines. Does the hon. Lady agree that rehabilitation must take place in prisons, that part of rehabilitation is about giving the prisoner confidence that they can do something of value and worth, and that training in a new skill can do more for rehabilitation than group therapy sessions? That is the way to give an ex-inmate or prisoner the opportunity to do better, and that is what we should be doing. \p Catherine Atkinson: It is not a bona fide Adjournment debate unless the hon. Member has intervened, so I thank him for his intervention and his insight. I fully agree with him.

As well as having seen countless examples of prison having not worked, I have met former offenders who have escaped the revolving door, often through work. Many have stories like Mark’s. Mark spent 15 years in and out of prison on five separate occasions, but—with the support of a project called Jericho House in Derby—he is now clean, stable and gainfully employed. \p Warinder Juss: The issue of work in prison is something we have considered on the Justice Committee. Separately, I have recently visited prisons, where I had the opportunity to talk to prisoners. Does my hon. Friend agree that meaningful work in prisons can not only erase the boredom that can lead to drug use but give prisoners skills that they can use to find employment when they are released from prison? It enables them to reintegrate into society, thereby reducing the risk of reoffending. \p Catherine Atkinson: I agree, and I want to see work in prison start as early as possible—not just at the end of a prisoner’s sentence but during it. I was proud to stand on a manifesto pledge to get offenders into work. That offenders should work is a conclusion that is intuitively obvious to me, having been a barrister, and that is also empirically supported. Rehabilitation without getting into work is rare. For those who have offended, and considering the impact on the rest of us, working is far better than sitting in cells most days. \p Linsey Farnsworth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I agree entirely with what she says about the importance of meaningful work or purposeful activity in prisons. On that basis, does she share my concern that the court backlog means that there are thousands of prisoners on remand who are not required to do purposeful activity and are often sentenced to a walk-out, essentially—going back into our communities without having had the opportunity of working in prison to help with their rehabilitation? \p Catherine Atkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and for making that powerful point. That is why the Government are doing so much to reduce the backlog.

Work in prison also comes with a host of second-order benefits, such as improving prisoner behaviour, filling skills gaps and boosting the economy. I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge in turning around our prisons; nor do I seek to claim that we could get all prisoners in prison starting to work tomorrow. I pay tribute to the work of our current Home Secretary, who when Justice Secretary got to grips with the crisis she inherited of prisons near to complete collapse.

Over the 14 years of Conservative Government, prisoner participation in education, employment and vocational qualifications dropped sharply. As the previous Government were coming to their end, His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons condemned the “appalling” neglect of how prisoners spend their time; far too many were locked in cells without meaningful activity. In category C prisons—closed prisons, but with lower security than those in category A or B—nearly a quarter of prisoners reported getting less than two hours unlocked each day. \p Sarah Russell: My local women’s prison is HMP Styal, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the Clink Charity, which does work in developing people’s skills in hospitality. Its ability to operate in HMP Styal collapsed completely because, as there was such a shortage of prison officers, the women were locked up for so much of the time that it was simply unable to provide the service. In other prisons, the charity is being forced to retender for contracts on a commercial basis. It is a not-for-profit that was set up to do that work. I encourage the Minister—I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees—to review whether contracting in the Ministry of Justice is really working as we need it to in that regard. \p Catherine Atkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. There is some really fantastic work being done, which I will come on to, and it is essential that we find ways of enabling even more of that, because time stuck in prisons does not improve behaviour; it makes it worse. In the last year of the Conservative Government, we saw assaults on prison staff increase by 23%.

The £15 million investment in body armour and Tasers announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in recent weeks shows that he is giving prison staff the tools they need to do their jobs safely, but anything we can do to reduce the chances of violent incidents deserves our full support—that includes meaningful activities such as work in prisons—because those on the frontline in our prison system deserve our full support.

Prison officers at HMP Ranby told me what a difference it made to the behaviour of prisoners when they were doing work—when their days had purpose. As well as the improved behaviour that work for prisoners leads to, nearly a fifth of the earnings of prisoners who work out of prisons on licence goes to the Prisoners’ Earnings Act levy, which supports victims of crime. We have a Government committed to investment and reform and taking a long-term view of what is needed for a justice system that works. Our Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, Lord Timpson, was a businessman who throughout his career enabled offenders to turn their lives around and break the cycle.

I have sought to be candid about how bad things are in some of our prisons, but I also want to talk about some of the brilliant work already happening, which can be built on and scaled up. I praise the hundreds of employers who are pointing the way forward. In Derby, we have Pennine Healthcare, an employee-owned medical equipment manufacturer, and its successful experience of employing prisoners has led to its long-term vision for rehabilitation-focused employment opportunities, for itself and potentially across the sector.

Pennine supports a release on temporary licence scheme. I was proud to welcome the former Justice Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), to its headquarters in Derby. I went with him to HMP Ranby to see where Pennine is establishing a workshop, which it calls Project Phoenix. It will operate as an extension of the Derby site, and it will also prevent manufacturing from being offshored to competitors 7,000 km away in China. It could not have been more positive about the motivation and work ethic of the prisoners working for it.

That is a practical solution to meet some of the workforce challenges facing UK manufacturing, at a time when many employers share with me the difficulties  that they can have in recruiting people with the skills that they need. It could create a pipeline of trained workers who can have jobs that they know how to do available to them when they leave prison. The difference that could make to offenders’ chances of avoiding another turn of the revolving door of reoffending is clear.

I am the parliamentary champion for the Rebuilding Futures Alliance—the RFA—whose mission is to break the cycle of reoffending by creating smarter pathways into work, often in rail. The evidence is extraordinarily compelling in showing that employment reduces reoffending. \p Lee Pitcher: I visited His Majesty’s prison in Hatfield in my constituency—I have among the highest number of prisons in the whole country—and it was absolutely amazing. The governor there had been creative and innovative in his thinking about rehabilitating the prisoners, working with Tempus Novo. By bringing that charity in, reoffending rates have reduced substantially, giving people hope and a second chance. That is great for their families as well, which we need always to remember, and it makes economic sense. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to get behind those kinds of initiatives to stop reoffending? \p Catherine Atkinson: That is another fantastic initiative. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Impressively, some of the partner agents and partner charities working with the RFA have achieved reoffending rates of under 5%.

I was told at HMP Ranby that the most popular work with prisoners was for the rail industry, though sometimes a prison struggles to find long-term rail-related work for prisoners. The RFA is working to help address that. That is particularly important in a sector such as rail, which really needs more skilled workers and is anticipated to lose 90,000 workers by 2030.

The RFA has a tracking system that allows it to see how prisoners and placements progress. The Prison Reform Trust reports that, for years, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service

“has not published figures on the number of prisoners working in custody, due to the disruption to data quality.”

We need more data and we need it to be tracked. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: The hon. Member makes an important point about data. A colleague of mine said that when they visited a prison they asked what the reoffending rates were and the governor could not answer because reoffending rates were not being tracked. Does she agree that if prisons had an incentive to watch their reoffending rates, they would be more keen to make sure that the rehabilitation programmes made a difference and that they were not seeing the same faces time and again? \p Catherine Atkinson: The hon. Lady makes an important point. That is one of the reasons that the RFA has created its tracking system: to have tangible evidence of the efficacy of the work that we intuitively know must be successful in preventing reoffending.

The businesses that I have met that are utilising release on temporary licence schemes or have workshops in prisons often act from a really strong ethic and a strong  sense of social responsibility. There are also economic benefits and evidence—a clear business case—for providing work in prisons. I thank the East Midlands Chamber for its work with businesses in this area. I was told by their chief executive, Scott Knowles, that

“those employers that can successfully navigate the administrative burden to employ prisoners or offer placements on temporary licence, frequently comment that these members of the team rapidly become their most productive team members.”

A lot of the work taking place in prison is not for the private sector at all. Some 90% of the work at HMP Ranby is for the public sector, in a range of things including building beds, lockers and furniture for use not just in other prisons but in the wider public sector. That means that it does not have to be bought in, providing significant savings to the public purse as a result.

The success of schemes such as those that have been mentioned and those at HMP Ranby raises an important question: how can we scale up the model across more prisons and employers? The goal should be to reach a point where, upon release, prisoners can return to their communities anywhere in the country and find employment that builds on the skills that were developed inside. \p Lauren Edwards: I completely agree that all the evidence points towards the need to invest in prison training and employment programmes to reduce reoffending. Doing so is good for society and for the public purse, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should reform the system to support shorter, more modular learning in our prisons, in line with the Government’s approach to the growth and skills levy? Rochester prison in my constituency runs a successful stonemasonry course, but the length of time it takes—18 months—makes it difficult for prisoners to complete it, due to shorter sentences, prisoner moves across the prison estate, and early release. \p Catherine Atkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Having a range of options for people is really important, but she also makes it clear that shorter sentences can prevent rehabilitative work being done, which is why it is so important that we are trying to move to a presumption against shorter sentences.

A range of things can be done, and there needs to be a co-ordinated effort to ensure consistency and opportunity across the prison estate. Perhaps that could involve asking different Government Departments to look at the goods and services that they procure from prisons, to ensure that there is that option, or building on the brilliant work being done on procurement to ensure that employers who provide meaningful work opportunities to prisoners see the wider benefit, thereby reinforcing the Government’s commitment to rehabilitation and reducing reoffending.

There is a popular myth that the poorer the quality of a prison, the greater the punishment, but that has been well tested over the last 14 years. His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons suggests not only that purposeless prisons are harmful for prisoners, but that that harm could extend to wider society. We cannot isolate, bore or humiliate someone into being rehabilitated. It is far better that they are able to make amends through work. The idea that giving more people—perhaps people who have never had it—access to good work might strengthen   society comes naturally to me as a Labour MP, because Labour is the party of work. Without it, boredom, frustration and despair can thrive.

Work in prisons benefits prisoners, yes, but it also works for those who risk their life and their safety as frontline prison officers and probation officers. It works for companies, and not just because they are keen to do their part for society. It can help us to meet the skills challenges that industry faces, to onshore manufacturing jobs, and to create more funding for victims through the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 levy. Job or jail? If we truly want to break the cycle of crime, and give people in my constituency of Derby North and across the country the safety and opportunity that they deserve, this is how we begin. \p Jake Richards: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on securing this important debate, and on her fine speech. We have known each other for many years, and she is one of the best advocates I have come across, at the Bar and now in this place. She is a ferocious champion of justice and social justice, a credit to the people of Derby North, and an asset to our politics. It is particularly apt that she brings this vital issue to the fore, as it deserves far more attention, and while I am in this role, I am determined to ensure that it receives it.

Finding employment after release is one of the most effective ways to support rehabilitation and break the cycle of reoffending. The evidence is stark beyond argument that having a job reduces the likelihood of reoffending, and given that reoffending costs the taxpayer around £20 billion a year, getting prisoners and prison leavers working is the right thing to do, not only for individuals and communities, but for the public purse. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, we are debating the Sentencing Bill in Committee next week, and I hope that the whole House will support the Government’s agenda of tackling reoffending through that legislation.

Work in prisons is vital, because the argument for work in prisons wins both the heart and the head. It is about self-worth for the prisoner and worth for society as a whole. Let us be clear: that must never mean offenders bypassing punishment for the pain that they have caused victims, but they should not be left to wallow in prison. Indeed, many have untapped potential that our economy desperately needs, as my hon. Friend set out. That is why the Government are committed to improving offenders’ access to purposeful activity, and to strengthening the links between prisons and employers, so that more people leave prison with the skills, qualifications and opportunities that they need to succeed. I must at this point pay tribute to Lord Timpson for his work before he was made a Minister in the Justice Department. He continues to be a fine advocate for this cause.

Delivering skills and work experience to prisoners is not always straightforward. It is right that I draw the House’s attention to a recent report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and Ofsted, “Just Passing Time”. It sets out serious concerns about the quantity and quality of work, and attendance at work, in prison. It is something that I and the Government take seriously. The problem is difficult, especially in the context of the prisons capacity crisis that this Government inherited  last summer, but that does not mean we should not strive to perform better. The report only motivates me and this Government to do more.

I want to look forward and set out positive measures that we are taking to drive improvement in the short and longer term. To understand the needs of prisoners properly, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is now making sure that every prisoner has an individual learning and work plan during their sentencing, focusing on their needs, which might include numeracy and literacy. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) is a fine advocate on this issue; he is doing great work on it in a pilot project that applies across the country. We must ensure that qualifications to improve inmates’ job prospects, as well as work experience and vocational training, are built into sentencing. Simply put, these issues should be right at the heart of sentencing policy and sentencing at court. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: It is wonderful to hear the Minister laying out everything that the Government are doing to address what is happening in our prisons. I wonder whether he will give consideration to my amendment to the Sentencing Bill, which applies matters that are considered after sentencing to prisoners who are on remand, so that they can have the same access to work and rehabilitation programmes, rather than being released when it is time to be sentenced because they have already served their time, and then going home without any support. \p Jake Richards: We will absolutely consider that amendment. I should congratulate her on her appointment to her role in the Liberal Democrats. That point was made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). Although the remand population is too big, we must ensure that inmates on remand receive the services that they need.

Youth justice is also a key priority for me, and this issue also affects the youth estate. On a recent visit to Wetherby young offenders institute, I observed brilliant work by teenage boys in what they call Q branch working on allotments, helping with the recycling, learning to make honey, and building a garden for the custody community. It is genuinely heartwarming and important work that these young offenders are undertaking as they reach maturity. My only disappointment came when I learned that only 5% of the children in the young offenders institute were able to access those facilities.

We must do more to make sure that every single offender who can do so safely has access to the skills and training that they need. Earlier today, I was in Birmingham to see the brilliant social enterprise Skill Mill. I met three 17-year-olds who are learning skills in construction, recycling and agriculture. Those skills mean that they will have options when they reach the age of 18 that they would not have otherwise had.

Good work is happening. A good example on the adult estate is Greene King’s academy at HMP Onley. What they call “the hideout” is a replica of a Greene King pub that gives prisoners real-world experience in hospitality, City & Guilds qualifications, and genuine job opportunities on release. Marston’s Brewery has a similar set-up in the academy at The Lock Inn at HMP Liverpool, which equips prisoners with professional  catering and kitchen management skills. In fact, I must make sure that I visit The Lock Inn as a matter of urgency; I will tell my private office so. Graduates from both schemes have already gone directly into employment on release, so these initiatives really are successful. We have the data, but we need to improve it to ensure that the evidence base is there across the prison estate.

The future skills programme delivers vocational training based on employer and labour market needs and requirements. It offers a range of sector-specific skills training courses, with a guaranteed job interview on release. Building on that, and to address HMIP concerns about the intensity of the work experience, we are trialling a new Working Week project in five category C prisons, including HMP Ranby, which I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North visited recently. It is just a few miles from my constituency. Indeed, I drive past it on my commute to this place, and I will be visiting it in the coming months. \p Jim Shannon: I was just thinking to myself that there probably are stats that show that many prisoners, with great respect—this is not meant to be judgmental—may not be able to read or write. When it comes to helping them find jobs, we have to create confidence in them, and enable them to say, “I can do that. I can learn to read and write, and can then get a job.” That is a very basic thing, but it is important. Maybe the Minister could tell us what will be done on that. That is not just about working skills; it is about life skills, social skills and being able to connect with the person next to them. \p Jake Richards: I completely agree, and it goes back to the central argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made about the innate value of work. Labour Members, and I am sure hon. Members from across the House, believe that work is a good thing in and of itself. It is not just about earning a salary to pay the bills, though that is very important; it is also about building life skills and having confidence, so that when someone leaves prison, they can enter the world and be a better citizen, whereas too many leave as better criminals. That must be at the heart of what this Government do, and it will be.

In addition, release on temporary licence is an important rehabilitative tool that allows suitably risk-assessed prisoners to engage in work with employers in the community. That provides people with the opportunity to build relationships with employers and boosts their job prospects ahead of release. A good example of that is the work of Prisoners Building Homes at HMP North Sea Camp, where prisoners are trained and employed to build modular, low-carbon, affordable homes in partnership with housing providers, public sector bodies and third sector organisations. \p Linsey Farnsworth: As part of the Justice Committee’s inquiry on rehabilitation and resettlement, we received evidence showing that ROTL use has declined, particularly since covid; it has not really recovered from that. It is great to hear the good work the Minister is outlining on  this, but I urge him to continue to push for greater use of ROTL, because it could be a key aspect of rehabilitation of offenders going forward. \p Jake Richards: Absolutely. We will look at the evidence that the Select Committee received, and we are having those conversations all the time. It is important to stress—I know my hon. Friend is very aware of this—that in the first year of this Government, we have been dealing with one of the most acute crises across the public estate, and that has clearly taken up the bandwidth of the Government and the Ministry of Justice. Because of the difficult decisions that the last Lord Chancellor made, we are now in a position where I hope we can do more on this.

The Government have also launched regional employment councils, which for the first time bring together businesses, prisons, probation and the Department for Work and Pensions. We have extended apprenticeships across the prison estate, from the open to the closed estate. At HMP Highpoint, five cohorts of prisoners are beginning rail apprenticeships this year. This is a model we want to expand further, and early results are encouraging. To help build on this expansion, we have announced new foundation apprenticeships, which are available to prisoners. They are shorter courses than traditional apprenticeships, and can be accessed by prisoners up to the age of 25. It was a fine point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) about the length of courses. Clearly, too often prisoners are in and out for short periods. We want to try to stop that fundamentally, or at least amend the framework in that regard, but we have to have training and services for those who are in prison for a short time.

To support prisoners in considering their longer-term goals, we are delivering better careers advice and guidance in prisons. From April this year, we are rolling out new national careers, information, advice and guidance contracts, so that, again, every prisoner has access to consistent, high-quality careers advice, tailored to their needs and, critically, linked to real job opportunities. Taken together, employment hubs, employer partnerships, vocational training, apprenticeships and the Working Week project represent initiatives that are moving in the right direction, but I want to be clear that we know that the situation is not good enough, and that there is a lot more work to be done.

I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North for raising this important subject, which, as I said, does not get enough attention. I hope to do my bit to change that. This Government are committed to rehabilitation to help cut reoffending. I hope that she will agree that the Government have built solid foundations to stabilise the prison system after the inheritance we received last summer, and have launched important initiatives in our first year in office, but there is much more to do, and I welcome her support in driving forward this vital work in the months ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.