debates/debates2025-05-15b conversation_20
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-05-15)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-05-15b conversation_20

Rachel Gilmour:My constituents in Tiverton and Minehead face many challenges when it comes to transport connectivity. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the merits of a strategic outline business case set out by West Somerset Railway to reconnect the heritage railway line at Bishops Lydeard to the mainline at Taunton? That would allow students to access the only sixth-form facilities in Taunton, take the pressure off the No. 28 bus, and massively improve our ability to entertain more tourists. \p Heidi Alexander: The hon. Lady mentioned this to me a couple of days ago when I bumped into her, but I regret to inform her that the Department does not currently have any plans to take forward a development link between Bishops Lydeard and Taunton. I have, however, asked officials to reach out to those at the local authority to discuss the merits of the scheme. \p Amanda Hack: In the ’60s, North West Leicestershire lost its only passenger rail service, the Ivanhoe line. In 2025, my constituents still have no direct access to the rail line. Increasing connectivity of railways is crucial to securing economic growth. Will the Minister share the Department’s plans to improve access to passenger rail for communities with no current access? \p Simon Lightwood: I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further. \p John Milne: Airports across the country are participating in the airspace modernisation review. However, there is a clear conflict of interest between environmental imperatives and profit motives. Will the Secretary of State undertake to introduce an independent member on each airspace review panel? \p Mike Kane: The Government are pressing on with airspace modernisation and have set up the UK Airspace Design Service. I recently met the hon. Member in my office to discuss this issue. We continue at pace on this work and will be consulting widely. \p Sean Woodcock: Every week on my journey to and from this place I join constituents on overcrowded Chiltern Railways trains that are often advertised as standing room only. The oldest class of carriages operating on that network has an average age of 47 years. In the light of this, can Ministers tell me what action the Department is taking to support the replacement and refurbishment of these carriages to improve capacity, service reliability, and passenger experience and comfort? \p Simon Lightwood: Chiltern Railways faces challenges with ageing trains and is engaged in commercial negotiations to replace its oldest Mark 3 carriages. The Department is collaborating with Chiltern to ensure that the procurement delivers long-term passenger benefits. Separately, the Chiltern Class 168 fleet is undergoing significant refurbishment, including to its interiors, and improvements to reliability. \p Lincoln Jopp: The 7.58 am train from Sunbury to Shepperton is used by a lot of schoolchildren in my constituency to get to school, but it was cancelled for four days during a recent six-day period, which meant that children were late for school. That appears on their attendance register, which follows them throughout life. The Secretary of State will own South Western Railway by the end of the month. Will she commit to improving the reliability and punctuality of that section of the line? \p Heidi Alexander: With the transfer of South Western trains into public ownership in 10 days’ time, the Government are determined to turn this situation around, but I have to say that we have inherited an abject mess from the train operating company, which over six years has failed to get the new fleet of Arterio 701 trains into service. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Transport Committee. \p Ruth Cadbury: At yesterday’s Transport Committee hearing, the Minister for Local Transport outlined the measures that the Government are taking to reverse the 15-year decline in bus services. The measures will protect many at-risk bus routes and may deliver a few more, but as they deliver growth and reduce congestion, do the Government have a wider ambition to ensure that all rural and non-city areas in England have at least a basic level of bus service so that everyone can get to school, work and the shops, and use public services without needing to drive a car? \p Simon Lightwood: I have to say, I really enjoyed my appearance at the Select Committee yesterday. Ultimately, we want people to choose to take the bus because it provides better connections in every part of the country to get people where they need be. It is a more reliable, more affordable, faster and more integrated form of transport, and I hope to see that in debates with Members across the House as the buses Bill proceeds. \p Gregory Stafford: Farnborough airport’s noise and emission pollution affects a significant part of my constituency. The airport has announced that it will be launching its consultation to expand in August. This has obviously brought a lot of concern from residents groups and campaigners, who are worried that people will be away at this time. What can the Minister do to ensure that there is maximum engagement with the public and therefore a proper consultation? \p Mike Kane: I thank the hon. Member for his question, but he will know that this matter is for the determination of Rushmoor borough council, the local planning authority. He will appreciate that this is a live application, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this time. \p Catherine Fookes: Businesses on the Newhouse and Bulwark industrial estates in Chepstow are desperate to keep using the M48 Severn bridge, which will be closed to lorries for at least 12 months. By the end of May, they will have to add at least 30 miles to their journey over the border, seriously affecting profitability and growth. Will the Minister meet me and Monmouthshire county council to find a solution, such as controlled flow, so that we do not hold back economic growth in Monmouthshire? \p Lilian Greenwood: Safety is our No. 1 priority, and the weight restriction is about future-proofing the bridge for years to come, but I know how disruptive it is when a key crossing is closed or restricted to traffic. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call Sir Jeremy Hunt. \p Jeremy Hunt: Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Speaker.

Is the Secretary of State aware that to access the platform at Ash Vale station in my constituency, people have to go up multiple flights of steps, equivalent to two or three floors, making it all but impossible for many older people and disabled people to use the rail network? Before she decides on how to allocate funding under the Access for All scheme in the spending review, will she or one of her Ministers visit Ash Vale, where we promise her a warm Surrey welcome? \p Lindsay Hoyle: That doesn’t always work. \p Heidi Alexander: I am aware that feasibility studies have been done on 50 Access for All stations, and we are reviewing the outcomes of those studies. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not knowing whether that station in his constituency is one of those 50. I promise him that I will talk to officials about the matter. \p Lindsay Hoyle: In Chorley’s case, work started but it has still not been finished. It was abandoned halfway through. \p Claire Hazelgrove: Residents across my constituency regularly raise with me the issue of potholes and the state of our roads in general. I greatly appreciate the additional funding provided by the Government to South Gloucestershire council to help with improvements. This is about safety. It also about pride of place and the costs of vehicle repairs—all these things matter—so what will the next steps be to support councils to keep roads up to scratch once the potholes are filled? \p Lilian Greenwood: We are providing record amounts for local authorities this year, and we hope to provide a long-term funding settlement for local roads maintenance after the spending review. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: Will the Secretary of State accept my warm invitation to visit my constituency and sit in traffic with me so she can experience what my   constituents experience morning, noon and night on the A27, which is strangling economic growth in the area and preventing investment? \p Heidi Alexander: As tempting as the hon. Lady’s invitation is, I regret that I will not be able to do that, and I will not commit the Roads Minister to it either, but we will look at the matters she raises and write to her with an update on the action we think could be taken to improve the situation. \p Maya Ellis: Economic growth requires people to be able to get to work. This morning, yet another road traffic accident happened on the stretch of M6 motorway that goes through my constituency and yours, Mr Speaker. This has a hugely disruptive impact on the mainly small roads around it in my constituency. Yet again, my residents in Longridge, Grimsargh and all the surrounding areas woke up to the prospect of another journey to work that takes two hours instead of 20 minutes, and that is becoming a monthly—if not weekly—occurrence. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what can be done? \p Lilian Greenwood: I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. \p Bradley Thomas: Congestion on the A38 in Bromsgrove is making it nearly impossible for residents to get around easily—yet, despite current investment, there is widespread scepticism that the Bromsgrove route enhancement plan, known locally as BREP, will improve the situation. Does the Minister agree that investment in transport must deliver a tangible improvement in traffic flow, and will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss investment in Bromsgrove so that we can keep Bromsgrove moving? \p Lilian Greenwood: I understand the hon. Member’s wish to get his constituents moving; it is one that we share. I would be happy to look at his concerns in relation to the A38, and I will contact him with further information. \p Daniel Francis: In 2022, the previous Government cut a significant number of Southeastern services that my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford rely on. My constituents continue to raise concerns that direct services from London Charing Cross to Barnehurst and Bexleyheath should be reinstated during the evenings and weekends. Could the Minister provide an update on progress to reinstate those services? \p Simon Lightwood: Southeastern plans services to meet passenger demand while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. Timetables are kept under review and can be adjusted to reflect fluctuations in demand. I am pleased to say that four additional weekday evening services will be introduced on the route in December. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Once again, I have had to grant an urgent question on a matter that was briefed extensively to the media in recent days. I recognise that a written ministerial statement was issued, but I am surprised that the Government did not think that Members would want an opportunity to question Ministers on a very important issue.

On Monday, the Home Secretary was unapologetic about the fact that details of the immigration White Paper were given to the media, starting on Sunday morning, before it was laid before this House and long before she came to make a statement. I note that those who now occupy senior ministerial roles were not slow to complain when the previous Government made major policy announcements outside this place. I will continue to uphold and defend the rights of this House—the rights of Back Benchers—to be the first to hear the most important announcements of Government policy and the rights of hon. Members to question Ministers on those announcements in person. That was my position under the previous Government and it has not changed under this Government.

It is clear to me that the general principle set out in paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code is being disregarded more often than it is observed. I will write to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to invite that Committee to consider the issues in more detail. If the Government are not going to take the ministerial code seriously, who will?

I do not like doing this. I believe that I am here to represent all Back Benchers, and Back Benchers have the right to question Ministers first. I am not interested in Sky News, the BBC or political programmes; I am here to defend you all, and I will continue to defend you. I say to the Government: please do not take MPs for granted. It is not acceptable. I know it is not the fault of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin),   who is about to respond to the urgent question, but the message has to go back loud and clear: when you are in the wrong, apologise to Members. \p Nicholas Dakin: Mr Speaker, I hear your words very clearly. I very much respect the role of Parliament and I am pleased to be here today to follow up the written ministerial statement that was laid yesterday by the Lord Chancellor. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let me gently say to the Minister: you would not be here at all if I had not granted the urgent question. That is the thing we should remember. You are only here because I have decided that you should be here. Please, do not try to take advantage of a situation that is not of your own making. \p Nicholas Dakin: I will certainly apologise, Mr Speaker. I was not trying to take advantage. Clearly, it also took the action of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), laying an urgent question. That is how Parliament works, and rightly so. \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not want to labour the point—but, no, this is not the way we should be acting. The statement should have been brought here on the day the plan was announced. Let us get this very, very clear: this is not about having to grant an urgent question; this is about the Government doing the right thing, rather than somebody else having to drag Ministers here. That is not how we should be working. \p Nicholas Dakin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sorry for any misinformation that I have given in trying to respond. \p Lindsay Hoyle: You are a good Minister and a nice person. \p Nicholas Dakin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We respect each other, and I respect very much that you are standing up for Parliament, which is exactly the right thing to do. I applaud that. \p Robert Jenrick: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on the public safety implications of the Government’s plan to set a 28-day limit on prison sentences for recalled offenders. \p Nicholas Dakin: The Lord Chancellor laid a written ministerial statement yesterday, the background to which are the changes around fixed-term recall in the light of the prison capacity challenges that the Government face. When we were elected almost a year ago, we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. Although we took immediate action to prevent the catastrophe, prisons continue to be perilously close to filling up entirely. Last December we published a long-term building strategy, setting out our aim to open up 14,000 prison places by 2031. That is the largest expansion of the prison estate since the Victorians. We have already committed £2.3 billion to prison expansion, and since taking office we have delivered 2,400 new places.

We also commissioned the independent sentencing review, which will report shortly. The sentencing review will hopefully offer us a path to ending the capacity crisis in our prisons for good, but the impact of sentencing reforms will not be felt before next spring. On our current trajectory, we will hit zero capacity in our prisons in November—we cannot allow that to happen. That is why we have announced our intention to lay a fixed-term recall statutory instrument that will mean that those serving sentences of between one and four years can only be returned to prison for a fixed 28-day period. The measure builds on previous legislation, introduced by the last Government, that mandated 14-day recalls for those serving sentences of under a year.

To be clear, higher-risk offenders have been exempted from that change. If further information relating to an offender’s risk is received after they have been recalled which means they are no longer considered suitable for fixed-term recall, they may be detained for longer on a standard recall if that is assessed as necessary. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Robert Jenrick: “Sorry” seems to be the hardest word today. I see that the Justice Secretary has still not come to Parliament to defend her policy. Yesterday she deliberately avoided scrutiny in this House, because she knows that this decision is wildly unpopular and risks the safety of the public. To govern is to choose. There are 10,500 foreign criminals in our jails and 17,000 people in prison awaiting trial. Combined, those two groups make up roughly a third of the prison population.

The sensible step forward would obviously be to introduce emergency measures to expedite deportations and get the courts sitting around the clock. If the Justice Secretary chose to do that, we would support her, but so far she has not. She has refused to take the judiciary up on its offer of extra court sitting days. It is not uncommon for as many as half the courts at the Old Bailey to sit empty on any given day. Instead, she has decided to let out early criminals who reoffend or breach their licence. There is now no punishment or  deterrent for criminals who immediately reoffend or cheat the system. The Justice Secretary says these people will be “in prison outside of prison”—I am sure that hardened criminals will be quaking in their boots at that farcical doublespeak.

There is no two ways about it: this decision has put the public in danger and victims in jeopardy. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, has said that she

“cannot stress enough the lack of consideration for victims’ safety and how many lives are being put in danger”.

Is the Justice Secretary or her Minister really telling domestic abuse victims that their abusers will be back on the streets in just 28 days if they breach their licence, and that nobody will even check with the Parole Board? Can the Minister explain to the House who is exempted from the scheme, because right now confusion reigns? Yesterday the Justice Secretary gave the impression that no domestic abusers or sexual offenders would be eligible for her scheme, but her Department has since said that it will include “many” but not all.

The written ministerial statement laid yesterday deliberately concealed the answer to the question of which criminals will be excluded, so will the Minister take this opportunity to tell the House? If he does not know the answer, will he commit to publishing it by the end of the day? Lastly, can he confirm to the House that anyone in breach of a restraining order will be ineligible for a fixed-term recall, because anything else would be an insult to the victims? \p Nicholas Dakin: Since taking office, we have deported over 1,800 foreign national offenders in custody, securing their early removal from our prisons—15% higher than in the previous 12 months. We have just announced 110,000 court sitting days, which is the highest level for a very long time.

To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, we will exclude anyone serving more than four years in prison; all those convicted of a terrorist or national security crime; and those who are subject to higher levels of risk management by multiple agencies where the police and the Prison and Probation Service work together, which includes certain sexual and violent offenders, including many domestic abusers. If there are ongoing concerns about the risk posed by an offender who is due to be released after the 28-day period, frontline workers can apply additional licence conditions to manage that. If further information related to an offender’s risk is received after they have been recalled, meaning that they are no longer considered suitable for fixed-term recall, they may be detained for longer on a standard recall, if that is assessed as necessary by the HMPPS public protection team.

We know how important it is that victims are kept informed. All those eligible for the victim contact scheme will be notified about an offender’s release and will have the opportunity to make representations about victim-related licence conditions. Although there are certain exclusions for serious offenders, changing recalls for fixed-term offenders is necessary. It would be even worse to run out of space, which at this stage would mean the managed breakdown of the criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor said rightly that that would be unconscionable. No Government should leave that challenge as a legacy to their successors, as the right hon. Gentleman’s Government did. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Justice Committee. \p Andrew Slaughter: We should never forget that the crisis in our prisons that the current Lord Chancellor is seeking to resolve was created over 14 years by the irresponsible mismanagement of the previous Government. Although today’s announcement makes sense in the short term, subject to safeguards, we must consider the whole way in which recall has developed, from 100 cases 30 years ago to more than 13,000 today—over 15% of the prison population—with less than 30% of recalls being for further offences. Will the Government consider the way in which recall operates? Without the freeing up of space in prisons, rehabilitation is impossible, overcrowding reaches ridiculous levels and we run out of space altogether. \p Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend is right: the recall population has doubled in just seven years and we need to address that. The independent sentencing review will report shortly, and I hope that there will be recommendations to which we can respond in that report. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Ben Maguire: There is no doubt that the Conservatives plunged our prisons into crisis. [Interruption.] They chunter from a sedentary position, but what else would they call it? It is clear that the Government have failed to step up and tackle the sheer scale of the problem. Across the country, victims and survivors are worried about what this will mean for them. If there were a specific domestic abuse offence, dangerous offenders could be excluded from early release, but the Government have taken no action at all since the Liberal Democrats raised that solution with them last autumn. Will the Minister finally commit to giving victims and survivors the protections that they deserve by creating new domestic abuse aggravated offences, and will he go further to protect our communities by introducing a clear plan to reduce reoffending, which is the only way to solve prison crowding once and for all? If the Minister will not listen to me, will he listen to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who has just warned that lives are now at risk? \p Nicholas Dakin: The hon. Member will know that his colleague, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), is working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), on getting things right for victims. That is something we take very seriously, and it needs to be done properly, with victims, in order to get it right. I hope that the independent sentencing review report will contain things that give us confidence about moving forward and about the way we work with victims. \p Sarah Russell: The Conservatives appear to have forgotten quite a number of things, and I think it might be a good time to remind them. Former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s disastrous partial privatisation of the Probation Service was overturned in 2019 after the number of serious offences—including rape and murder—committed by those on probation skyrocketed. Does the Minister agree that we are seeing the long tail of Conservative failure, which overshadows everything that we must do now? \p Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the chaos and turmoil that the Conservatives applied to our very important Probation Service when they were in government. We are putting probation back together. We have already brought 1,000 new probation officers on board, and we are committed to a further 1,300 in the coming year. \p Simon Hoare: Mr Speaker, to pick up on your statement, for which I think the whole House will be grateful, I am sure that my Committee will take up your clear urging for us to look at the issue with regard to the ministerial code.

I know the Minister will agree that domestic abuse cannot be an issue to which lip service is paid in this House and then policies seem to neglect. I make no apologies for returning to the views of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, who issued a severe warning to the Lord Chancellor yesterday, commenting:

“I cannot stress the lack of consideration for victims’ safety and how many lives are being put in danger because of this proposed change.”

Why does the Minister think the commissioner, with all her expertise and knowledge, has arrived at that conclusion? \p Nicholas Dakin: We have great respect for the Victims’ Commissioner. What would be letting down victims is if we allowed the prison system to get to a place where we cannot lock prisoners up—that would be unconscionable. That is why it is important that we have taken these steps. I remind the hon. Member that we are excluding those prisoners who pose the most risk and are managed under MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—levels 2 and 3. That means various agencies working together. The exclusion also includes all those convicted of terrorist and national security crimes. Proper action can be taken where agencies identify risk to move from a fixed-term recall to a standard recall. \p Olivia Bailey: Will the Minister tell me whether I am correct that when we entered office, there were fewer than 100 spaces left in our prisons—a terrible failure from the Conservative party? Does he agree that instead of empty words and false promises to build prisons, this Government are getting on with the job? \p Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend is quite right. We faced a real emergency when we came into office. It is unconscionable that any Government would do that to an incoming Government. The previous Labour Government added 28,000 prison places in 13 years. In their 14 years, the Conservative Government managed to add 500. In 10 months we have already delivered 2,400 prison places. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: Has the Ministry of Justice conducted an impact assessment for this policy? If so, will it release that to the House as soon as possible? If not, can the Lord Chancellor confirm how she knows what impact the policy will have on victims and the wider public? \p Nicholas Dakin: We are always alert to the need to assess how policies apply to the wider public and victims. That is important. \p Polly Billington: This situation is one of the most egregious examples of state failure and a consequence of the worst chaos and incompetence of the last 14 years. The Lord Chancellor has been clear that, given current levels of demand, we cannot build our way out of this crisis. Does the Minister agree that we have to be honest and do something different to ensure that we never again run out of prison places, including improving the existing prison estate and investing in the Probation Service, so that we can reduce reoffending and thereby reduce the pressure on prison places? \p Nicholas Dakin: We are improving the prison estate and investing in probation, and there will also be actions coming forward from the independent sentencing review. I agree with everything my hon. Friend said. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: Victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and stalking are now in fear, particularly those who live in rural areas, where tagging does not always work. What particular measures will the Minister put in place to support victims in rural areas who are distant from probation officers and the police? \p Nicholas Dakin: Anybody subject to a fixed-term recall will be recalled for 28 days, and if their risk is assessed as greater, they will be transferred to a standard recall. The reality is that anybody affected by this has already served their time in prison; they are on licence, being properly monitored and effectively managed by the Probation Service. \p Terry Jermy: The prison capacity crisis has been years in the making. Does the Minister welcome the news that Wayland Prison in Norfolk has been granted planning permission just this week, by Breckland council’s planning committee, for a 25% increase in capacity, with 247 extra places? That application alone represents 50% of the total places created under the last Government in 14 years. Does he agree that this is further evidence of the Government delivering after years of inaction? \p Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend is exactly right to point to that planning application going forward. It is excellent news, and shows that we are cracking on with the job. \p Jeremy Wright: Although the Government should have volunteered to defend their position, I accept, having held ministerial responsibility for the prison estate, that they had no good options at this point. Does the Minister accept that the problem with what he is choosing to do is that the return to prison for breach of important licence conditions is there to be a deterrent, and if we reduce that deterrent, we run the risk of more people breaching licence conditions, which would make the overcrowding problem worse? If he chooses that path, will he consider increasing the deterrent effect by ensuring that, following a 28-day return to prison, there are other restrictions on a prisoner’s freedom, such as electronic tagging? \p Nicholas Dakin: I certainly hope that all those things will be looked at by the independent sentencing review. The mandating of the 14-day fixed-term release  was a measure taken by the previous Government. We are extending that to 28 days for sentences of up to four years because of the situation that we face, to ensure that we do not run out of prison places in the interim. \p Claire Hazelgrove: Like me, many residents across Filton and Bradly Stoke were rightly appalled last summer to discover the real situation left behind by the Conservative party. When it comes to prisons, does the Minister agree that this is an opportunity for the Conservative party to apologise? \p Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the House will have heard it. \p Richard Tice: The Minister and the Secretary of State have often used the word “emergency” to describe the state of the prison population, and I have asked the Secretary of State how long it will take to deport all the foreign criminals clogging up our jails. This is a moment for the Secretary of State to say, “Yes, this is an emergency,” and to deport the lot of them, freeing up about 10,000 places, which would help overcome this crisis. \p Nicholas Dakin: We have deported more foreign national offenders in 12 months than the last Government did in the previous 12 months, and we are continuing to work hard with the Home Office to deport foreign national offenders. We will never be able to do that on the scale necessary to address the challenges that we face in our prisons at this time. \p Warinder Juss: On a recent visit to Featherstone prison near Wolverhampton, I came across several prisoners who had been recalled, and who were waiting up to a year to have their cases progressed. Does the Minister agree that limiting the recall sentence, making greater use of technology to punish offenders in the community, and making the Probation Service more effective will result in better rehabilitation of prisoners, reduce reoffending, and ease the prison overcrowding caused by the previous Government? \p Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend points out the actions that we must take to address the challenges that we face in the system, and to make the system work better for victims and protect the public. \p Desmond Swayne: Many domestic abusers will, given their nature, welcome the opportunity to give another twist of the knife at the cost of a mere 28 days. Has the Minister just presented them with a practical opportunity? \p Nicholas Dakin: I have carefully gone through the exclusions from this measure, and emphasised the importance of good professional bodies continuing to apply proper risk assessments. When risk assessments say that a standard recall is more appropriate than a fixed-term recall, that will happen. \p Andy McDonald: It is a bit rich for Conservative Members to be critical when they left the criminal justice system in total meltdown. Does my hon. Friend agree that tagging is an important resource for protecting the public from  criminals? Perhaps he saw the Channel 4 programme “Dispatches”, which showed that the contract given to Serco by the Conservative party was totally and utterly failing. Does he have confidence in Serco to deliver that contract, and if not, will he remove it, and bring that service back under public control? \p Nicholas Dakin: It is clear that tagging technology has huge potential. A recent study has shown a 20% reduction in reoffending by offenders wearing curfew tags, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to concerns about the contract. Serco’s performance is improving, but it is still not acceptable. The reporting in the “Dispatches” programme was from last year, when we knew that there were serious issues, and we issued financial penalties to Serco, which was given the contract by the previous Government. If Serco’s performance drops again, all options will remain on the table. \p Steve Barclay: This announcement is a further illustration of why this House should legislate to remove all impediments to the deportation of foreign national offenders. In his reply to the shadow Justice Secretary, the Minister said that victims who are affected by this policy should be kept informed about release, yet he refused to say whether the Department has conducted an impact assessment. What new information is he today willing to commit to publishing each month, so that victims are indeed kept informed? \p Nicholas Dakin: Victims absolutely need to be kept informed, and we continue to work with victims’ groups and the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure that they are. \p Laurence Turner: In separate cases, two families in my constituency lost loved ones when they were murdered by offenders who were out on remand but should never have been. Will the Minister meet me and, if they wish, both families, so that they can have some assurance that lessons have been learned from these cases, and so that other families are not placed in the same horrendous situation? \p Nicholas Dakin: I am very sorry to hear about the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend. I am happy to meet him to take the matter further. \p John Lamont: The Victims’ Commissioner has warned that freeing prisoners early who have been shown to pose a reoffending risk to the public will

“place victims and the wider public at an unnecessary risk of harm.”

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has said that it is “simply unacceptable”. What discussions did the Government have with those two commissioners before making the announcement? \p Nicholas Dakin: We speak to the Victims’ Commissioner regularly; the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), is speaking to them later today. \p James Wild: The Justice Secretary could have chosen to deport more of the thousands of offenders in our jails, maxed out court sitting days, repurposed buildings or procured temporary facilities to hold offenders. Why has she instead chosen to release serious offenders, including domestic abusers, from jail early, with no consideration for the victims? \p Nicholas Dakin: This is not about releasing people from prison earlier. \p James Wild: Yes, it is. \p Nicholas Dakin: No, it is not. This is about people who have already served their sentence in prison; they are out in the community. If they breach a condition of their licence, they are returned to prison. The hon. Gentleman might as well ask why the Government he supported did not take any of the measures that he mentions. Our Government inherited the mess that his Government left us, and we are taking decisions to address the unconscionable threat of having a prison system that is not able to lock up dangerous people. \p Gavin Williamson: Ministers seem to have been deliberately vague about the number of domestic abuse offenders who will be eligible for release, and the breadth of their offences. Given how big the announcement is, the Government and the Department will have done a lot of work looking at who will be eligible. Will the Minister set out to the House the exact number of domestic abuse offenders who will be eligible for this scheme? \p Nicholas Dakin: I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s question, and I will write to him. \p Bradley Thomas: The first duty of government is to keep the public safe. I recently met a constituent whose convicted ex-husband is serving a prison sentence, having raped her twice. Despite being in prison, he continues to have indirect access to their children. My constituent thinks that is wrong, and I agree. Does the Minister agree that convicted violent and sexual offenders should serve maximum possible custodial sentences, and lose parental access rights? \p Nicholas Dakin: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Victims and Courts Bill is about to go through Parliament, and that is the sort of issue that we will look at during the Bill’s passage. \p Ashley Fox: One of the reasons why our prisons are so full is that we have more than 10,000 foreign nationals in them. What steps is the Minister taking to deport them? \p Nicholas Dakin: I say gently that we have deported more foreign nationals in the first year on our watch than the previous Government did in the years on their watch. He is right that we have to roll up our sleeves and continue to get on with the job. \p Lincoln Jopp: The Minister has been slightly equivocal in answering this question, which I have asked on two previous occasions; third time  lucky! Prior to announcing this policy change yesterday, did the Government meet and consult the Domestic Abuse Commissioner about it—yes or no? \p Nicholas Dakin: The commissioner has been spoken to by the team. To be clear, the impact assessment will be published when we come to consider the statutory instrument. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: The new measures announced by the Justice Secretary suggest that the Government have learned nothing from the furore and loss of public confidence that followed last year’s early release debacle. That same Justice Secretary, along with the Victims Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who is in her place, signed the protest letter that led to the convicted child rapist Fabian Henry being removed from a deportation flight. The Prime Minister signed that letter, too. Why do the Justice Secretary and her Ministers appear to have such scant regard for the impact that their management of prison releases will have on the victims of crimes? When will she implement measures that act as a deterrent to recidivism, rather than as a minor inconvenience to the continuation of a criminal career? \p Nicholas Dakin: We are committed to getting this right. The early release scheme that the previous Government put in place did not have the same exceptions as our early release scheme did for the sort of offenders that the hon. Gentleman draws attention to, but these matters are very difficult. The most important thing is ensuring that we have a criminal justice system that works. We need to be able to lock up dangerous people, and those who do really bad things. When we came into government, the situation was that we might not be able to maintain that ability. We have had to take actions that we would far rather not take in order to keep the system going. \p Jim Shannon: The Minister is a very decent person, and he and I have been friends for many years, but I must ask this question, which I hope I can put in the way that I wish to. I really struggle to understand the rationale behind allowing a criminal to consider their options and work out whether what they intend to do is worth an additional 28 days in jail, or allowing a person to weigh up whether breaking a restraining or non-molestation order is worth a month in prison. Criminals need to fear that if they break the law again, it will be worse for them. How do the Minister and the Department think that the policy will disincentivise repeat offending? \p Nicholas Dakin: I have made clear the exceptions that apply to this tight, fixed-term recall alteration. The management of people in the community will be risk-assessed, as always. If the view is that a different approach needs to be taken, it will be taken. \p Caroline Nokes: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025

Great British Energy Act 2025. \p Jesse Norman: Will the Leader of the House give us the future business? \p Lucy Powell: I shall. The business for the week commencing 19 May includes:

Monday 19 May—Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 20 May—Second Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill.

Wednesday 21 May—Opposition day (8th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.

Thursday 22 May—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a general debate on access to NHS dentistry, followed by a general debate on dementia care. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 22 May and return on Monday 2 June.

The provisional business for the week commencing 2 June will include:

Monday 2 June—Second Reading of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. \p Jesse Norman: I thank the Leader of the House for her remarks. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, this week saw the tragic and untimely death of Sir Roy Stone. We had a brief moment of recognition of him earlier in the week, but I am keenly aware that many Labour colleagues were not in the House at the time of his flourishing. As such, I wanted to mention in the Chamber today how much we all respected him, and give the Leader of the House the chance to say something about him if she wishes.

More widely, we have had a week of mixed economics, with growth slightly up, weak wage growth, a spike in unemployment—as everyone had predicted in the case of national insurance—and fiscal strains highlighted just today by a former Treasury civil servant. We have also had an immigration policy launched with echoes of Enoch Powell, and a Prime Minister who appears not to know the difference between capital and current spending in relation to hospices that are seeking to support people day to day across this country—people who are literally at death’s door.

I would have moved on from the politics of the week at this point in my remarks, but for the extraordinary series of interventions by Mr Speaker only a few minutes ago on the Government’s failures to announce their policies in the House. Mr Speaker rightly sought—and was eventually given—an apology by the Minister, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), for their latest failure, but the irony is absolutely extraordinary. That announcement came just hours after the Leader of the House had to be dragged to this Chamber to answer questions on this very topic. She failed to apologise to  this House yesterday; I wonder whether she will take the opportunity to do so today. Whether she does or not, I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers, will insist on maintaining the primacy of our parliamentary democracy and demanding that Governments are held to account.

Today, I come to the Chamber not to ask about a particular item of policy, but to offer a positive policy idea; not to focus on what may be passing from day to day in the Government’s policies, but to focus on the longer term and to celebrate. I do so in relation to a personal interest of mine—indeed, a mini-obsession, as the House probably knows—which is growth, development and innovation in higher education. This week, we saw the graduation of the first students at our new university in Hereford, the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering. It is the first greenfield university in this country for 40 years, a specialist, technical engineering university teaching students of every age and background —especially those from less well-off families—in a very intensive and immersive way. It teaches them the hand-on skills of an apprenticeship, but also the rigour of a master’s degree. Its students work in teams, building work habits and working closely with partner companies in defence, security, energy, construction, food and agriculture.

I mention that university now because it highlights what could be considered a lack of ambition in the way that we as a country have thought about higher education over the past 50 years, or possibly even longer. NMITE is an institution that is not just focused on marginal educational gain, but on transformational improvement. It aims to take a person—male or female, young or old—who might never have thought of going to university at all and help them to find their passions, head, hands and heart, and take them as far as they can go. It aims to reinvent not just what students learn, but how they learn, with theory and practice tied together in real-world challenges, forging professionals through immersive and intensive work with a sense of mission and purpose. It aims to build the right habits and prepare those students, not just for the world of work, but for a world of work that is constantly changing.

Above all, the university seeks to keep the benefits of being small in size—something we have lost in so much of higher education—with agility, accountability, personal engagement, teamwork and friendships and a sense of belonging and community, so that our students grow as morally serious human beings who can readily and resiliently deal with complexity and uncertainty, and who are deeply aware of the power and responsibility that comes with being an engineer. Does it work? These students are studying for a masters in engineering, certified independently as being of very high quality. The first cohort are going into jobs at a rate of almost 100% in companies such as Balfour Beatty, Kier, Cadbury, BAE, AWE, Safran and local companies at an average salary of £34,000, drawing national needs and local needs together. It is the small modular reactor of British higher education.

I raise this example because I want to invite the Government and Members from across the House to consider whether we could not do it elsewhere. There are at least 50 small cities and large towns in this country that lack higher education and higher economic  growth. There is a huge need for specialist science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills. We have vast amounts of talent deprived of opportunity, and this can be part of the solution. I do not know whether any colleagues would like to be involved, but each could be, in their own area and their constituency, leading on the creation not just of a campus, but of a new university designed for local people, local businesses and national economic opportunity. That is the opportunity. I invite the House and the Government to consider it. \p Lucy Powell: I will take this opportunity to also pay tribute to Sir Roy Stone, the former principal private secretary to the Government Chief Whip. He was very much known as the “usual channels”, and I think he embodied that with distinction. I did not know him personally, but I know of his reputation and of the love and esteem in which he was held by many Members across the House. We send our thoughts to his family and friends again at this time.

The thoughts of many across the House will also be with those living in Gaza. We see the intolerable suffering, death and starvation on our screens most evenings, and it must stop now. Food is not reaching starving people, airstrikes are killing civilians and hostages are still being held. I know that this whole House wants to see a change of course, meaningful aid getting in, an urgent ceasefire and a path to a durable peace.

I also heard Mr Speaker’s statement this morning about the Government giving statements to this House in a timely fashion, and I absolutely hear what he says. As I said yesterday in the House, I will ensure that that message is relayed, as I do on many occasions, to our Cabinet colleagues. I just remind the House that the Lord Chancellor laid a long written ministerial statement yesterday afternoon, as did the Home Secretary earlier in the week, but we can and we must do better. The right hon. Gentleman, as I said yesterday in the House, should remember that we have given 146 oral statements in just 133 sitting days, and that far outstrips what happened under his Government when, frankly, they disrespected Parliament time after time. I will not be taking any lectures from him on that.

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about the new technical university in his constituency in Herefordshire. It sounds like an important and good innovation to provide technical education and engineering pathways, particularly for people from certain backgrounds who might not otherwise access such education. My eldest son is currently studying engineering at one of the universities that I represent—Manchester Metropolitan University—and I hope he and many others have a pathway into work. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that when higher education joins much more closely with the place of work and the skills that are needed for the jobs of the future, that is when we get much more bang for our buck, and our young people have the opportunities in life that they need.

I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did just about mention the economy again this week. He did not seem to want to welcome the good news on growth figures out this morning, and he did not mention the interest rate cut last week either. Nor did he mention the 200 jobs that we have created since the election. I do not know if he noticed what the former Chancellor, George Osborne, said last week about the stance of the  Conservatives under their current leader: that they are more interested in culture wars than in having a serious economic plan. He is right, isn’t he?

The right hon. Gentleman talks about getting figures wrong, but what a way for the Leader of the Opposition to get her figures wrong during Prime Minister’s questions yesterday—by a factor of 100. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman wants to set the record straight on that. She also did not seem to grasp the importance and value of the trade deals that we have struck in the last week or so, and of the billions of pounds that they will bring into the economy. Thankfully, though, there are still a few true Conservatives on the Back Benches who really understand the core conservative idea of free trade. His former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), welcomed those trade deals. His former Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), welcomed them too. Even Kwasi Kwarteng, the former Chancellor, said that the US-UK deal is a success. George Osborne is right, isn’t he? The Conservatives have no idea where they stand on the economy, and they have no plan. We have a plan for growth, a plan to improve living standards and a plan to put money back in people’s pockets, and people are starting to see the fruits of that today. \p Christopher Bloore: Astwood Bank is a beautiful village in my constituency of Redditch and the villages. However, despite its aesthetic beauty, it is the people of Astwood Bank who I am most proud of. In the Gallery today are a group representing Astwood Bank’s Royal British Legion, which has been responsible for raising tens of thousands of pounds for our veterans and service personnel. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Astwood Bank’s RBL, including officers, veterans, school governors and our local reverend, for its public service and commitment to the community? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming those from Astwood Bank’s Royal British Legion to Parliament today. I am sure the whole House is grateful for the work that they have done, for the thousands of pounds that they have raised, and for all the service that they have given over many years. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Marie Goldman: I echo the Leader of the House’s words about the intolerable and increasingly unsurvivable situation in Gaza. I urge the Government to do everything in their power to help remedy the situation.

My Chelmsford constituent, who is self-employed, regularly has to deal with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. He recently wrote to me about the unacceptable waiting times on HMRC’s customer service helpline. In his experience, this issue has been going on for years but has recently grown considerably worse. He tells me that he sometimes has to wait for up to 40 minutes before giving up and hanging up. It is all very well having services online, but if they are not fully accessible, people will still need an HMRC helpline that is responsive. Sadly, that is not the case.

The unacceptable level of customer service has been the subject of cross-party criticism in this House many times over the years. This year, the Public Accounts Committee agreed that the situation has indeed got worse. It found that 44,000 HMRC customers were cut off while waiting more than 70 minutes to reach an adviser—more than six times the figure for the whole of the 2022-23 financial year. I am sure the whole House will agree that spending time on the phone while waiting to resolve tax issues is not something that many of us or our constituents particularly enjoy doing, and it does not do anything to help productivity. Businesses need to spend their time selling their goods and services and generating tax receipts for the Treasury, not languishing on the end of a phone. Will the Leader of the House ask for a statement to be made about when we can expect to see improvements? \p Lucy Powell: First of all, as I said in my opening remarks, the situation in Gaza is truly intolerable and awful to see.

The hon. Lady raises what is, unfortunately, an all too familiar issue that many of our businesses and constituents face when trying to contact HMRC and other services. It is simply not good enough that people have to wait as long as she describes, which is incredibly frustrating for them. As she says, it has a real impact on the time that they could otherwise spend on their businesses and on doing what they need to do. She may be aware that, later this year, HMRC will publish a transformation road map to ensure that its services significantly improve, particularly at the customer end. I will make sure that a statement is given about that plan when it is ready, and that she gets an update from the Minister in the meantime. \p Jessica Morden: Like many hon. Members across the House, I have leaseholders in properties in Newport East managed by FirstPort who have seen their service charges dramatically increase—in one case, a constituent reports, by 262% since 2020—despite getting very little in return. Can we please have an update on the Government’s timeline for the introduction of greater protection for leaseholders and strengthening the regulation of managing agents? \p Lucy Powell: This issue is raised with me regularly at business questions, and by my own constituents, as I represent many leaseholders across Manchester Central. The situation my hon. Friend describes is all too familiar, and I am sorry to hear what FirstPort is doing in her constituency. She will know that this Government have real ambitions for leasehold reform. We want to end the feudal system of leasehold and bring forward a system of commonhold. That is why we have published the White Paper, and we have also laid regulations to make it easier for leaseholders to get the right to manage. Later this year, we will bring forward a draft leasehold reform Bill, which will be a comprehensive package to change the system for good. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. \p Bob Blackman: In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, in the Chamber next week there will be a statement from the Business and Trade Committee. When we  come back after the Whitsun recess, if we are granted the time, on 5 June there will be a debate on high street banking closures and banking hubs, followed by a debate on safety regulations in the construction and planning of battery energy storage sites. If we are given the time, on 12 June there will be a debate on the distribution of special educational needs and disabilities funding, followed by a debate on the fifth anniversary of the covid-19 pandemic.

In Westminster Hall next week, on Tuesday there will be a debate on pensions for people living overseas, and on Thursday there will be a full three-hour debate on the UK-EU summit results. When we come back, on Tuesday 3 June there will be a debate on the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and on Thursday 5 June there will be a debate on the police presence on high streets, followed by a debate on the contribution of maths to the UK. On Tuesday 10 June there will be a debate on the US aid funding pause and the impact on UK international development, and on Thursday 12 June there will be a debate on the legal recognition of humanist marriages, followed by a debate on long-term conditions.

Today is the last day for people to respond to the consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on my private Member’s Bill, which was given Royal Assent in 2023, on supported housing exempt accommodation. Unfortunately, over the last two years rogue landlords have continued to exploit vulnerable people, but I am delighted that the Government have taken up the regulations we had prepared before the general election. I urge individuals who wish to respond to the consultation to do so without delay. Will the Secretary of State make a statement after Whitsun on what action the Government will take, how many responses have been received and when we can expect the regulations to be brought into force, so that vulnerable tenants do not continue to be exploited? \p Lucy Powell: First, I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for announcing the important debates it has coming up. In particular, the issue of banking hubs gets raised with me regularly in these sessions, and anyone with a prepared question about that might take note of the fact that there is a forthcoming debate. The issue of planning applications for battery storage facilities is one that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) also regularly raises in these sessions, so I am sure she will be speaking in that; in fact, it is probably her debate.

I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023—an important Act that he pushed through Parliament—on the very important issue of tackling rogue landlords who are taking advantage of very vulnerable people. I know this is a matter of interest to many people across this House, and I will get in touch with the Minister about making a statement on its implementation. \p Jon Trickett: People in my area are totally brassed off with Yorkshire Water, which has failed, repeatedly, to deliver clean water to houses in Upton. It has delivered 5,000 hours of sewage into our local rivers and streams last year, and today we learnt that people are having to boil water  in the north of Yorkshire. In the meantime, it is pushing up prices and has pocketed over £1 billion of profits since covid. Can we have a debate on Yorkshire Water’s lamentable progress on delivering clean water? Can we have an opportunity to see whether or not we think privatisation is a failed experiment? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I am sure he will agree that the previous Conservative Government let water companies profit from filling our waterways and rivers with sewage and, frankly, rubbish at times. We are taking action. We have already passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which now holds water bosses criminally liable for such discharges, and we have secured over £100 billion of private sector investment to upgrade and build our water infrastructure. There is more to be done, which is why we had the commission, which published recently. Further legislation will come forward in due course to look at the broader issues of water reform and water governance. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: I commend the Leader of the House for her very full answers, but there are many Members standing and to get everyone in we will need very short questions and short answers, please. \p John Hayes: As short as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Leader of the House will know that I have raised the issue of crossbows in this Chamber before. They are murderous devices in the wrong hands. In response, the Government have helpfully tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, yet I have still received no information, despite the Prime Minister’s promise that I would, about the response to the consultation. It is now well over a year old, yet we have heard nothing. May we have a statement to the House on the Government’s response to the consultation on crossbow ownership and sale as soon as possible please? \p Lucy Powell: I will ensure the right hon. Gentleman gets an update on the consultation. He is right to say that we brought in amendments in the Committee stage of the Crime and Policing Bill. The Bill will come back after recess for its remaining stages, when some of these issues can be discussed. In the meantime, I will ensure he gets a full response on the consultation. \p Liz Twist: A few weeks ago, I was pleased to welcome three educational groups to Parliament: Derwentside college in Consett, St Joseph’s primary school in Blaydon, and St Mary’s primary school in Blackhill. I congratulate all of them, pupils and staff, who were a real credit to their schools and colleges, and to our Blaydon and Consett constituency. I also thank our magnificent education and engagement team here in Parliament. May we have a debate in Government time on what more we can do to give young people an understanding of our democracy and how they can take part in it? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in commending the great work that the education team here in Parliament do, and I am glad to hear that the schools and colleges from her constituency had such a  great experience. Education about citizenship and democracy is a vital part of what people are doing in schools and need to continue doing. \p Tom Gordon: A number of weeks ago, I mentioned the inaugural Harrogate town council elections. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all those who were elected? May we have a debate in Government time on local government reorganisation? Harrogate borough council used to receive 0.5% of profits from Harrogate Spring Water, but that has now been taken away by North Yorkshire council. We want them to go back to the new Harrogate town council to ensure that local communities do not miss out when we have the new super councils that are not so super. \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. I am delighted to congratulate all those who were elected to Harrogate town council, even if many of them are not Labour—I imagine they probably were not. We are bringing forward the English devolution Bill, when many of those issues will be debated and discussed. There is a real keen interest in the Bill and the issues therein, so I will make sure he gets a ministerial response. \p Mary Foy: Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the work and dedication of Mel Metcalfe and the entire Durham Pride team—supported by the Queen of Durham, Tess Tickle and her Dragettes—in aiming to make this year’s event the biggest and greatest celebration of the LGBT+ community in the county yet? Can we have a debate in Government time to ensure that the hard-won rights secured by the LGBT+ community, activists and campaigners are not eroded by those who would prefer to see celebrations like Pride consigned to the history books? \p Lucy Powell: I will absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who organise Durham Pride every year. I have a large Pride event in my constituency in Manchester, too. We are coming towards Pride season— I think we do usually make time for a debate on the LGBT community ahead of Pride, but I will take her question into account. \p Roger Gale: Later today, the House will debate the subject of solar farms. I do not wish to pre-empt that debate, but the fact of the matter is that building solar farms on agricultural land is completely incompatible with the Government’s proposed policy on sustainable agriculture. Could the Leader of the House have a quiet word with the Prime Minister in the privacy of the Cabinet Room and ask him to talk to the Energy and Agriculture Secretaries and bang some heads together? \p Lucy Powell: As the right hon. Gentleman says, we will be debating some of those issues later today. He is absolutely right that we need to strike a balance between meeting our energy needs, achieving energy security and getting bills down—for which developing solar is absolutely key—while at the same time maintaining our agricultural land and food security. I am sure we will be debating those issues later. \p Liam Conlon: As the MP for Crystal Palace, I asked the Leader of the House to join me in wishing Crystal Palace football club good luck last month, and my constituents were left feeling “Glad All Over” when her good wishes helped to secure them a thumping 3-0 win against Aston Villa in the FA cup semi-final. As a City fan, she may be less willing to wish the Eagles good luck for the final this weekend, but let me wish them good luck for Saturday. Will she acknowledge that it is not only Palace fans who are getting behind Oliver Glasner’s underdogs, but the whole country? \p Lucy Powell: Well. [Laughter.] As the MP for Manchester city as well as being a Manchester City fan, I do not want to see Crystal Palace winning on Saturday, but I do recognise that this is a huge step for them; it is, I think, a long time since they have been in the FA cup final. I know that their supporters will be there loud and proud on Saturday, and that the whole of my hon. Friend’s constituency—and south London, I am sure—will be behind them. However, hopefully Man City will win. \p Wera Hobhouse: Julian House is a homelessness charity that has been operating in Bath for nearly 40 years. Its lease is ending next year, and, with no route to capital or long-term funding, it faces closure. Can we have a debate in Government time on how to end short-term funding cycles for local authorities, which give them little choice but to retain charities on insecure, short-term contracts, which are so devastating for our most vulnerable and at-risk people? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear about the homelessness charity in the hon. Lady’s constituency and the challenges it is facing. She is absolutely right: the short-term funding cycles we have seen for local government are part of the challenge for charities like the one she mentions. We are committed to three-year funding cycles for local government and have boosted local government finances in every part of the country to help to deal with the situations she describes. \p Calvin Bailey: First, I welcome the Leader of the House’s remarks on the intolerable situation in Gaza and her commitment to ensuring that our Government do everything they can to bring about a swift conclusion to this situation. What Israel is doing to blockade what is necessary to sustain life offends every principle of international humanitarian law—the same laws that our own armed forces have to uphold when defending us.

Alongside arms sales, one of the biggest issues is the continuation of RAF overflights from RAF Akrotiri, a base from which I once served. Although I have no doubt that our people are serving honourably and in line with assessments of international law, further clarity is required on the purpose and extent of UK military co-operation. We must be open and transparent and assure our constituents that nothing is being done to aid Israel’s disgraceful acts against the people of Gaza. What can my right hon. Friend, alongside our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, do to address this matter? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and reiterate what I said earlier, which is that the situation in Gaza is intolerable and needs to end. We want a  return to a ceasefire, negotiations to stop the bloodshed and the killing of innocent civilians, and the hostages to be freed. As far away as this may feel from the situation that we are in, a long-term two-state solution must be found as well. He will know that on the issue of arms exports we have suspended export licences to Israel for anything that could be used in the military operations in Gaza. \p Ashley Fox: In January 2024, my constituent, Mr Michael Moyse, wrote to the Treasury about his business, and the Royal Mail has confirmed that his letter was signed for. As he did not receive a reply, he came to my surgery in January this year seeking assistance. Having investigated the matter, I wrote to officials in the Treasury on 18 March requesting that they reply to Mr Moyse. They did not do so. I wrote again to the Treasury on 7 May. My constituent has still not received a reply. Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Chancellor and ask the Treasury to reply to my constituent? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member and his constituent have not received a reply to their correspondence. If he would supply me with the details of that correspondence at the end of this session, I will ensure that he gets a speedy reply. \p Emma Foody: Dinnington village in my constituency recently experienced the sudden and unexpected closure of its post office. We all know how important postal services are for providing banking services, opportunities to pay bills and identity services. I have set up a petition and 200 residents have signed it already. I have also been in touch with the Post Office. Can we have a debate in Government time about the importance of post office services to communities such as mine? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about the closure of the post office in my hon. Friend’s constituency. This matter gets raised with me a lot in business questions, and, as I have said many times before, it is critical that Members of Parliament stand up for these services and make it clear to the Post Office that these closures are not acceptable to our constituents. I will ensure that she gets an update, and that the House is continually updated on these matters. \p Christine Jardine: I am sure that we would all agree that the wellbeing of our universities is vital to the economic wellbeing of this country. As the Member for Edinburgh West, I know that the wellbeing of our four universities in Edinburgh is vital not just to the economy, but to the livelihoods of many of my constituents. International students, in turn, are vital to the wellbeing of those universities. Universities Scotland says that, under the immigration measures proposed this week by the Government, the levy could cost universities in Scotland £85 million a year. There is a great deal of concern about this, so will the Leader of the House arrange for me to have a meeting with the relevant Minister to see how we can address this issue and perhaps reassure our university sector? \p Lucy Powell: International students play an important role in our country. They bring with them skills and make a great contribution. I think that is why Universities UK said this week that our measures will keep us very competitive in these areas, but I take on board what the hon. Member is saying. We have education questions coming up soon, but I will ensure that the Minister gets back to her on these matters. \p Anna Gelderd: Sunday marked National Fishing Remembrance Day. Fishermen in our coastal towns and villages, including Looe and Polperro, play a vital role in food security and national security. I pay tribute to the previous member for South East Cornwall and to her late husband who lost his life to the sea. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on support for a sustainable fishing industry, particularly for smaller, local fleets? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying respect to the former Member. It was National Fishing Remembrance Day last week, and I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to those who contribute to our economy and the fishing way of life in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s. The topic of fishing and fishing communities always raises lots of interest in the House, so I am sure that if she wanted to apply for a debate on it, she would get a lot of interest. \p David Mundell: The Leader of the House has previously been very helpful in facilitating ministerial engagement on the switch-off of the radio teleswitch service. However, the switch-off is due to take place at the end of June, which is only weeks away, and reports suggest that over 100,000 people in Scotland still have not had a new meter installed. That carries the threat of them losing hot water and heating at the end of June. I have constituents, such as Ian Dalling of Peebles, who have repeatedly had appointments for a changeover cancelled, which I think is unacceptable. Will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is brought forward to tell us exactly what is happening with the switch-off and to assure us that nobody will be left without heating or hot water? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the right hon. Member for raising this important matter with me again; he is very diligent on behalf of his constituents. He is right that the radio teleswitch replacement programme has been far too slow. We have been trying to speed it up, but what he describes is simply not good enough, and he is right to say that it is unacceptable. We need suppliers to meet their obligations in order to ensure that none of his constituents are left without hot water or heating. I will ensure that he gets a ministerial response, and I will ask for the whole House to be given an update. \p David Williams: As a proud Stokey, I cannot wait to celebrate our city centenary on 5 June alongside my fellow residents. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Councillor Jane Ashworth OBE, leader of Stoke-on-Trent City council, and our fantastic Lord Mayor Lyn Sharpe on their exceptional leadership in delivering a truly ambitious and inclusive programme of activities and events to mark this historic year? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend, the proud Stokey that he is, in congratulating Stoke-on-Trent on its centenary, and I too thank Jane Ashworth and Lyn Sharpe for their great leadership. I love visiting Stoke, and I look forward to the city flourishing over its next hundred years. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: There has been real interest in Westminster Hall debates on maternity services and the recently announced closure of the maternity service and special baby care unit at Yeovil hospital. Will the Leader of the House commit to time in the Chamber to debate the failure to implement in full the Ockenden recommendations that would see the improved maternity care we need across the UK? \p Lucy Powell: I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising these matters in Westminster Hall and elsewhere; they are important issues. I am sure that were she to apply for a Backbench Business debate on those matters, she would get a lot of support. [Interruption.] Ah, the hon. Lady is a member of the Backbench Business Committee, so she cannot apply. Perhaps she could encourage Members who are listening to her pleas to ask for a debate. She raises important matters which I know are very important to the Health Secretary. He is keen to keep the House updated, and I will ensure that the hon. Lady is kept updated as well. \p Baggy Shanker: It was fantastic to attend Primary Engineer events in Derby earlier this month, supported by the amazing Jemma Smalls and the wider Rail Forum. Pupils from local schools showcased model trains that they had designed and made themselves. We are proud in Derby of our rail heritage, and we know that through investing in our young people we can ensure that there is a bright future ahead. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the outstanding creativity, teamwork and problem solving that the young people showed? \p Lucy Powell: The rail forum initiative in my hon. Friend’s constituency sounds wonderful. I am thrilled that the Government are committed to headquartering Great British Rail in Derby. Hopefully, its rail history will very much be a part of its rail future and young people in his constituency will be able to have a great career in rail engineering. \p Steve Barclay: I join the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in their tributes to Sir Roy Stone, further to those in the House on Tuesday. He was the most exceptional civil servant and his loss is deeply felt by many.

Can we have a debate in Government time on any legislative and wider changes needed to deliver value for money in the restoration and renewal programme, particularly given Government statements on wider pressures on the public finances and the fact that so many Members of the House were newly elected last July and therefore have not had an opportunity to give their views and shape the programme? \p Lucy Powell: I join the right hon. Member in paying tribute to the exceptional service of Sir Roy Stone. I know that he worked with Sir Roy, as did many others across the House; he sounds like the most tremendous person to have worked with.

The right hon. Member raises the really important issue of the restoration and renewal project for the House of Commons. He and I both sit on the House of Commons Commission, where we discuss these issues. It is vital that the House has its say on what that project will entail, that we get value for money and that people can see what that money is being spent on—some of the necessary reservicing works that we must see at some point. We will have plenty of time to debate those issues on the Floor of the House. \p Julie Minns: Last week, His Majesty the King was pleased to approve the appointment of the new Bishop of Carlisle, Rob Saner-Haigh. His appointment after two years acting in the role has been widely welcomed across the diocese. May I invite the Leader of the House to welcome the appointment? Would she make time for a debate on the important work our faith leaders do in all our communities? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Bishop of Carlisle on his recent appointment. I know that these matters are of interest to the House but, because they fall outside Government business, they often struggle to get debating time, as I discussed recently with the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova). Hopefully, through the Modernisation Committee and other work we are doing, we can find more time to debate such important matters. \p Wendy Morton: Like the Leader of the House, I am delighted that we will be having a debate on battery energy storage systems, but that is not my question for today. It will come as no surprise that I want to press her again on Aldridge train station.

At Transport questions, I asked the Secretary of State a question, and she said that she would come back to me with an update and speak to Mayor Parker. Money has been taken away from the project, and I am struggling to get a response from the Mayor of the West Midlands to correspondence from months ago. Could the Leader of the House perhaps assist in that or offer us a debate in Government time on the importance of rail connectivity not just to my constituency but around the west midlands, particularly given that we await the review on the west midlands rail hub? \p Lucy Powell: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her persistence in raising the same issue twice in one morning. She is right to do so, because access to train stations and investment in stations is a critical issue to our constituents. I hope that the Secretary of State will come back to her; I will chase that. I think there would be a lot of interest in a broader debate on access to train stations and rail infrastructure in the west midlands and beyond. \p Adam Jogee: I am concerned that this week FedEx announced that it is planning to close its depot in Newcastle-under-Lyme. That is bad news for hundreds of workers in my constituency and feels very much like a case of profit over people. It stands in stark contrast to the Government’s commitment to our industrial heartlands. Let us be clear: the site is strategically placed and should prosper.  With that in mind, will the Leader of the House join me in urging FedEx to think again and work with me to explore alternatives that will protect my constituents’ jobs and livelihoods? \p Lucy Powell: I am really sorry to hear about the proposed closure of the FedEx depot in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He is right as a constituency MP to raise that with me on the Floor of the House. Obviously, these are matters for FedEx, but we want to see more investment in jobs and opportunity in his constituency. I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister. \p Robbie Moore: West Yorkshire police recently announced, to much fanfare, that areas such as Keighley and Ilkley would receive extra officers as part of a new neighbourhood policing team strategy. What seemed like a good and positive announcement hid the fact that the so-called new officers have been seconded from Operation Steerside—a critical team of officers that tackles vehicle crimes, which will now be disbanded, with a negative impact on my constituents. May we have a debate on that important issue in Government time? Does the Leader of the House agree that if officer numbers are an issue for West Yorkshire police, the force should not continue with discriminatory hiring practices that deter white recruits from applying? \p Lucy Powell: We are committed to introducing more neighbourhood policing roles. As part of our policing guarantee, we are going to introduce an additional 13,000 neighbourhood policing roles by 2029. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, like mine, will want to see those neighbourhood police officers in his constituency, on the street, tackling crime in our communities and making sure that our streets are safer. \p Perran Moon: Defibrillators are a vital community resource; they save lives and provide reassurance to local residents and visitors. In my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, Paul Kimberley has been leading the St Agnes parish-wide defibrillator network, which now includes 50 different defibrillators across the area. Thanks to that initiative, St Agnes now ranks in the top 2% nationally for defibrillator coverage. Will the Leader of the House congratulate Paul for his work? Does she also agree that we need a more informed and strategic approach to defibrillator provision, and will she allocate time to support and debate that initiative? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Paul Kimberley on getting more defibrillators to Camborne and Redruth. We recognise the importance that they play; improving access to them is critical. We have topped up funds to do that, but my hon. Friend is right that we need to go further and have a more strategic approach. \p Nusrat Ghani: Questions and answers will have to be much shorter so we can get more colleagues in. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I am sure that the Leader of the House, like me, loves a farm shop. Johnsons of Old Hurst in my constituency was last  week declared the best farm shop and delicatessen in Cambridgeshire at the Muddy Stilettos awards for independent businesses. The shop offers high-quality, home-grown British produce, and I know from personal experience how busy it is and how difficult it is to get a table in the tearoom there. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Andy and Tracey, and wishing them well for the best of the best national finals next month, where they will be in contention to become the best farm shop and delicatessen in the country—and surely the only one with a lion enclosure? \p Lucy Powell: I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Andy and Tracey on their award-winning farm shop, which sounds fantastic. Maybe next time the hon. Member can offer me an invitation and I might join him. \p Patricia Ferguson: Football Families for Justice is a voluntary organisation that campaigns on behalf of ex-professional footballers who have died or are suffering from neurodegenerative diseases incurred by heading footballs. Footballers suffer such diseases at four to five times the national average. The FFJ has tried to engage the football industry to persuade it to accept some responsibility for the problem, but to no avail. Will the Leader of the House advise on whether the Government would consider amendments to the Football Governance Bill that would encourage the industry to do so? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in thanking the FFJ for all its work on this important matter, which she is right to raise. We have debated the Bill on Second Reading. My hon. Friend might want to see if she can join the Public Bill Committee, which will provide a good opportunity to debate further action. \p John Lamont: The Scottish fire and rescue service is facing damaging cuts thanks to underfunding by the SNP Government in Edinburgh. Last week, I visited Hawick fire station, where I heard about the proposed cuts, including changes to the retained service and a reduction in the 24/7 coverage to office hours. Such proposals could put lives at risk, so may we have a debate on the importance of adequate funding for our fire and rescue services? Also, does the Leader of the House agree that the SNP cuts are completely reckless? \p Lucy Powell: The hon. Gentleman is a fantastic campaigner for services in his constituency. I am sorry to hear that the SNP Government are proposing to cut the Scottish fire and rescue service. They have had a very good settlement in the Budget recently, so there really is no excuse. I implore him to continue campaigning for this vital service. \p Warinder Juss: During the previous 10 years or so, one student has died every four days in England and Wales due to suicide. Members of this House have previously put questions to Departments on several occasions on establishing a statutory duty of care on higher education providers towards their students, yet the position remains uncertain for students who may be very vulnerable but are not diagnosed with a disability. Will the Leader of the House please meet me and the director of student life and designated safeguarding  lead at the University of Wolverhampton in my constituency to discuss and clarify what duties and responsibilities universities have towards their students’ health and wellbeing? \p Lucy Powell: These are shocking statistics and difficult stories to hear. They are not just numbers but individual tragedies happening in our universities. The Department for Education leads on these matters, and I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s important question. \p Claire Young: Flooding is an increasing concern across the country. Only last month, I met agencies involved in tackling flooding on the railway at Old Sodbury, which impacts on the surrounding farmland and caused homes in Yate to be flooded during Storm Bert—yet the Government have made no funding commitment for flood protection beyond next April. Will the Leader of the House ask the Flooding Minister to bring to the House plans for longer-term flood protection funding? \p Lucy Powell: We have boosted flood protection funding considerably after years of under-investment and cuts by the previous Government, and we have a flood taskforce in place. We have already made a number of statements on flooding, but I will ensure that the House is kept updated on all our plans for enhancing flood defences. \p Sarah Edwards: LightSpeed Broadband has been installing infrastructure across my constituency. Disgracefully, it has falsely claimed in communications, including written letters to my constituents, that during a meeting I signed off on its works. That is a gross misrepresentation of the meeting I held with the company to raise complaints about this issue, and this unacceptable behaviour undermines Members and this House. May I therefore request a statement on how the Government are ensuring that corporate companies cannot misrepresent Members, make false claims for financial gain or undermine MPs in their constituencies, and the penalties for doing so? Such company is a disgrace, and I warn colleagues about their conduct. \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear of that shocking incident and that LightSpeed has misrepresented my hon. Friend so badly to her constituents. She is absolutely right to raise the matter on the Floor of the House, and I am sure that it will get the attention it deserves. \p Bradley Thomas: Estate management monopolies are blighting the lives of homeowners across the country, including residents of Cofton Hackett in my constituency. The most egregious examples by companies including FirstPort—of which I know many colleagues are aware—represent at best carelessness and at worst a lack of moral ethics. Does the Leader of the House agree that the regulation of estate management companies is essential, and will she update the House on when these essential fleecehold reforms will come forward? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely, and the case of FirstPort has already been raised in this session. It is obviously a matter of great concern to the hon. Member’s constituents and across the House. We are absolutely committed to  leasehold reform. We have already published the common- hold White Paper and have brought forward regulations to make the right to manage easier. We will also bring forward a comprehensive draft leasehold reform Bill later this year, which I am sure the whole House will welcome. \p Luke Charters: This Government are getting on with building new railway lines across the country: High Speed 2, East West Rail and, of course, the TransPennine route upgrade, which will benefit my constituents. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of those lines should be named the Turing line to honour Alan Turing’s personal tenacity, British brilliance and English ingenuity? \p Lucy Powell: As the MP for Manchester Central, I am huge fan of Alan Turing and ensuring that he gets the recognition that he so deserves. It would be a fitting tribute to consider naming the TransPennine route, or perhaps some other rail line, after him. It is important that we get those upgrades, and the transport infrastructure connecting our constituencies, as the north deserves. \p Lincoln Jopp: The Leader of the House knows a great deal about my constituency because I never tire of telling her about it during business questions, so she knows that it is in the administrative county of Surrey, but she may not know that it is in the historic county of Middlesex. Tomorrow is Middlesex Day. I wrote to the Government on Monday to remind them gently of that fact and to suggest that the Middlesex flag be flown over Downing Street. I have not yet had a reply to that letter, but I do not really mind about that as long as they fly the flag. \p Lucy Powell: As a new Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman flies the flag for Spelthorne very well indeed. I know which constituency he represents and he should take great pride from that. I am sure that we can all recognise the historic Middlesex Day this week. \p Steve Yemm: I plan to host in June a joint event with the Royal British Legion and the Ministry of Defence armed forces covenant team. The aim is to better inform MPs across the House about the current offering of the covenant. As part of the event, there will be an opportunity for all Members to engage with constituents sharing their experience of the armed forces covenant. Might the Leader of the House allow some Government time in the House in the week commencing 7 July so that these real voices and experiences can be heard in this place and represented by their local MP? \p Lucy Powell: It sounds like my hon. Friend is organising a great event to share experiences of the armed forces covenant with Members of Parliament. He gives me a great deal of notice for the debate that he requests, so I will certainly consider it and ensure that he gets a full response. \p Ben Maguire: The town of Bude in my rural constituency is further from a district hospital than almost anywhere else in the country. Derriford hospital in Plymouth is more than an hour and a half away. The No. 12 bus from Bude to Plymouth  has made two changes, which means the route now has three buses and often three different bus fares. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on how the Government should fund vital healthcare transport routes? \p Lucy Powell: Ensuring that health services are available in every community is a vital part of the Government’s health mission. We also need to ensure that those services are connected and joined up with local transport. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill is coming to the House after recess; he may wish to raise these issues then. \p Jonathan Brash: This weekend, young Hartlepool sporting stars will compete on the national stage. The Oaksway under-14 netball squad has qualified for the England Netball national finals in Sheffield on 17 and 18 May. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the team the very best of luck for the finals, and in thanking clean energy company Enviromena, whose generation donation, among others, has helped to make their participation possible? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in wishing Oaksway under-14 netball squad all the very best for the event in Sheffield—I am sure that they will do Hartlepool proud—and in thanking the sponsors for making it happen. \p Shockat Adam: Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Ash Field academy, a truly remarkable place in my constituency. It is more than a school; it is a sanctuary for more than 150 extraordinary children, many of whom unfortunately have life-limiting conditions, and physical and mental challenges. Despite that, I was struck by their boundless joy, courage and unbreakable spirit. However, during my visit, I heard the school community’s deep concerns about proposed cuts to post-16 transport funding—changes that would have a devastating impact on the children, their families and the school. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the incredible work of Ash Field academy and its staff—particularly Mrs Martin and Mrs Chamberlain —and will she affirm that access to education, especially for our most vulnerable young people, must never be hindered by a lack of transport? \p Lucy Powell: I join the hon. Gentleman in recognising the great work that Ash Field academy does in bringing so much joy, love and education to all those who go there. He raises the important matter of access to transport funding. That is a matter for local areas, and I am sure that his remarks have been heard. He may want to raise that important issue on Second Reading of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, after the recess. \p Jayne Kirkham: There is real concern from families in Truro and Falmouth that changes to the adoption and special guardianship support fund are being brought in before the impacts are fully known or assessed. Match funding is going from the fund, which is used for emergency support packages for the most complex cases—including children affected by foetal alcohol syndrome—where there is a real risk of a return to care and of harm. Individual support budgets are also going down, and funding for  specialist assessments is included in those budgets. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the impact of changes to the adoption and special guardianship support fund? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising those issues, which have been raised with me many times before—indeed, Mr Speaker granted an urgent question on this a few weeks ago. I recognise that the fund offers a huge amount of support to adoptive and kinship families, who do a tremendous job. We should all commend them for their work, including the life-changing role that adoptive parents play for the children they look after. I will ensure that the relevant Minister gives a full reply, and I will remind Ministers that this is a matter of great importance to the House and that we should get regular updates. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Unless questions and answers are very short, many colleagues will be disappointed. \p Richard Foord: At the UN Security Council this week, humanitarian affairs co-ordinator Tom Fletcher talked about the need to prevent genocide in Gaza. He said:

“Future generations will hold us in this chamber to account”.

Members of this House were given the opportunity yesterday to ask the Government about their assessment of the likelihood of genocide in Gaza, but will the Leader of the House grant a debate about the obligation on Governments such as ours to prevent genocide? \p Lucy Powell: I know that many colleagues, and many members of the public, will have heard that important speech by Tom Fletcher at the UN Security Council. We had an extensive debate in the House about these matters yesterday. I reiterate that the Government want to see an end to what is happening in Gaza—an end to the bloodshed and the airstrikes—with aid getting in, an urgent ceasefire and the hostages returned, alongside work towards a long-term, diplomatic solution. It is not for the Government of the day to make an adjudication on whether genocide has happened; that is a matter for international courts, and we absolutely respect the international courts and what they do. \p Euan Stainbank: A constituent who worked in the banking sector all her life is now being told that, because of an abatement clause in her contract, she may receive 20% less of her pension than would otherwise reasonably be anticipated. Will the Leader of the House support my call for the Government to identify those affected by underhand pension clawbacks and support them in seeking due redress? \p Lucy Powell: On pension clawbacks, it is important to ensure that pension customers are treated fairly and decently. We will shortly introduce a pensions Bill that will contain additional consumer protections, and my hon. Friend may wish to raise those matters then. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Leader of the House for this opportunity to raise an important matter, as I try to do every week. Around the world,  many Christian and other religious minority communities face persecution, displacement and violence. Non-governmental organisations and faith-based charities do vital work to support them, and overseas development aid also has a crucial role to play. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister to update the House on how UK ODA currently supports persecuted religious minorities, and may we have a statement, or a debate in Government time, on how we can better use aid to protect freedom of religion or belief globally? \p Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the important matter of freedom of religion or belief, as he does every week in business questions. I will ensure that Ministers keep the House updated on the overseas development aid budget and its distribution. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: May we have a debate in Government time on making the issuance of bilingual death certificates the default for deceased persons from Wales? I was recently visited by a constituent who was unable to get such a certificate for her late husband. She has been told that that is because of the circumstances of her case and that, unless there is a change in approach, her only way to get one will be to go the High Court, have the current process quashed and undertake another inquest. What support or advice can the Leader of the House offer me and my constituent, and does she agree that bilingual death certificates should be the default when the deceased person is from Wales? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear about that case. I know that this can be distressing for people at what is already a very distressing time. My hon. Friend will know that death registration law is a matter for the General Register Office, but I can assure him that the Ministry of Justice is working with the GRO to encourage it, particularly when it comes to bilingual requests such as the one in his constituency. \p Torcuil Crichton: Pupils at Leverhulme Memorial school in Harris, in the most beautiful constituency in the country, have won the top prize in the Eco-Schools Scotland awards. They are the most environmentally aware pupils on the planet, and when I visited the school they gave me a lesson on the effects of microplastics on the marine environment. Will the Leader of the House join their campaign and that of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who is not in his place, to lessen the effect of microplastics on the marine environment? I ask this not for cross-party unity, but for the planet and for the pupils of Leverhulme Memorial school. \p Lucy Powell: I congratulate the students of Leverhulme Memorial school on educating my hon. Friend, and now the rest of us, about the problems that microplastics cause in our marine environment. The private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa)—the Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) Bill—will have its Second Reading on 20 June, and I think it would make a very popular topic for a debate. \p Polly Billington: My right hon. Friend will be aware that mums and babies have been badly failed in the past by maternity services at  Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in my constituency. I am sure she will share my delight that the unit has now been rated “good” by the Care Quality Commission. That improvement is testament to the hard work that has been put in by hospital management and staff to turn things round. Will she join me in welcoming the £1.8 million for additional improvements in the maternity unit, and share my rising confidence that QEQM has turned a corner—though I will keep a close eye on it, to ensure that we see further improvements in care for new mums and babies in Thanet? \p Lucy Powell: I am really pleased to hear that maternity services in my hon. Friend’s constituency have been rated “good” by the CQC. That is a great testament to all the work of those in the hospital and the community. I am really pleased to hear that there is new money going in, and I look forward to her keeping a close eye on their performance. \p Paul Davies: Last weekend, my constituency hosted Golcar Lily Day and the Udders Lindley cider festival, and the Holmfirth folk festival marked its 47th year, having proudly maintained its community-based roots. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the organisers of these vibrant festivals, and may we have a debate in Government time on the importance of local festivals in attracting tourism and strengthening local economies? \p Lucy Powell: Once again, my hon. Friend highlights the tourist hotspots of his constituency, in Golcar and Holmfirth—he is a great champion for them. He is right: these festivals can really draw in the crowds to our constituencies. I will ensure that the relevant Minister is made aware for the next time he goes on a visit there. \p Jessica Toale: My constituent PC Demar Rowe has been nominated for a national police bravery award. In the summer of 2023, while off duty and without protective equipment or handcuffs, he was able to disarm a man wielding an electric saw and restrain him for 20 minutes while he waited for the police. I want to put on record my thanks to PC Rowe. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising his bravery, pass this on to the Home Secretary and make time to mark the contribution that our police officers make in all our communities? \p Lucy Powell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in thanking and congratulating PC Rowe—what remarkable bravery. I will ensure that the Home Secretary has heard her question and that we can all celebrate their great work. \p Sureena Brackenridge: This week, when the Independent Pharmacies Association visited Parliament, I got stuck in and had my blood pressure and bloods taken. It highlighted the essential preventive work that pharmacies do to reduce pressure on GPs. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking independent pharmacies for the vital role they play in community healthcare, welcome the record £3.1 billion uplift, and grant time for a debate on the importance of supporting local pharmacies? \p Lucy Powell: I join my hon. Friend in thanking local pharmacies for the work they do. As she says, they play a vital role in preventive and community healthcare.  That is what this Government are committed to, which is why we have put in extra funding and why we will continue to support community pharmacies such as those in her constituency. \p Allison Gardner: My constituent Tina has Rett syndrome and severe scoliosis and needs a new wheelchair. She was measured for one over a year ago but is still waiting to receive it. In my constituency the only option for getting a wheelchair through the NHS is AJM Healthcare. Tina’s mum and dad are not the first constituents to raise with me problems with AJM, and I doubt they will be the last. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how we can improve wheelchair services for constituents such as Tina and Noah—I have mentioned him before—and, importantly, on how we can hold badly performing providers to account? \p Lucy Powell: I am sorry to hear of my hon. Friend’s constituents’ experience. As she will know, NHS England has recently issued new guidance on this for integrated care boards. That includes the wheelchair quality frame- work, published in April this year, which we hope will improve the experience for constituents such as hers. \p Tracy Gilbert: Overnight, the Israeli Government have issued one of the largest evacuation orders seen in the last 20 months. The Minister with responsibility for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has appeared before this House to make statements and respond to questions on numerous occasions. However, it is clear that Members on both sides of the House are increasingly alarmed by the Israeli Government’s actions. Will the Leader of the House schedule an urgent debate in Government time on the UK’s response to the conflict and recognition of the Palestinian state? \p Lucy Powell: This has been raised with me a number of times today. As I have said, the situation in Gaza is truly intolerable. We need to see an urgent ceasefire, aid going in, the killing stopped and hostages released. We have to work towards a long-term solution in the middle east. The Minister has come to the House on many occasions, and I will ensure that the House is kept constantly updated. I can assure my hon. Friend that this Government are taking a leading role in ensuring that peace is brought to Gaza and the middle east. \p Tristan Osborne: The modernisation and introduction of the blue badge programme was a lasting legacy of the last Labour Government. Can the Leader of the House provide time to discuss a cross-party campaign, led by Kent MPs and the editor of my local paper, Matt Ramsden, to support the success of the scheme and look at the inclusion of time-limited conditions in the eligibility criteria? \p Lucy Powell: I am well aware of the great campaigning that my hon. Friend, other Kent MPs and his local newspaper are doing on blue badges, which are vital for those who receive them. I think we have already had a debate on this important matter, but I am sure that a further debate would have wide support. \p Julia Buckley: Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming tomorrow’s launch of the national celebration called Love Your Local Market? It is a two-week campaign where markets upload their details to a map, and we can promote their businesses, food and culture as a key driver of local economic growth, such as my fabulous indoor market in Shrewsbury, voted the UK’s favourite market for the third year running. \p Lucy Powell: I will have a look at the Love Your Local Market website later today. I know of the fantastic market in my hon. Friend’s constituency and am sure that many people will be visiting it this weekend. \p Maya Ellis: HARP—Haweswater aqueduct resilience programme—is a 10-year project about to commence for United Utilities to tunnel water through my constituency from the Lake district to Manchester. I recently met residents of the communities that this work will disrupt for a decade. Will the Leader of the House assure my residents that this Labour Government strongly expect big infrastructure stakeholders such as United Utilities to be proactive in providing regular communications and engaging with the communities they have active projects in? Would she consider allowing time for the House to debate how community impacts should be mitigated in areas disproportionately affected by new water infrastructure projects? \p Lucy Powell: Let me be clear: the Government expect water companies, including United Utilities, to engage with local communities about big projects such as the one my hon. Friend describes in her constituency. We want to see water companies being more accountable. That is why we have already passed legislation on that, and there will be further legislation coming soon. \p Terry Jermy: My residents are very concerned about animal welfare issues, which is why there was such outrage at the weekend after reports in a national newspaper of horrific abuse of animals by workers at an intensive livestock farm. Given that next year will mark 20 years since the last Labour Government brought in the historic Animal Welfare Act 2006, may we have a debate on intensive livestock farming practices and the fact that regulation does not go far enough to protect animal welfare? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely. Animal welfare attracts a great deal of interest from Members from across the House, and this Government are committed to introducing the most ambitious programme for animal welfare in a generation, building on our historical reputation on this issue. We have a number of manifesto pledges that we will bring forward this Parliament. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: My constituent Gerry Borge shared with me the story of his father’s and uncle’s service with the Royal Scots in the far east during world war two. Next Tuesday, a memorial will be unveiled in the Zhoushan islands to commemorate the death of over 800 allied servicemen who were captive on the sunken freighter Lisbon Maru, and hundreds of survivors rescued by Chinese fishermen who braved the seas. Gerry will be in attendance, representing his family members who survived. Will the  Leader of the House make a statement on remembering those who perished in the tragedy, and the bravery of the rescuers? \p Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. That tragedy needs to be remembered, and she has made sure that we are remembering it today. I am pleased to hear about the new memorial being unveiled. \p Jonathan Pearce: I hope the whole House will join me in paying tribute to my constituent Roger Cooper, who died this week. Roger was a brilliant, decent man and a member of the Labour party. He campaigned for over 60 years for the party, his first election being in 1964, and I am extremely proud that what turned out to be his last election elected a Labour Government and a Labour MP. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Roger, and to all members of all political parties who are the unsung heroes of our democracy? \p Lucy Powell: Absolutely; I join my hon. Friend and the whole House in paying tribute to Roger Cooper and his 60 years of service to the Labour party. Whichever party we are from, we all know that our party members and activists are the reason we are here, representing our constituents. Roger will have been thrilled that the final general election he was involved in managed to elect such a wonderful Labour MP for High Peak, and a Labour Government, after 14 years. We send our heartfelt wishes to his family. \p Stephen Doughty: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the cross-Government review of sanctions implementation and enforcement. I promised to update the House on this issue at the earliest opportunity, and I am glad to have the chance to do so today. For those Members who want to get into the full details, they are being published on gov.uk.

Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury, and a vital foreign policy and national security tool. They are used to deter and disrupt threats and malign behaviour, and to demonstrate our values. Our sanctions support UK interests, protect our citizens, and defend international peace and security. Maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, as we debated in the House yesterday. As I said then, the UK has sanctioned over 2,400 targets under our Russia regime, and international sanctions have deprived Putin of $450 billion dollars since the invasion began—an amount of money that would have allowed him to prosecute this terrible war for many more years. Since July 2024, this Government have introduced over 500 new sanctions designations against individuals, entities and ships. Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. This is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships—almost half of Putin’s entire fleet.

President Zelensky is serious about peace, agreeing in principle to a full, unconditional, and immediate ceasefire. His readiness for that peace is demonstrated by his being in Türkiye. Meanwhile, Putin has dodged and delayed, all the while raining down terror on Ukraine. If Putin does not engage seriously on peace, the UK and our allies will have no choice but to ramp up the economic pressure even further, forcing him to the table.

Alongside taking measures against Russia, we are using designations to uphold human rights and promote democracy around the world. Just last month, we targeted pro-Kremlin operatives responsible for destabilising Moldova, and we sanctioned corrupt officials in Georgia and Guatemala for undermining democracy and the rule of law. We will not stop there. We will continue to expose malign activity wherever we find it, using the full range of sanctions tools at our disposal to shape the world for the better. Sanctions play a crucial part in the Foreign Secretary’s mission to tackle corruption and dirty money, which is vital to protect the UK from criminals and safeguard our democracy. In January, the Foreign Secretary announced our new world-first legislation to use sanctions to crack down on those fuelling irregular migration.

This Government are committed not only to using sanctions effectively, but—this is the main focus of the statement—to ensuring that they are enforced rigorously. That means punishing serious breaches with large fines or criminal prosecutions. In opposition, we recognised that there was a need for greater focus on sanctions  enforcement. Since we came to office, we have been working across Government on this, as well as liaising with law enforcement partners and industry. In October, we launched the office of trade sanctions implementation, which has new civil enforcement powers to crack down on those seeking to soften the blow of our sanctions. At the same time, we introduced civil powers for the Department for Transport to enforce transport sanctions.

We have reinforced the office of financial sanctions implementation in His Majesty’s Treasury—known as OFSI for short—and the multi-agency Joint Maritime Security Centre, enabling them better to tackle evasion and develop new tools targeting the Russian shadow fleet, including in the English channel. The investments and improvements that we have made are already paying off. Last month, OFSI imposed a penalty of £465,000 on a major law firm’s subsidiary for breaches of sanctions linked to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We also saw the UK’s first successful prosecution under the Russia financial sanctions regulations, thanks to excellent work by the National Crime Agency. I commend it and its teams for the incredible work that they have done. I expect to see more enforcement action in the coming year—I obviously cannot go into the details of that in the House, but we should be assured that our teams are working effectively in a range of agencies and across Government.

Funding from the economic deterrence initiative has been critical to strengthening our capabilities and maintaining the UK’s reputation among its allies. That initiative is bolstering sanctions work in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. For example, in the British Virgin Islands, it has enabled the NCA to support enforcement and combat potential circumvention. Excellent work has been going on in that regard, and we hosted OTs and CDs at Lancaster House just a few months ago, to collaborate and ensure that we are improving capability across those territories.

I turn to the enforcement review. I am determined to go after those who try to evade our sanctions. In October, I launched a cross-ministerial review to look at how we can improve UK sanctions implementation and enforcement. A strong sanctions regime is crucial for achieving our foreign policy goals and, in turn, building a secure and prosperous UK. This forward-leaning review had three goals: first, to make it easier to comply with our sanctions, which will help businesses to support us in our shared goals; secondly, to increase the deterrent effect of enforcement and make it clear that avoiding sanctions does not pay; and, thirdly, to enhance our ability to take robust action against those seeking to evade our measures. We are publishing the report on the conclusions today, and I am glad of this opportunity to set out how we will ensure that the UK’s approach continues to set a gold standard.

We know that the vast majority of businesses agree with our sanctions and are keen to work with us to make sure that they are enforced. To simplify compliance, we have launched a new email alert system to keep UK businesses updated on designations, legislation, licences, and other related topics. We are also making our guidance clearer and easier to access, providing further clarity to UK industry on ownership and control, and introducing a single sanctions list for all designated persons. We will also assess the benefits of creating a single reporting  point for suspected breaches. To give our sanctions extra bite and deter evasion, we will publish a new enforcement strategy, making clear the consequences of non-compliance. We will look at new options to accelerate civil penalties for financial sanctions breaches, including via an early settlement scheme, and we are dedicated to strengthening our enforcement tools and ensuring that we have the necessary powers, capabilities, and intelligence.

We have already taken action. Last month, we introduced measures to prevent designated individuals from holding director roles in the UK, protecting our brilliant British businesses. The Department for Business and Trade is updating laws to protect workers who report breaches of financial, transport and certain trade sanctions, giving them crucial whistleblower protections. Those actions, taken together and at pace, will further improve our world-class sanctions regime, allowing the UK to project strength and promote the rule of law across the world.

But we are not satisfied with just those measures. We are committed to exploring other areas, so that we can go even further and deeper to improve enforcement. A number of those areas will take longer to scope; I will be able to update the House on them in due course. We will explore options for more effective join-up on intelligence, including the merits of a new joint sanctions intelligence function. We will consider the introduction of sanctions end-use licensing controls for exports with a high risk of sanctions diversion.

We will continue to support the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies in enhancing their enforcement capabilities, and will explore enhancing transport powers to target specific aircraft with sectoral sanctions. As appropriate, we will update Parliament when additional outcomes have been scoped, including those that require new or amended legislation. We have brought forward a number of pieces of sanctions legislation recently; in addition, we expanded our Russia regime this week into a range of areas, and varied our Syria regime in the light of changed circumstances there.

Let me conclude by reiterating this Government’s commitment to strengthening the implementation and enforcement of UK sanctions. As we deliver the actions set out in the review, we will continue to engage across Departments and with industry, wider stakeholders and international partners to maximise the effectiveness of our work. I commend this statement to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Wendy Morton: This is the third time in a week that the Minister and I have met across the Dispatch Box to debate sanctions. Once again, I thank him for advance sight of his statement.

Sanctions are imperative in supporting the rules-based international system and punishing those who breach those rules. The last Conservative Government placed sanctions on Assad and his cruel regime, and helped to lead a co-ordinated approach with our allies on Syria. Britain put in place sanctions on Iran, and worked with the US to reaffirm our shared commitment to opposing those who threatened peace, security and stability in the middle east. In 2021, the UK put in place sanctions, including asset freezes, on Chinese Government officials for gross human rights abuses. Britain led international  efforts to sanction Putin and those behind his war machine in response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We put plans in place to set up the office of trade sanctions implementation, which, as the Minister said, was formally established in October. It was set up to bolster our trade sanctions capability, crack down on companies that breach trade sanctions, and co-ordinate across Government to ensure that sanctions are implemented effectively.

At the time, the Minister announced a cross-Government review. We have not yet seen the report, but I wish to press the Minister on a few points. First, what changes are being made to the sanctions implementation and enforcement framework? What role does OTSI play in any changes? The Minister refers to robust action to increase sanctions evasion deterrence, but what specific measures are being considered? He also mentions a new enforcement strategy; when can we expect that to be published? I would welcome clarity on how the new joint sanctions intelligence function fits into our existing intelligence framework. How does he envisage that working with what we are doing with the US and our other Five Eyes partners?

As I am sure the Minister appreciates, thanks to our leaving the European Union, we now have our own sanctions framework. The flexibility to set our own framework and lead the charge with allies and partners cannot be squandered. Does the Minister expect the EU security pact to touch on the independence of our sanctions regime? We should look to build on the strong measures that we have placed on countries and entities. What progress is being made in identifying further sanctions to impose on those already targeted?

Will the Minister give us an assessment of the number of groups and militia operating in Syria? How will he ensure that the relaxation in sanctions benefits the people of Syria? How often will he review the impact of the relaxation of sanctions? Will he commit to putting sanctions on entities and people in Syria if the standards that we expect in relation to protecting rights are not met? Will the Government consider introducing a new bespoke sanctions regime and set of regulations for Syria?

The critical mass of the current UK sanctions on Iran were introduced under the last Conservative Government. Sanctions form one part of the approach to tackling Iran, but what is the Minister’s broader strategy on Iran?

When we were in government, we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen. The economic pressure that we have collectively imposed with the international community has crippled the Russian economy and deprived Putin of $400 billion that could have funded his illegal war. We cannot afford to let up on exerting that pressure on Putin’s war machine. Part of that includes tackling Russian assets. What consideration has the Minister given to deploying assets from the sale of Chelsea football club to support Ukraine? Will he confirm a timeframe for deploying that money?

I would welcome clarity on what information is coming forward to the Minister about potential sanctions breaches and loopholes that are being exploited. Does the review sufficiently plug the gaps that have been identified? Will he update us on what action he is taking against any third party countries that are supporting the countries and entities we have already sanctioned?

Finally, how does the Minister plan to deepen our international co-ordination? What discussions have the Government had with the United States? Did the Government have advance knowledge of yesterday’s announcement? Will it have a bearing on UK policy on sanctions on Syria? Sanctions are a crucial tool in our diplomatic arsenal. We must ensure that they operate as effectively as possible to ensure that international norms are adhered to. \p Stephen Doughty: I thank the shadow Minister for her broad welcome for this work. I will do my best to answer as many of her questions as I can.

The shadow Minister asked me about the overall review. As I said, it is being published now and she can peruse that when she can; I encourage other hon. Members to look at that as well. We welcome feedback and suggestions on it. To summarise a couple of the key themes, we recognise that different sectors are at different levels of maturity with sanctions, and that Government communications and engagement need to reflect that. Some areas need more assistance; there is a lot of will, but they need support. Some of the measures can be very technical and we want to ensure that businesses can comply. Direct engagement between Government and industry is important, as that has the highest impact on compliance.

We need to bring together our efforts so that they are understood. A range of different agencies are doing important and distinct work, but that needs to be understood by the layperson. We need to improve our guidance and ensure we bridge any gaps in unclear regulations. We need to ensure that people understand the consequences of breaching sanctions, as well as the options. If they voluntarily disclose measures, as a number of businesses and others have done, there are ways forward.

The shadow Minister asked me about intelligence and co-operation with other countries, which is crucial. We will explore how that intelligence function works, but I can assure her that there is already a huge amount of co-operation between us and key partners, including in the United States, the EU and elsewhere. Cross-Government co-operation is also important. Our officials work incredibly hard and I pay tribute to the incredible team in the sanctions unit at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and in other Departments, because they do remarkable work.

The shadow Minister asked specifically about co-operation with the EU. It is important that we co-operate with the EU on sanctions, as we do already. That is being considered, along with a range of measures, as we approach the important summit next week. I assure her that our sanctions policy remains our own, but we can often have maximum effect when we work in co-ordination with others. The EU is progressing its own packages against Russia and others.

On third country circumvention, I have paid particular attention to that issue; indeed, I had meetings just this morning to raise concerns on that specific issue with a partner country. Such meetings are a feature of pretty much every week, and we are bearing down on all the routes that might support measures that undermine our sanctions. On the sale of Chelsea football club, we are determined to see the proceeds reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about quickly, but this is  a complex legal issue. The UK is working with international partners, has engaged with Abramovich’s team and is exploring all options to ensure that the proceeds reach vulnerable people in Ukraine who are most in need.

On Syria, the shadow Minister knows that we updated the regime this week, and we remain with those sanctions against the Assad regime, but we have removed restrictions on others. We reserve the right to introduce new sanctions in future circumstances on any regime, but we will keep the situation there under close review and respond to the changing circumstances. We will judge the new Government by their actions.

On Iran, we announced on 14 April further sanctions to tackle the domestic threat posed by the Iranian regime by sanctioning the Iranian-backed, Sweden-based Foxtrot criminal network and its leader, Rawa Majid, for their role in attacks against targets across Europe. We took very firm action in relation to the supply of ballistic missiles to Russia for use in the illegal war in Ukraine. We remain determined that Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon, and we are committed to using all tools available to ensure that, including using the UN sanctions snapback mechanism if necessary.

Lastly, the shadow Minister asked about enforcement, how we are having an impact and what difference is being made. I have already given some examples, but another example is that in April, the National Crime Agency secured the first criminal convictions for the breaches of Russian sanctions. Dmitry Ovsyannikov was found guilty of circumventing sanctions regulations and money laundering after receiving £76,000 from his wife and a new Mercedes from his brother, who was also found guilty of circumventing sanctions regulations. They were sentenced to 40 months imprisonment and 15 months imprisonment suspended for 15 months respectively, so the right hon. Lady can be absolutely assured that all the appropriate authorities are acting.

These investigations are often complex and necessarily are not made public. I urge the House to bear with some of our excellent teams in different agencies as they seek to enforce on these regimes. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. \p Emily Thornberry: The Minister already knows my view that, as we develop our sanctions policy, Parliament should be more engaged so that we can have collective knowledge and all feed in to the best possible sanctions policy. We do not have enough of that at the moment, and there is more that we should do. One thing that Members would do is suggest more creative ways of using sanctions and more lateral thinking, but, in the end, it does not matter how creative or eye-catching a sanction is: if it is not enforced, it means nothing. My concern, and the concern of many, is that there are simply not enough investigations being done for breaches of sanctions, particularly against British companies. I have listened very carefully to the rapid way in which the Minister gave his statement and read carefully what is in it, but nothing in it says that more resources will be put into actually investigating potential breaches of sanctions. We can change rules and give more powers, but if there are not enough  people actually kicking down doors—literally or otherwise —to ensure that companies are not breaching sanctions, we are frankly wasting a fantastic opportunity. \p Stephen Doughty: My right hon. Friend is no stranger to these issues, and it has been a pleasure to engage with her on them in my conversations with her. I welcome the work of her Committee in that regard. I gently say that there has been a significant amount of parliamentary scrutiny of sanctions—including two occasions this week already, as the shadow Minister mentioned, as well as the course of our debate, FCDO oral questions and my statement today—but I am absolutely committed to engaging with parliamentarians. We have held a number of roundtables, and I hope to continue to do those on a regular basis. We welcome all advice and information from parliamentarians. It is often not possible to come back to the House, particularly on specific information and suggestions. My right hon. Friend will understand the importance of our not commenting on possible future designations, because doing so would lessen their impact.

My right hon. Friend rightly raises the challenge of the actual resources for enforcement. They are across a range of agencies and Departments and are subject to ongoing discussions in the spending review, but, having witnessed the work of a number of those organisations, I can assure her that they are doing some absolutely incredible work. I will give another example: in March, the office of financial sanctions implementation announced the imposition of a civil monetary penalty of £465,000 against HSF Moscow for breaching UK sanctions and publicised the lessons that industry can learn from that case. There is example after example, and I want to see more of them. I will continue to work with our enforcement agencies and others to ensure that is the case. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Calum Miller: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I welcome the cross-party consensus we have heard today that an effective sanctions regime is one of the most potent tools at our disposal to promote the UK’s ideals and interests abroad. It has formed a vital pillar in the strategy to punish Putin and undermine his ability to prosecute the war in Ukraine. However, our sanctions regime must be coherent and consistently applied to be effective. I know that the Minister is personally committed to that, and I welcome today’s report, yet the disparate responsibilities across Departments and agencies have sometimes worked against the effectiveness of our approach despite the hard work of officials, to which the Minister has already referred.

What lessons can the Minister point to from the review that will ensure that future development and application of our sanctions policy will be truly joined up across the many agencies in Government? Following President Trump’s meeting yesterday with President al-Sharaa, our approach to sanctions in Syria is a critical test of that approach. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will consider lifting further sanctions on Syria only if sanctions relief is preceded by clear progress towards political inclusion and the protection of minority groups and women in Syria?

The Minister knows that the Liberal Democrats have repeatedly urged the Government to use sanctions more robustly against the leaders of countries that have taken actions against British values or in violation of international law. May I therefore urge him to use the impetus from the review to take a fresh look at three cases? Will he and officials urgently review the application of sanctions on supporters of the Georgian Dream party, including Bidzina Ivanishvili and Irakli Kobakhidze, who are working to suppress democracy in Georgia? Will they review that for officials in Hong Kong who have led the suppression of democracy in the city and the extraterritorial intimidation of democracy campaigners resident in the UK? Will they also review that for the extremist members of the Israeli Cabinet, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who continue to advocate for the conquest of Gaza and the forced displacement of Palestinians from the occupied territories? \p Stephen Doughty: I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his broad support for the thrust of these measures and agree with many of the points he made. He specifically asked me about Syria. We had an extensive discussion about this earlier this week, but I am absolutely clear that the sanctions on those individuals responsible for atrocities under the Assad regime remain in place. The changes that we have made are related to ensuring that financial and economic activity in line with the potential for peace and stability in Syria is able to emerge, but I assure him that we keep the situation under very close review and retain the ability to impose further sanctions and other measures at a future point. He made points about an inclusive political settlement and the absence of violence. We have seen some very worrying incidents in recent months, and we will watch very carefully and closely along with other partners and co-ordinate with others on that.

The hon. Gentleman also raised three specific contexts. He knows that I will not comment on future designations, but we always welcome input, and I note what he said. In relation to Georgia, we have sanctioned multiple individuals responsible in relation to the repressive actions and corruption that we have seen in recent months, and we keep the situation under close review. I am deeply concerned about the situation in Georgia. I have made that clear to Georgian Dream representatives, and I will make it absolutely clear again. Our teams are working very closely, and the hon. Gentleman knows that we have suspended wider co-operation with Georgia. That is a deep regret, because we had significant and positive relations with it, but as long as it turns away from the Euro-Atlantic path, there must be consequences, as well as consequences for the actions it has taken domestically and otherwise. I note what he has said, but, as he will understand, I will not comment on future designations. \p Melanie Ward: The Minister is doing important work on sanctions that are highly relevant to the situation in the middle east, where Israel’s aid blockade means that large numbers of children in Gaza will begin dying of starvation in the coming days. It plans to dismantle the humanitarian system and replace aid workers with mercenaries. The Israeli Government are threatening the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and calling up the military to make it happen, while British diplomats at the UN warn of genocide. This House cannot say, “Never again”, to  atrocities unless it acts when faced with them. Does the Minister agree that the UK must uphold the responsibility to protect and that concrete action, including fresh sanctions on Israeli Ministers, are needed to stop Israel in its tracks, let aid in, get hostages out and force an urgent ceasefire? \p Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend speaks with typical passion and from her experience of these matters. She will know that we do not comment on potential future sanctions, but as the Foreign Secretary said in Parliament on 1 April, we continue to keep all these issues under review. The culture of impunity for those engaging in violence is intolerable, and the Foreign Secretary has also been clear with Israeli Ministers that the Israeli Government must clamp down on settler violence and settlement expansion—my hon. Friend will know the sanctions we have imposed in that regard. She will also know the actions we have taken against Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the designations that have been introduced, and that we have repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire. We have restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, suspended a number of our export licences and provided £129 million in humanitarian assistance, and we continue to work at every level to bring an end to the horrific violence we are seeing and the intolerable death toll. We will continue to work with all of our partners globally to achieve that. \p Julian Lewis: Does the Minister agree that, now it is slowly dawning on President Trump that his friend Vladimir is stringing him along, there are good prospects that America will not weaken the level of sanctions it imposes on Russia? Can he also clarify one point? He said in his statement—and also yesterday evening—that if Putin does not engage seriously with peace, the UK and our allies will have no choice but to ramp up the economic pressure even further, forcing him to the table. I would have thought that we ought to be ramping up the economic pressure now to the maximum level that we can, so unless the Minister is just saying that that ramping up will take longer, can I suggest that the Government get on with it as quickly as possible? \p Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have been ramping up that pressure—indeed, the new measures we took just last night on support to Russia and its military industrial complex do exactly that, let alone the huge package of designations we have introduced against the shadow fleet. Again on the topic of enforcement, during its first six months of operation—from 1 October last year to 6 April this year—the UK’s voluntary insurance reporting mechanism has challenged 271 suspected shadow fleet vessels in the English channel on their insurance. Not only are we putting these measures in place, but we are following up on them. We have been very clear that President Zelensky is serious about peace—he has repeatedly shown that by his actions. Vladimir Putin has not. We are clear that our sanctions will remain in place and we will continue to do all we can to choke off support for the Russian war machine, which is causing such devastation in Ukraine. \p Rachael Maskell: Given that sanctions provide crucial leverage and deprive individuals and regimes of power and resources, it is  vital that they are applied equally. When we see the effect that sanctions have had on Putin’s Russia, we question why the Government have not brought equality against the Israeli regime, whose treatment of the Palestinians is pushing people into starvation and famine and ultimately bringing 2.1 million people to their deaths. In light of Israel’s actions, we need equality, and while I understand that the Minister will not make pronouncements from the Dispatch Box today, could he set out how he formulates the evidence by which the thresholds are reached for sanctions to be applied? Will he look again at those frameworks to ensure that there is equality, so that we can use sanctions effectively and the world understands where this country is coming from? \p Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend asks about the broad principles that underlie our sanctions action. Essentially, there are three parts: the first is to deter malign activity, the second is to disrupt malign activity, and the third is to demonstrate values. As I referenced, we have imposed sanctions in relation to extreme settler violence, and we have worked with other partners on a range of measures. She will understand that I am not going to comment on future designations, as I said a moment ago, but we remain deeply seized of the situation in Gaza at present. The Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), as well as the Foreign Secretary and others, are deeply engaged with this issue, and I have set out a number of the steps we have taken to respond to it.

My hon. Friend can be assured that we act around the world through our sanctions regime, and I have given a number of examples—not just geographic areas, but in relation to themes. I have mentioned the theme of tackling illicit finance and kleptocracy more widely. We have introduced a number of measures in that regard, so she can be assured that this is not simply about Russia and Ukraine sanctions, but about acting globally. \p Steve Barclay: The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and I do not agree on many issues, but she is absolutely right to focus on enforcement. Before coming to this place, I was head of sanctions and anti-money laundering at a financial institution, so with respect, I found it a bit naive for the Minister to say in his statement that avoiding sanctions does not pay; these are often very profitable accounts. He also referenced the issue of compliance in his statement, but institutions often say that they are complying by filing suspicious activity reports, safe in the knowledge that insufficient action will be taken. I appreciate that the stock answer is, “We do not comment on individual enforcement cases”, but could the Minister tell us the average cost of a successful prosecution for a sanctions breach, and how many there have been since the Government came to office? \p Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Gentleman knows the industry and these measures—of course, he also held senior roles in government that were responsible for these matters—so he will understand that I am not going to go into the technical details of every individual case. However, I can tell him that, for example, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has issued six compound settlements since 2022 against UK companies that have  breached the Russia trade sanctions, for a total of £1,363,129. Those include a compound settlement in August 2023 for £1 million, so I feel absolutely justified in saying that avoiding sanctions does not pay, and I am committed to ensuring that we have more of these actions in future. Some of them will be public, while others will not be—a range of measures is in place. We are introducing new powers, particularly to find ways of settling cases in which companies have come forward and voluntarily disclosed, but equally so that those that do not do so will face penalties. \p Lloyd Hatton: Too often, sanctions evasion happens via our British overseas territories, particularly through secretive havens such as the British Virgin Islands, and a lack of public ownership records complicates efforts to find out who is involved in sidestepping our sanctions regime. With that in mind, can the Minister set out how he is working with all of the overseas territories to finally meet their commitments to introduce registers of beneficial ownership, and can he reassure this place that our sanctions are robustly enforced across the entire UK family? \p Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, which I have repeatedly raised with the leaders of the overseas territories and indeed with the Crown dependencies. We have seen robust action on sanctions, both in implementing sanctions and working with our authorities to ensure that we have the biggest enforcement effect. I have mentioned the recent meetings we had at Lancaster House with sanctions enforcement officials, as well as the specific example of BVI. The National Crime Agency has been working with the British Virgin Islands on a range of issues, and that work has been very productive, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that transparency contributes to effective sanctions. I have repeated my expectation that OTs and CDs should introduce fully accessible public registers of beneficial ownership, but the OTs also agreed at last year’s Joint Ministerial Council to introduce legitimate interest access registers. We have seen real progress from a number of them, although some others are not quite there yet. My hon. Friend can be assured that I am not resting in raising serious concerns about this issue, and I will continue to do so over the weeks ahead. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Richard Foord, a member of the Select Committee. \p Richard Foord: The G7 oil price cap prevents us from selling shipping and insurance services to companies carrying Russian oil when it is sold above $60 per barrel. I appreciate that the Minister might say that he cannot preannounce future sanctions—I think we all understand that—but has the UK advocated with G7 allies for reducing that price cap further, given that in recent weeks, the price of crude oil has dropped below $60 per barrel? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. I will not comment on future actions, but since the introduction of the oil price cap, data from the Russian Ministry of Finance showed a 30% reduction in tax revenues from oil in 2023, compared with the year before. The price it has received for flagship Urals-grade crude has continued to sit below global levels, and our  work—particularly on the shadow fleet—has significantly disrupted and impacted the revenues that Putin is able to get from oil to fuel his war in Ukraine. We will consider all possible lawful measures to further strengthen our efforts in that regard, but the best way to do so is by working with our international partners. We are engaged in daily conversations on these matters, but of course, I will not comment on future specific actions. \p Johanna Baxter: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. Will he commit to investigating whether further sanctions are required on regional, federal, military and legal enforcement agencies that have been involved in and made possible the continued mass abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia? At the very least, will he commit to ensuring that the UK aligns its sanctions against individuals involved in this forcible transfer of children with those imposed by the United States and the European Union? \p Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend raises a crucial point, and she knows of my personal support and indeed that of the Foreign Secretary on this important issue. She knows that we have already designated individuals in this regard. We continue to keep all future sanction possibilities under review. We will look closely at examples of anybody involved in that heinous action of taking Ukrainian children away from their families and attempting to wipe out their culture and identity. \p Greg Smith: As the sanctions regime ramps up, although perhaps not as quickly as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) calls for—I endorse that call—the Minister is right to be doing the work he is doing. As part of his review and assessment as those sanctions ramp up and become more complicated, does he feel that everything possible is being done to ensure that UK-based businesses are kept up to date with that changing picture, so that no one inadvertently falls on the wrong side of the law? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue. The vast majority of UK businesses and individuals want to comply with these regimes. They support them, and they certainly do not want to be exposing themselves or their customers to any additional risk. We want to make sure that they have the best advice in a timely, clear and understandable fashion. That is exactly what some of the measures in this review are set out to do. They consolidate information and how it is provided and ensure that there is training and capacity-building in sectors that are perhaps less used to enforcing in these areas. He can be assured that that is very much at the heart of what we are doing, because we want to help people to comply. \p Patricia Ferguson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the efficacy of sanctions in achieving our diplomatic and foreign policy aims, but as we observe the 50,000 deaths, the countless injuries, the forced displacement, and now the possibility of mass starvation and the renewal of bombing of hospitals by Israel in Gaza, is it not time that sanctions were applied to Ministers such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir? It is perfectly understandable for the Minister to say that he will not discuss future designations in the Chamber,  but will he consider and discuss with colleagues the strength of feeling in this Chamber that sanctions must be placed on these individuals sooner rather than later? \p Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend raises important and serious issues. She knows that we have repeatedly condemned the extreme rhetoric of far-right Israeli Ministers. We have taken action against violent settler groups in the west bank. We are regularly supporting the humanitarian response in Gaza, whether that is through the £129 million of humanitarian assistance, the medical treatment and food, the work we have done with Jordan to fly medicines in or the work with Egypt to treat medically evacuated civilians and with Kuwait to support UNICEF. There is a range of measures, but she will understand that I will not comment on future designations. \p Iqbal Mohamed: The UK rightly has imposed sanctions on Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine and on Putin for war crimes. The UK has imposed sanctions on officials in Syria for breaches of international humanitarian law, for targeting hospitals, schools and aid convoys and for obstructing humanitarian aid, as well as for the use of chemical weapons and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. How do the Government therefore justify the absence of similar sanctions on senior members of the Israeli Government, when there is clear evidence of Israel perpetrating the same violations? What actions have the UK Government taken to comply with their obligations specified in the International Court of Justice advisory opinion from July 2024 to withdraw all political, economic and diplomatic support that helps perpetuate Israel’s unlawful occupation of Palestine? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of questions, and it might be helpful if I get the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) to respond to him directly on a number of them. We have repeatedly been clear, as I have just said, in condemnation of the extreme rhetoric of far-right Israeli Ministers. We have been clear about the horrific situation that we see in Gaza. We have been clear about the support we are providing to make a difference on the ground. We have been clear in our support for a ceasefire and clear in our calls for immediate humanitarian access. As I have said repeatedly, he will understand that I do not comment on future designations. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: Can my hon. Friend update us on what conversations have been had about the use of frozen and sanctioned Russian assets to support those fighting Russian aggression in Ukraine? \p Stephen Doughty: That is an important question that has come up a number of times this week. My hon. Friend will know that we have already disbursed the first two tranches under the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme, which is making a tangible difference to Ukraine right now. We have put £2.26 billion into the scheme, and I again thank colleagues for ensuring the swift passage of that measure. We are resolute in that support. We are continuing to explore all other lawful options. We are clear—at least, the majority of parties in this House are—that Russia needs to pay for the damage it has caused, but the most impact will be felt if we can work with partners and in collaboration with others. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers and for returning to the Chamber within 24 hours of his comments about Russian sanctions yesterday. I read an interesting article on financial sanctions that highlighted the alleged loopholes that are enabling sales and transfers of funds through estate agents, property management and so on. Can the Minister outline whether the Department’s approach will also deal with those UK citizens who may be enabling Russian assets to be diverted and therefore the circumvention of sanctions, which are right and proper? \p Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are significant civil and criminal penalties for the evasion of sanctions. If he or any other Member of the House has any evidence of that, I hope that they would share that with us and the relevant authorities, and we are looking at a single reporting point for people to do that. He can be assured that we look at every way in which people are trying to circumvent the sanctions regimes. We cannot have London, the UK or our British family being a place for those who enable this type of activity. We are resolute and committed to cracking down on it. \p Mark Sewards: I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is fairly obvious that these sanctions are essential in deterring the kinds of behaviours and activities that we do not want to see internationally. The Foreign Secretary has spoken about introducing sanctions against those involved in smuggling gangs and those who cause irregular migration to the UK. The Minister made reference to it in his statement, too. Will he update the House on when we can expect to see such sanctions take effect? Will he also comment on their effectiveness in dealing with and defeating the criminal smuggling gangs? \p Stephen Doughty: This Government have been clear that we will take every measure possible to crack down on irregular migration and those who facilitate the cruel trade in human beings, trafficking them across continents   and countries. That is one of the reasons we are introducing the new regime. We will be bringing forward the legislation in due course, and at that time we will be able to discuss the exact details of the proposals; we aim to bring that forward as soon as possible so that we can start taking actions. That is just one of the measures we are taking, and I regularly engage with European and other partners to deal with the whole chain of smuggling gangs and illegal migration. That is exactly what the Prime Minister will be setting out in his visit to Albania. \p Nusrat Ghani: The final question goes to the ever-patient Chris Vince. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Minister for his statement. Listening to comments from across the House, I am reminded of a conversation I had this week with one of my constituents, Anne Strike, who is a victim of polio; she raised her concerns about the recent cases of polio found in conflict zones. I know how important residents of Harlow see it to tackle breaches of UK-imposed sanctions. The Minister has touched on this a bit already, but will he tell me what progress we have seen on enforcement measures in recent months? \p Stephen Doughty: I am delighted that the residents of Harlow not only have my hon. Friend as an MP, but are interested in seeing these measures being effected. I think that is shared across the United Kingdom: people want to see these measures work. I have given a number of examples, but I will give him another. The Department for Transport has detained four transport assets under the Russian sanctions regulations: one helicopter, two private jets and one super-yacht, totalling more than £80 million. I hope the House can see today just how serious we, our enforcement agencies and all our Departments are. It is fantastic to be working in a team across Government on this issue. I again pay tribute to the fantastic officials, not only in the Departments but in our enforcement agencies. They bring the pressure to bear on those who seek to evade or divert from our sanctions regimes. \p UNKNOWN: Select Committee statement \p Nusrat Ghani: We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Work and Pensions Committee. Debbie Abrahams will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches—hopefully, people understand the difference between those two things. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Chair of the Committee, not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning. \p Debbie Abrahams: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for me to make this statement to the House, which marks the publication of the first report of this Parliament, “Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants”.

The inquiry that led to this report was first launched in 2023 by our predecessor Committee under the stewardship of the former Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who is now the Minister for Social Security and Disability. I pay tribute to him for both initiating and supporting the inquiry. We were not able to conclude the inquiry before the general election last year, so when I was elected as Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee last September, it was a priority to bring it to a conclusion. I was pleased that the new members of the Committee agreed, and I thank them for their support. I also thank the members of the previous Committee, who contributed to the thinking behind some of our recommendations.

I want especially to thank the Committee staff—some of the unsung heroes in this place. From the previous Committee, I thank Danielle Nash and particularly Sarah Dixon. From the current Committee, I thank John-Paul Flaherty and especially Alexandra Ming. I also thank everyone who contributed to the report—the many people and organisations who submitted written and oral evidence, and who took part in roundtables and surveys. Finally, I wish to mention all the people who have not been treated or supported as they should have been by the Department for Work and Pensions. Ultimately, this report is for them and tries to ensure that others do not have to endure what they did.

The Department for Work and Pensions is responsible for the delivery of essential services to millions of people each year. That includes some of the most vulnerable people in society, who rely on benefits—or, as I prefer to call it, social security support—as their main source of income. Our predecessor Committee opened the inquiry on 23 July 2023, primarily in response to concerns that inadequate safeguarding practices in DWP had contributed to the deaths of claimants, including through suicide and starvation. I first became aware of these appalling facts over 10 years ago, when the first Work and Pensions Committee on which I served undertook an inquiry into sanctions and the case of David Clapson came to light. David was a veteran who died after being sanctioned,  which, for the uninitiated, means that his financial support was stopped. He could not pay for power, and the insulin in his fridge no longer worked.

The cases kept coming. Errol Graham, who had serious mental illness, had his employment and support allowance incorrectly stopped. He starved to death, and his emaciated body was found in his flat. Philippa Day, a young mum with mental health issues who relied on the personal independence payment, took her own life. I will never forget hearing the recording of Philippa phoning DWP and pleading for her money not to be stopped. There have also been the cases of Kevin Gale, Michael O’Sullivan, Alexander Boamah, Faiza Hassan Ahmed, Emma Day, Terence Talbot, Nazerine Anderson, Afolabi Ojerinde, Richard Brookes—[Interruption.] \p Nusrat Ghani: Ms Abrahams, would you like a sip of water before you continue? \p Debbie Abrahams: Yes, I would be very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you. \p Nusrat Ghani: Not at all. \p Debbie Abrahams: That was just the intervention that I needed.

There have also been the cases of Jodey Whiting, Mark Wood and many, many others. Our report recognises the significance of every death and harm experienced by claimants, and the impact of these cases on their loved ones.

We know that 40 deaths and 13 serious harms of claimants were investigated by the Department in 2023-24 alone as part of its internal process reviews, but in common with the National Audit Office’s 2020 report, we believe that the actual numbers are much higher. We heard evidence that the process of accessing DWP support, and some DWP policies themselves, can create or exacerbate existing vulnerabilities. For example, sanctions or the threat of sanctions can lead to material deprivation, stress, and the deterioration of physical and mental health. In some cases, the experience of engaging with the system and the processes has been so difficult and distressing that it has contributed to claimants deciding to take their own life.

Some of the most serious cases of harm—where a coroner’s inquest has found that DWP contributed to a claimant’s death—have resulted in prevention of future death reports. Since 2010, DWP has been issued with 10 prevention of future death reports relating specifically to the deaths of benefit claimants. The fact that the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued a section 23 notice on the DWP for potential discrimination against disabled people in 2022, and the investigation that was subsequently launched last year after the failure to reach an agreement, added to the evidence that the Work and Pensions Committee collected on the DWP’s inadequate approach to safeguarding. The inquiry set out to examine the support that the Department provided to vulnerable claimants, how it had learned from mistakes and failures, and what needed to change.

The new Committee agreed to reopen the inquiry on 30 October 2024. Before I turn to the findings and recommendations of the report, I should acknowledge that in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, published in March, the Government said they were consulting

“on a new DWP safeguarding approach to make it clear what the department and its staff are expected to do in order to safeguard the public.”

I welcome that, and I was heartened by the Secretary of State’s evidence to the Committee last November.

Our principal recommendation is for a statutory safeguarding duty to be placed on the DWP to protect claimants. Although the Secretary of State would be accountable for this duty, reflecting the leadership needed to drive these changes, it would make safeguarding in the DWP everyone’s business: at all levels of the organisation and at all stages of policy development and implementation. The duty would include the proactive consideration of the safeguarding needs of claimants, the ability to refer vulnerable individuals to other agencies with a duty of care, and, again, the proactive consideration of the impacts of key policies and legislation on the health and wellbeing of claimants before they are implemented.

The need for a new legal obligation is clear. The current approach to safeguarding in DWP has been described as “piecemeal and lacking coherence”, and the Committee agrees. For that reason, the report calls for a comprehensive, systems-based approach to safeguarding that integrates into every stage of policy development, implementation and review. The approach must involve everyone in the DWP to ensure that safeguarding becomes a fundamental part of the Department’s culture.

We see a new statutory duty as the cornerstone of a bigger cultural shift that is needed in the DWP. For too long, the focus has been on cost cutting, often at the expense of providing genuine support. That approach has led to a system in which claimants feel undeserving of support and fearful of the very Department that is meant to assist them. The necessary cultural shift must be driven from the top down, with Ministers and senior officials leading the way. A statutory safeguarding duty would help to focus minds, improve accountability and ensure that safeguarding becomes everybody’s business in the DWP.

The need for deep-rooted cultural change in the Department cannot be overstated. The process of engaging with the DWP often leads to mental distress for claimants. This distress is compounded by a lack of trust in the system, driven by continual cost-cutting measures and an unhelpful media narrative. To rebuild trust, the DWP must prioritise safeguarding and support over cost cutting, and this means creating a system that not only helps people to find sustainable work, but compassionately supports those who may never work.

The report also emphasises the importance of learning from past mistakes. The Department has conducted a number of IPRs, but the full scale of harm is much higher. The ongoing investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into the Department’s treatment of disabled people and those with long-term mental health conditions underscores the need for transparency and accountability.

In addition to the statutory duty, the report makes a number of other important recommendations, which I will go through quickly. As I have mentioned, it is recommended that all significant new policies are analysed by the Department’s chief medical adviser’s team. Currently, such assessments are not routinely carried out, leading to policies that may inadvertently harm claimants or exacerbate existing vulnerabilities. By making these  assessments a standard part of policy development, we hope to ensure that the impacts of policies on the health and wellbeing of claimants are considered and harms mitigated.

The report stresses the importance of having a robust, clear and accessible complaints procedure to prevent failures recurring. As I have stated, the true scale of deaths and harms is not known. The report calls for systematic recording and publication of all cases of serious harms and deaths involving claimants. The Department should commit to publishing this information annually to aid transparency. The report also recommends improving transparency in the processes used to learn from serious mistakes and failures, and the introduction of an independent body—the Department should not mark its own homework—to investigate serious harms.

On defining and identifying vulnerability, the Department’s current approach is seen as flexible, lacking in clarity and consistency. The report calls for a formalised definition of vulnerability that is clearly communicated in public-facing documents. It also recommends adding victims of abuse to the additional support area in universal credit, and implementing proactive measures to identify and support vulnerable claimants.

Ensuring that vulnerable people can access the benefits they are entitled to is crucial for delivering equitable welfare provision. The removal of the Help to Claim face-to-face service has made it more difficult for some individuals to apply for universal credit. The report recommends that the DWP ensures that jobcentres provide thorough support, and that detailed information about additional support is proactively offered to claimants. In that regard I do give praise, because there are so many good people in the Department, such as the advanced customer support senior leaders, who are integral to helping frontline DWP staff. I praise those staff, and we need more of them.

Effective communication and making sure that people are aware of what support they can access is also important, and we need more of it. That also applies to training and capacity building for frontline staff, which needs to happen to achieve the cultural changes we need. Finally, collaboration with other agencies needs to be a statutory responsibility, and there needs to be DWP membership of the safeguarding adults boards. I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Rachael Maskell: First, I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend. She has been a persistent champion of safeguarding vulnerable people in the system, and this report really emphasises that. I was surprised that the Committee did not recommend the removal of conditionality, because that is a serious lead into harm for so many people. In anticipation of the pathways to work legislation coming before this House, I think the report makes very sobering reading and raises serious concerns about safeguarding and the accountability of that safeguarding.

I would pick out the recommendation about the chief medical adviser’s assessments. Currently, that is private advice to Ministers. What steps does my hon. Friend believe can be taken so the House can be supplied with the full evidence base it needs to make informed choices, not least because policies such as pathways to work will place many people at serious risk, including serious risk to their lives? \p Debbie Abrahams: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. On the pathways to work Green Paper, one of our recommendations is that any analysis undertaken by the CMA’s team should be published and made available. More generally, we also ask that analysis of the impact of key policies and legislation on the health and wellbeing of claimants is considered beforehand and responded to appropriately. \p Julian Lewis: Does the hon. Lady believe that the safety of very vulnerable claimants would be improved if there were a system within the DWP for flagging them as vulnerable and ensuring, so far as it is practically possible, that they always deal with the same person, who might be specifically qualified to look after people with such vulnerabilities? \p Debbie Abrahams: The right hon. Member makes an excellent point. There are some systems, but the inquiry found that they are very fragmented and a little too ad hoc. This is about making a coherent case that this is everybody’s business. Yes, we should be proactively identifying and assessing the vulnerabilities of claimants when they present, and we should be able to signpost them to other agencies that may, for example, have a statutory duty of care. \p Gill German: This report is both important and timely, and I am proud to be a member of the Committee that has published it today. It was good to hear the Minister recognise during the inquiry that the culture of the Department needs to change and that safeguarding must be at the heart of this. A duty to report safeguarding concerns is second nature to me. As a teacher, I had a clear understanding of the safeguarding duties expected of me, and rightly so. The safeguarding of vulnerable adults is just as important, so this needs to be second nature to those at the DWP. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must see clear action from the Government to create the more compassionate system that we need to make this a reality? \p Debbie Abrahams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and thank her for all that she has done since becoming a member of the Select Committee. I wholeheartedly agree with everything she says, and I do hope that the Government response comes sooner rather than later. \p Daniel Francis: I thank my hon. Friend for what was a very distressing statement. How might the plans for safeguarding DWP claimants apply to current Government policies? \p Debbie Abrahams: I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), this is really important. The bedrock of the report is that safeguarding needs to be integrated into policy development at all stages and at all levels of the organisation, and before policies and legislation are implemented, so it is absolutely key to the legislation that is being considered and that will be going through the House. \p Johanna Baxter: I thank my hon. Friend for her statement, and it is a pleasure to serve under her chairship on the Select Committee. This report is sobering reading, and the evidence we took was often heartbreaking. Does she agree that, over and above the report’s specific procedural recommendations, the overarching theme from everything we heard is that there needs to be a cultural change in the Department that will ensure reflective practice, curiosity and sharing of best practice, with a culture driven by compassion for the most vulnerable people in our country? \p Debbie Abrahams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is my vice-Chair on the Committee, and I thank her for all that she does. The culture is one of the key things, and both the statutory duty and making sure we have a system-based approach to safeguarding are absolutely key. I will never forget a quote from one of our witnesses, who had lived experience of using the system, when she said she felt that

“a system that is meant to wrap its arms around us is strangling us”.

That just should not happen in this country, and with such an important Department. \p Nusrat Ghani: I know that the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) takes her work incredibly seriously, and we could see the emotion when she delivered her statement. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I beg to move,

That this House has considered solar farms.

I must first inform the House that my husband is a farmer and agricultural contractor.

I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me time for a debate on large-scale solar farms. There are some things that Members across the House can agree on: we all want cheap and reliable energy, we all want food security and affordable food prices, and we want to live sustainably and to protect our natural surroundings. Whether or not we agree on how we should achieve those goals, I think we can at least agree that these are desirable aims, so why is the issue seemingly so controversial? It is controversial because it is doubtful that large-scale solar farms on prime agricultural land can achieve any of those aims.

First, how good are solar panels? In principle, solar energy is green, but the reality is murkier. The journey of a solar panel, from raw materials to installation, is far from carbon neutral. The production process demands substantial energy, often sourced from fossil fuels. It requires the mining of silver and zinc. It requires energy to produce the intense heat needed to melt quartz for polysilicon, and the transportation of components and finished panels across vast distances by diesel-powered trucks, trains and ships. What happens when the panels reach the end of their lifespan? Recycling should be the obvious answer, yet they are notoriously difficult to recycle. A constituent of mine who dedicated their master’s research to this issue found that most solar panels, once they finish their lifecycle, cannot currently be effectively recycled.

Solar energy is not morally clean either. Most solar panels sold in the UK—an astonishing 97%—contain materials sourced from places where there are concerns about forced labour. Baroness May of Maidenhead, the former Prime Minister, did so much to champion the cause of combating modern slavery during her tenure, and we must not be complicit in human rights abuses in business supply chains. The Government’s decision to U-turn yesterday on the Lords message on the Great British Energy Bill is welcome, but it is shameful that it came only after so much pressure.

Even if the challenges with production, transportation and recycling could be resolved, there are concerns about whether solar energy is the right option for the UK’s energy production at all. Solar energy is most effective in sunny places, where there is high demand for energy when it is sunny. But in the UK the highest energy demand occurs when it is cold and dark. That means energy must be stored, leading to the need for large battery storage systems, which bring their own problems—we would require another debate just to discuss those. In fact, the UK is ranked as second to last on a list of 240 countries in terms of its suitability for photovoltaic electricity production. \p John Hayes: There is a further point about suitability. My hon. Friend, as a Lincolnshire MP, will know that our  county produces a hugely disproportionate amount of the nation’s food. Compromising food production puts food security at risk, because the solar farms, which are industrial developments, use up land that could otherwise feed the nation. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: My right hon. Friend is of course right, as usual, and I will address that point in more detail later in my speech.

Even if we could resolve all those production, recycling and transportation issues, and so accept that solar is viable for the UK, ground-mounted solar projects are not the right approach. Panels installed so far are relatively inefficient. Despite a currently installed capacity of 17.8 GW, the total output last year was less than 10% of that.

Our current approach is also centred around technology that is outdated. If Members can cast their minds back to 1984, when the first Apple Mac computers were put on the market, and then look today at the present advances in technology, they will see that technology has evolved at a rapid pace. Solar panels planned for fields today are already being superseded by cleaner, more efficient technology that does not need farmland. Researchers in Japan are developing next-generation panels made from iodine. They are flexible and 20 times thinner than existing panels. They would make it realistic to build solar installations on urban infrastructure such as stadiums, airports and office buildings. \p Rachel Gilmour: Does the hon. Lady agree that solar energy generation is a key stepping stone on our pathway towards a green economy and to reaching net zero, for those of us in this House who still believe in it? However, where possible, we should not take up agricultural land. I am very pleased to say that my office is supporting Farmer Dibble in my constituency, who is seeking to prevent solar panels being put over some 200 acres of his farm. We should instead shine a little sunlight on the idea of putting solar panels on the roofs of all new buildings, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I agree wholeheartedly that we should not use our best agricultural farmland for solar panels. The previous Government took steps to establish a £50 million fund to incentivise rooftop installations on farm buildings. That is the right measure to maximise the efficient use of land. This Government’s approach, by contrast, is to concentrate ground-mounted solar on prime agricultural land. That is folly in the highest degree. There are 600,000 acres of unused south-facing industrial rooftops across this country. We should use those before we even consider industrialising our countryside; industrialising it comes with consequences. I will come back to farming in a moment, but first we should consider the impact on the wider community. Access to green space and exercise are good for wellbeing. Imagine for a moment walking your dog not alongside a hedgerow, but between two 3.5 metre-high metal fences with CCTV cameras on them. How many of us would prefer to run past miles of 4 metre-high solar panels than rolling British countryside?

I listen carefully to my constituents and have conducted surveys in the affected areas. I have received over 2,000 handwritten responses to my solar farm survey, many of  which contain pages of heartfelt comments from people who are deeply worried about the disproportionate number of applications for massive solar projects in our area. \p Gavin Williamson: The beautiful village of Stowe-by-Chartley in my constituency will be almost ringed by solar panels. Does my hon. Friend think that the Planning Inspectorate needs to consider, when making decisions, the cumulative impact of multiple developments on communities? \p Dr Caroline Johnson: My right hon. Friend is right. I will come on to the cumulative effect later in my speech. He will recall that the previous Government brought in measures to ensure that happened, but it does not seem to be happening.

In my survey, 91% of respondents were concerned about the enormous scale of proposals, and 73% were concerned about the use of productive farmland. The scale of the proposed developments is really difficult to describe. I brought to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), maps, with overlays, of areas with which he was familiar. He saw the problem, and to his credit, he took the action that I have described. If the Minister is prepared to meet me, I would like to provide him with similar maps, so that he can see for himself the scale of these potential developments.

The developments go on for miles. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said, they encircle villages, preventing natural growth and home-building over time. They even encircle individual homes. One isolated rural home in my constituency may soon find itself surrounded by solar panels on all sides, like the hole in the centre of a miserable glass doughnut.

Such is the wonderful nature of my constituents that the prime concern that they have expressed to me was not for themselves, their views or their wellbeing, but for the security of the country—specifically, food security. Let us be very clear that using our best farmland for solar puts us at risk, in a volatile world, of being unable to feed our citizens. The best and most versatile land is defined as land in bands 1, 2, and 3a, although land in 3b is a valuable and entirely useable resource for farmers. In Lincolnshire, 99.1% of solar installation area covers land in the best and most versatile land category. \p Robbie Moore: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. One issue not normally considered is the reinstatement provisions after a solar farm has been implemented. A vast quantity of our prime agricultural land is being taken out of production, generally for a term of 20 to 25 years. Should not consideration be given to the state of the organic matter, the soil and the potential yield of that land after the term of 25 years or longer has ended, and the negative impact on our food production? \p Dr Caroline Johnson: My hon. Friend is right, but I do not believe that the land will ever be returned to farmland, and many of my constituents feel the same.

It is worth noting that 99.1% of solar installations cover the best and most versatile land, but tests procured by the developers appear to suggest that soil is of  poorer quality than maps from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and local knowledge would have predicted. Will the Minister ensure that where soil testing is done, the results are independently verified?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said, Lincolnshire is the nation’s breadbasket, and produces 30% of the UK’s vegetables. The land in the county is also more productive than the UK average; the wheat harvest there, over the difficult past five years, was 25% above the UK average, and it is much more productive than global averages. This is the land that we can least afford to lose. \p Bradley Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that we face a perfect storm of conditions? There is not just a widespread societal push towards net zero, but, with changes to agricultural property relief, a real risk that solar will become the new cash crop, at the expense of valuable food production, which is as essential as energy security. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: My hon. Friend is right. As a farmer’s wife, I understand that farmers are being put under a lot of pressure by the various changes that this Government have made to taxation on cab pick-ups, inheritance tax, national insurance and much more.

Displacing our farmland leaves us reliant on imports, which use more land, may have been produced to poorer standards, and require us to factor in transport emissions. The previous Government took action by publishing planning guidance that made it clear that the best and most versatile land should not be developed where alternatives are available—and those alternatives are available. I am pleased to have signed my name to new clause 47 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which seeks to prohibit solar development on higher-quality land, and I urge the Government to support it. Let us not forget the tenant farmers, who are often on multi-generational tenancies. They suddenly find their whole family without home or livelihood.

A 2023 report for the Welsh Government on the impact of solar panels on agricultural land found that solar sites risk causing soil compaction and structural damage, which in some cases may be permanent. This means that agriculture will suffer, even after the somewhat hypothetical end of these solar schemes.

I also ask the Government to give due consideration to the three RAF bases local to my constituency: RAF Waddington, RAF Cranwell and RAF Digby. Glint and glare from reflective panels will cause problems for pilots flying over these areas. Our newest pilots undergo basic training at Cranwell, and RAF Waddington is home to the Red Arrows. It is a huge joy for me and many of my constituents to watch our nation’s iconic display team practise the loop-the-loop and roll into turns at high speeds, but the miles and miles of aligned panels creating glint and glare could lead to disaster. \p Sarah Russell: Does the hon. Lady accept that pilots already seem to manage to fly throughout our nation and many others, despite there being widespread solar panels in, for instance, Spain, where there is more sunshine? It seems unlikely that they will be unable to manage in her constituency. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I wonder if the average jumbo jet flying into Heathrow does a loop-the-loop on its way in.

RAF Digby is the headquarters of the joint cyber and electromagnetic activities group. Any interference with that part of the defence estate could cause significant harm. My constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham faces an acute burden from the most high-impact solar schemes. Colleagues will know that projects with a capacity of more than 50 MW are classed as nationally significant infrastructure projects. Four of these large-scale schemes are proposed for my constituency, at Springwell, Fosse Green, Leoda and Beacon Fen. Their combined size is 9,340 acres. For context, that land could support grazing for more than 74,000 sheep, produce 23.5 million loaves of bread and more than 700 million Weetabix. A fifth project, just outside my constituency—proposed by a Labour donor—was recently approved by the Secretary of State. What assurance can Ministers give my constituents that the Department is assessing cumulative impacts appropriately?

We often hear that no more than 1% of land will be used for solar panels. However, as we have seen in my constituency, the application for one giant solar farm leads to a proposal for a new substation to accommodate it, which in turn leads to a deluge of further giant solar project and battery storage applications. The cumulative effect will be to destroy the area.

With nearly 7% of land in my constituency proposed to be turned over to solar farms, 9% of the land in the neighbouring constituency, represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and 5% of the land in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), we can clearly see the clustering of applications on our best farmland. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) has the Mallard Pass solar farm in her constituency. I congratulate her on the birth of her child recently, which prevented her from being here; I know that this subject is a big concern for her. Indeed, it is a concern for many of us, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Newark, for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), and for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). As members of the shadow Cabinet, protocol prevents them from speaking in the debate, but I know that they would have wished to, and will keep campaigning.

The national policy statement says that installations should, where possible, use

“suitable previously developed land, brownfield land, contaminated land and industrial land.”

Where farmland must be used, it notes that

“poorer quality land should be preferred to higher quality land avoiding the use of ‘Best and Most Versatile’ agricultural land where possible.”

Sadly, the evidence so far suggests that the Energy Secretary is so ideologically wedded to solar projects that he has not appreciated the damage that giant solar projects are causing to agricultural land. This debate will hopefully demonstrate that covering our best farmland with massive solar projects would be irreversibly damaging to the nation. I urge the Minister to listen to me, my fellow MPs and fellow citizens before it is too late. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Members can see that a number of people wish to contribute, so there will be a time limit of four minutes. \p Alex Mayer: Thank you for calling me so early on, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the sunrise of the debate.

I believe there is not only a climate and biodiversity emergency, but real insecurity in our energy market. That is why I absolutely back the Government’s plan to triple our solar capacity and reach the clean power target by 2030. We need to look at the whole gamut of renewable energy out there, including tidal—although perhaps not so much in Bedfordshire—wind and solar power. I am very lucky that my constituency is home to the joint tallest wind turbine in the country, an honour I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones). When I visited, I suggested that we put a Union flag on top of the one in my constituency so that it would be the tallest, but there was no agreement to that—never mind.

My constituency is also home to a solar farm in Eggington, as the Minister knows, because he visited it with me. It produces enough power for 2,000 homes every year. What is interesting is that as well as producing that clean, green power, it retains an agricultural use; as the Minister may remember, there are also sheep grazing between the solar panels, nibbling at the grass. \p John Hayes: Just to be clear, this is not about what, but where. Of course it is important that we have a diverse energy mix, but the hon. Lady must know that if we put solar panels on the best-quality agricultural land, we will have to import more food and extend supply chains, and so damage the environment. \p Alex Mayer: I think we need a mix, but we cannot rule out using solar panels on large chunks of land.

When the Minister came along to visit our solar farm in Eggington, he not only met the sheep, but saw that some of the land around the panels has been transformed into wildflower meadows. In my constituency, AW Group —the people with the turbine—is branching out into solar. In the next couple of months, it will build another solar array and again put in wildflower meadows. Those meadows are so important for biodiversity in our country, as our pollinators and other insects face real problems. I learned on my visit that solar farms can also be useful to some of our ground-nesting birds, which find shelter and sanctuary underneath the solar panels.

In essence, I just wanted to say that I really welcome what the Government are doing. I welcome what they did yesterday; the new rules make it easier for some of the smaller amounts of power generated from solar panels to be linked to our grid. I urge the Minister to go full steam ahead on this, and to make sure that our solar industry has a really bright future in this time of biodiversity and climate emergency. \p Steve Barclay: To understand this Government’s approach to solar farms, one should start by re-reading the Labour manifesto —page 59 of the Labour manifesto to be more precise. I know that it was only a year ago, but in its solemn promise to the British people, it said:

“Labour recognises that food security is national security. That is why we will champion British farming”.

That may now seem a long time ago, because a succession of announcements from this Government have made it clear that there is no commitment to farming or to food security. Indeed, that applies to many of their other commitments—smash the gangs, council tax bills will not go up, or energy bills will come down. On food security and its importance to national security it is clear that it was a fake promise. Indeed, there is an irony here, because we still have the ongoing covid inquiry. I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time of covid, and it was clear to me that at a time of national crisis, value for money changes; there is competing demand across nations for scarce resources. I assure Members that, at such a crisis point, food security becomes an issue of national security, which is why the carelessness of the current Government on their manifesto commitment matters so much. \p David Davis: My right hon. Friend makes a brilliant point. Does he also recognise that the way that this Government have set up the arrangements—they are guaranteeing 10% to 20% returns on investment on these farms—is in effect bribing farmers to move away from farming? \p Steve Barclay: Indeed, the Government are creating an incentive to do the exact opposite of own manifesto pledge, which is why I started with that point.

Let me come on to the second place where we can see Labour’s approach—in the Cabinet. Of course, we cannot witness the Cabinet in action at first hand, but it is very clear—certainly to someone who has had the good fortune to sit in Cabinet—how marginalised the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has become. We see the Prime Minister announce things such as the compulsory purchase of farmland in order to support infrastructure schemes; we see the former Labour leader, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, make a whole raft of decisions in his first few weeks of office on massive solar farms, overriding DEFRA; we see the Deputy Prime Minister riding roughshod over the DEFRA Secretary of State on housing schemes; and we see the Chancellor phoning officials at DEFRA the night before to say that the sustainable farming incentive had been reduced so quickly that the Government have now had to concede in a legal case that their approach was wrong and allow a further 3,000 farm applications to proceed—and that is without any clear commitments in this area.

When I warned at the election about Labour’s farm tax, the now DEFRA Secretary of State said that it was complete nonsense. Well, we have seen the Government introduce that tax and watched while the Treasury rode roughshod over the Department. We have a Department that is completely sidelined in the Government and failing to speak up not just for food security and farming, but for the very commitments that were made in the Labour manifesto.

We see a theme running across a whole range of policy announcements that shows the instinct, the values and the priorities of this Government, who always believe that top-down knows best. They do not believe in localism. The implication for solar farms can be seen in how the delivery of the policy is happening on the ground. We are seeing clusters in the east of England, as  my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) would point out, in areas of the best food production. We are seeing a gaming of the system, where the developers bring in consultants to grade the land in ways that sit at odds with historic knowledge of the value of that land. \p John Hayes: I am delighted to endorse everything that my right hon. Friend and neighbour has said about national economic resilience. The point about grading land is critical. To be fair to the Government, they have said that land at grades 1, 2 and 3a at least should be protected, but the problem is that the solar developers deliberately attempt to distort those distinctions by regrading land using organisations that are part of their own corporations. \p Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend is completely right; the issue is hiding in plain sight. When I was in the Government and sought to strengthen the protections for farmland, changes to the guidance were made, including bringing forward independent certification for agricultural land classification in soil surveys. We know at a constituency level that malpractice is going on and is not being challenged. The point is that that is not by accident. This is not an error of delivery. This is by design, and we can see that design in the raft of decisions made by the Energy Secretary in his very first weeks in office. Indeed, close to our constituencies, just near to Cambridge, there was an important announcement on a mega farm, which was made by the new Secretary of State against official advice. This matters because it is related to wider trust in our politics. A clear commitment was given to rural communities by Labour in its manifesto that is being broken.

I will close, conscious that many colleagues want to participate in this debate, with this comment for Labour Back Benchers. It may be that Nos. 10 and 11 have simply decided that, with their majority, they can afford to sacrifice a number of their rural MPs who had not been expected to win the election, and it may by that they decided that those MPs were not essential, but it is baffling that there is so much silence. These MPs are voting for measures that are having such a harmful effect in rural constituencies, and those measures are so short term that they are putting our food security, which does indeed matter to our national security, at risk. \p Tony Vaughan: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), as he will find out shortly.

I strongly support this Government’s clean energy mission, and I want this country to be a clean energy superpower. I want to see more wind, tidal, hydroelectric power and, as I will say later, nuclear. For the environment, more renewable energy means less air pollution, lower greenhouse gases and, over time, lower flooding risks—an issue that is very significant in my constituency—and a more stable climate.

For the economy, more renewable energy will mean lower energy prices for households and businesses, because we will not be dependent on gas prices that are set by the global energy markets. As we saw after the invasion of Ukraine and the rocketing energy prices that followed, we have no control over the global price.

For national security, more renewables will deliver energy independence, because, instead of our country importing fossil fuels from hostile authoritarian regimes, we can produce more of our own energy at home. Tragically, these points have been lost on the Conservative party, which has given up on being ambitious about tackling climate change. It simply does not believe that this country, the birthplace of the industrial revolution, has the will or the ability to build the world’s strongest green economy.

Reform’s policy seems to support the surrendering of control of our energy prices to the global markets, given its commitment to fast-tracking oil and gas developments in the North sea and abolishing subsidies for renewable energy.

My constituency is proving to be a popular place for planned solar farm developments, primarily because of the above average numbers of sunshine hours that we have and our relatively flat land. Currently we have five solar farm projects in my constituency which, if they progress, would qualify for nationally significant infrastructure project status. There are a few smaller ones as well. We want to play our part in Folkestone and Hythe in supporting this nation’s clean energy mission, and I believe that we should be doing that in two ways: first, by bringing back nuclear energy generation at Dungeness; and, secondly, by taking our fair share of solar developments. I am glad that the Government have committed to nuclear as part of our energy mix. \p Gavin Williamson: The hon. Gentleman said that he has five such proposals in his constituency. Does he support all five of those proposals in Folkstone and Hythe? \p Tony Vaughan: As I will come on to say, there is an issue about each area taking its fair share of developments. It is absolutely key that we support the Government’s clean energy mission and take our fair share, but we need to make sure that it is a fair share. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: rose— \p John Hayes: rose— \p Tony Vaughan: I will not take any further interventions at this stage. [Interruption.] Members will hear what I come on to say.

We have a decommissioned nuclear power station in Folkestone and Hythe, and I strongly believe that it should be brought back for energy generation. The site has the right location, with proximity to the grid, and a local skills base for these technologies, such as advanced modular reactors. I am grateful to Lord Hunt, the Minister responsible for nuclear energy, for his continued engagement on this issue, but I urge the Government to move faster to create the conditions for advanced modular reactors and other new technologies to become a reality.

On solar, Folkestone and Hythe must play our part in delivering the Government’s clean energy mission, but it should not come at the expense of the fundamental character and beauty of the rural community. People visit Romney Marsh for its tranquillity and beautiful landscapes. We must take our fair share of solar developments to support the Government’s clean energy mission, but covering a large area of Romney Marsh  with multiple developments will affect the character of the area. One of the projects would occupy 2.3 square miles of countryside, and there are four more in the pipeline. It is entirely consistent to support the Government’s mission and accept our fair share while saying that there need to be principled limitations and a reasonable amount of development. That is the right position to take.

Solar farms need to be evenly spread across the country. The clean energy mission is a national endeavour, and we cannot have one community in Romney Marsh facing it on their own. [Interruption.] If any hon. Members want to intervene and make legitimate points, they are free to do so. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I think the hon. Member is making part of the point that I was trying to make in my speech. Some 7% of my constituency is the subject of solar panel applications. Does he agree that that is an obscene amount of solar panels to put on our best quality farmland? \p Tony Vaughan: As I said, the whole country needs to play its part in supporting the clean energy mission, but there needs to be a fair-share principle. If all the areas of the country with similar features to my constituency played their part, there would be less of an impact in particular areas. It is an entirely fair balance to strike. The Conservatives seem to be wedded to the idea that net zero is something we should not aim for, but they have absolutely no answer as to how we solve the climate crisis. \p Edward Morello: It might be worth making the point that only 10% of solar applications end up being built. The cumulative number of applications is completely irrelevant; what matters is the number that are actually built on the land, so while 7% of a constituency may be covered by applications, that is not a reflection of the percentage that will be built on. \p Tony Vaughan: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

As a final point, there are real concerns about how ethical solar panel supply chains are. It is so important that we have robust mechanisms to ensure— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I have no choice but to impose a three-minute time limit on speeches after the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan); let us all play our fair share—and I will support him on Romney Marsh if he supports me on Gainsborough. That is a fair deal.

The distribution of solar farms across the country is, as has been made clear, highly uneven. Of the 650 parliamentary constituencies, 310 have more than 0.1% of land taken up by solar development, while 151 have more than 0.6% and 96 have more than 1%. The five most affected constituencies are Newark, with 8.85% of land taken up by solar farms, Sleaford and North Hykeham with 6.95%, Newport East with 5.12%, my own beloved Gainsborough with 5.08%, and Selby with 4.22%. I say to the hon. and learned Member for  Folkestone and Hythe that this is a debate not about solar farms or green energy but the sheer concentration of solar farms in some parts of England. \p John Hayes: That concentration is ironically on some of the best land for growing. That is the problem. There seems to be a correlation between the most productive farmland and the concentration of solar applications. \p Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. \p Edward Morello: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p Edward Leigh: I will make some progress and give way in a moment—I must be fair to other people.

There are solar schemes totalling 13,000 acres within a 6-mile radius of the small town of Gainsborough. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I please use a visual aid here? This map shows loads of solar farms—[Laughter.] I think I got away with it!

The Secretary of State approves these projects immediately; they go through his desk within a week. The cumulative effect of these solar installations is colossal in one small area, with numerous sites having been proposed and accepted in Lincolnshire. I want to say something to the Minister. Can he concentrate on what I am saying for a moment, because this is terribly important? \p Michael Shanks: I am listening. \p Edward Leigh: We are not arguing against solar farms. All we are begging the Minister to do is take them together. We cannot have all these separate public inquiries. We have to look at the 13,000 acres all over Gainsborough. Is that not a fair point? Otherwise, it is totally unfair on one particular area. That is the only point we are making.

This is all done on a cheat—a so-called nationally significant infrastructure project, which was a device brought in by Tony Blair for nuclear power stations and that sort of installation. The Government are bypassing local democracy. That is what is so unfair, and it is why people feel disenfranchised in certain parts of England. I agree that if the Government distributed solar farms fairly all over the country, as the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, there would be no argument, but the fact is that they are concentrating them so much in one small area of England. That is the argument. \p Edward Morello: I would just point out that the reason we get that concentration: grid capacity. The grid is constrained in the areas where there is the highest level of demand. It is unconstrained in the areas where we have the least amount of demand, which are rural areas. That is why we keep getting applications there. If we upgrade the grid, we will not have that problem. \p Edward Leigh: That leads me to the point of whether solar power is really an efficient way of achieving green energy. It is land-intensive, with 200 times more land needed compared with gas, and it is inefficient during winter or cloudy periods. There are doubts about  the carbon footprint. There is no clear evidence that energy generation over a 15-year panel lifespan justifies the embodied energy used in panel production—and we are never given reassurances on that point.

There are also environmental and safety issues. Placing battery energy storage systems in each field raises safety risks due to potential thermal runaway incidents. There is inadequate planning to provide water for firefighting in these fields. There are economic and community concerns—for instance, a negative effect on local tourism of the visual impact, and the lack of community benefits from large-scale solar projects compared with traditional local decision making—and I again make the national infrastructure point.

There are social and ethical concerns about possible connections between project stakeholders and forced labour in China, and we would like reassurances from the Minister in that regard. I asked him about that yesterday in the Chamber. I know we have achieved something with Great British Energy, but in this case we are talking about private companies, on which the concession that the Minister made yesterday will have no impact. There will be an impact on Great British Energy’s involvement if it can be proved that the solar panels are made with slave labour, but private companies will be able to go directly ahead.

I want to reply to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). Solar installations will take over good agricultural land, which is vital for Lincolnshire’s role as the breadbasket of England. Some 15% of regional farmland could be lost, undermining local agriculture, which is crucial for food security and sustainable farming.

In conclusion, covering our countryside with solar energy installations is environmentally harmful, economically unsustainable, a threat to food security, and damaging to local agriculture and tourism. Local opposition is widespread and strong, and the harms outweigh the benefits. Seeking permission for these sites via the use of nationally significant infrastructure projects is an abuse of NSIPs and subverts local democracy. It is part of this net zero craze that provides poor global value for money. It costs the UK taxpayer billions, and the net effect is cancelled out by minuscule increases in Chinese emissions. These applications should be taken in the round and, if necessary, refused. \p Sarah Coombes: Last year, I got elected on a Labour manifesto that pledged to make Britain a clean energy superpower that will create jobs, cut bills, boost our energy security and reduce the carbon emissions that are killing our planet. I have had so many conversations with people in West Bromwich who agree that it is a no-brainer. If we continue to rely on oil and gas from abroad, we will be at the mercy of spikes in prices, with the whims of foreign dictators affecting the energy bills of ordinary families in Britain.

Our renewable energy from solar, wind and wave power is free. We have heard passionate arguments from hon. Members who are concerned about solar farms. As an MP from an industrial urban area, it is not my job to speak for MPs representing rural communities, but I do want to challenge the idea that solar energy is somehow a threat to our countryside. In fact, solar takes up about 10 times less land than that given over to  golf courses. My dad is a big golf fan, so I am not attacking the golf industry, but if solar is threatening our food security, are golf courses not doing the same? Solar is also helping to restore nature, according to research by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Cambridge University, which found that solar farms contained a greater number of bird species than the surrounding arable land.

A few hon. Members have asked why we do not just put solar on rooftops. The Government are also doing that. The Black Country, which I represent, is a proud manufacturing area, and as we look out across West Bromwich and Oldbury, we can see huge numbers of factories and industrial roofs. \p Bradley Thomas: The hon. Member refers to industrial activity. Does she agree that the predominant industrial activity that solar supports is far-eastern manufacturing of solar PV? What would she say in response to Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, who said in January that by pursuing this route we are in effect ceding control over national security and resilience to foreign powers? \p Sarah Coombes: The hon. Member and I have nearby constituencies. The companies in my constituency that put solar on their roofs will see their energy bills reduce, and they could put more energy back into the grid. They think this will be a big benefit to their businesses.

There are no formal estimates of the amount of factory roofs in the Black Country, but to take a local example, William King, one of West Brom’s longest running metal processing businesses, has 29,000 square metres of warehousing facilities—that is almost three hectares of rooftop that could be used to generate solar power. It has already made a start installing solar panels, and I hope that the 300 or so other manufacturing businesses in my constituency will soon follow suit. Lighting up the Black Country with solar will drive local growth, create new jobs, build new skills and power industry in our manufacturing heartlands.

There are still many challenges to the private sector making the most of the solar opportunity—many of which the Government are working to address—including upgrading the grid so that factories can give away excess energy to local schools and delivering quick new grid connections. We also need to make the business rates system even more pro-solar. At the moment, if a business installs solar panels on its roof and consumes all that electricity itself, there should be no increase to the rateable value. However, local businesses have raised concerns that if they generate excess energy through their solar panels and want to sell that back to the grid, their business rates may increase. That creates a disincentive for companies to install maximum numbers of solar panels and generate additional clean energy.

I met my hon. Friend the Minister just last week, and we had a good discussion about the full range of options at our disposal to make rooftop solar the norm and not the exception. I am excited about what unleashing the full potential of solar across the Black Country and Britain could mean. It will reduce our exposure to fossil fuels and their volatile prices, end our dependence on international markets and ultimately bring down household bills.

Across Britain, we are on the brink of a clean energy revolution. We should seize the opportunity to unleash the full potential of solar power across our country, including by lighting up the Black Country using our plentiful factory roofs. \p Roger Gale: The only less environmentally-friendly form of power generation than solar panels in the United Kingdom is the Drax power station, which is forest-fed. It is a complete myth to suggest that somehow there is no carbon price to be paid for solar farms. Neither are they efficient: given the lack of sunlight in most of the United Kingdom, the amount of power fed into the grid from solar panels is minimal. We are talking about sacrificing acres of agricultural land—some of it has already gone—to no useful purpose whatsoever. It is time that we grew up and recognised that.

At business questions this morning, I asked the Leader of the House if she would go to the Prime Minister and bang a few heads together, because the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are not singing from the same song sheet. The argument is simply not joined up. We cannot go on sacrificing agricultural land—such as that surrounding the village of Hoath in my constituency, or the Minster marshes, or the land around Sandwich and in west Thanet—and still expect to have food sufficiency. We are talking about land that this summer is growing bread-making wheat but in two or three years will be growing houses and solar panels. That is simply not compatible in terms of policy.

I urge the Minister to go away and think about this very carefully indeed, to take the message to the Secretary of State and to ensure that there is some joined-up thinking before it is too late. I am afraid that 2030 is dead in the water, and it is time we recognised that. The way forward will be North sea gas and oil to bridge the gap between where we are now and small nuclear reactors. It is time that we recognise that and stop messing around with pie-in-the-sky schemes. \p Terry Jermy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing the debate, which is an important one for my constituents and indeed the whole county of Norfolk. We have seen a sudden influx of solar farm applications, which have become one of the most contentious and spoken about issues locally.

To be clear from the outset, I am not a nimby, or even a rural nimby as I have been referred to of late. I support the Government’s growth agenda and welcome the much-needed growth in my constituency. I am also not anti-solar or indeed anti-solar farm—I recognise the need for energy security and I support the net zero ambitions—but we must approach these challenges and their solutions pragmatically with due regard for local communities and recognise the implications. That is why I am working cross-party with the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) in establishing the Breckland solar alliance in response to a solar farm proposal that cuts across both our constituencies to ensure that the voices of our residents, businesses and stakeholders are heard and that party politics does not get in the way of such an important issue. \p David Davis: I am listening with interest to what the hon. Member has to say, and I have some sympathy with it, but does he have any specific proposal for how we deal with the nationally significant infrastructure projects approach, which completely overrules what he is talking about? \p Terry Jermy: I encourage the right hon. Member to let me get to the end of my speech, as I may answer his question. I will then be happy to have a conversation with him.

The fact is that renewable energy projects are not evenly distributed across the country. In Norfolk, our terrain is flat and quite sandy, so it is relatively easy to get things into the ground. With the likelihood of increased pylon capacity, we are attractive to solar projects and we are getting more than our fair share of applications for solar farms, which places increased burdens on certain communities.

One of my particular concerns about the influx of applications is the impact on food security. All too often, agricultural land has become the default option for solar farms because it can be cheaper than alternatives when deployed at scale, not because that is the right social and environmental option. Solar farms are not being sited on just any old agricultural land, either; they are being sited disproportionately on better-quality farmland rather than on poorer-quality land.

There is three times more grade 5 agricultural land in the UK than grade 1 land, with grade 5 being the lowest quality land, as mentioned earlier, and grade 1 being the best, yet solar installations occupy 20 times more grade 1 land than grade 5 land. That cannot be desirable, or indeed acceptable. I firmly believe that grade 2 agricultural land and above should be protected and prioritised for food production. The national planning policy framework considers grade 1, 2 and 3a land as the “best and most versatile” land, and prioritises its protection. Yet that prioritisation is clearly not influenced in the proposals. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Terry Jermy: I will not as I have limited time—apologies.

Take the Droves solar farm application in my constituency. If approved, 20% of the application site would cover grade 2 land, and about a third of the land to be used would be “best and most versatile”. We are already seeing longer and hotter summers in Norfolk, and that adds to the challenges for farmers. Irrigation is needed more frequently, adding to the cost, and more land is becoming unviable for food production. As I have said before, I am fully behind a pro-green economy and ensuring that renewable energy is not something for the future but for now.

I have huge sympathy with the Minister and the team, because our energy security is in an appalling state after 14 years of Conservative Government. We have lived through soaring energy bills and fuel poverty, and we need cheap, clean energy, but that cannot come at any cost. There are alternatives, so let us recognise that and celebrate the fact that the UK is a world leader in offshore wind, with far more capacity than any other country. \p David Davis: May I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) on what he had to say? He was at least responsive to local interest in this.

We have heard a number of rather glib comments about this and that percentage of land. Let us just look at it from an individual point of view. Last Monday the East Yorkshire solar farm in my constituency, covering 3,150 acres, was approved. Not many policies make me angry in this place, but this one did for my constituents. Why? Because a decision rode roughshod over the desires, wishes and expressed complaints of my constituents. The solar farm will cover an area the size of Durham. Let us imagine, if we were applying to build a town the size of Durham, how long the planning would take. Yet this went through effectively on the nod, and the so-called consultation process was little more than a rubber-stamping operation. Why do I say that? Because there were a lot of sensible and constructive inputs from my constituents, and some from me, and no attention whatsoever was paid to any of them.

In trying quite properly to save the global environment, the Government are causing untold harm to the local environment in Britain, and in so doing they will fail in their first aim. \p Sarah Russell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Conservatives’ failure to have proper national strategies for development means that we do not have enough prison places to lock up all of our criminals, and that not having sufficient solar energy will do the same? \p David Davis: Unless the hon. Lady is talking about the suntans of the criminals, I am not quite sure what the relevance of that was. She was one of the ones who were picking numbers out of the air, with this small percentage and that small percentage. I am pointing out the actual effect on ordinary citizens, and it is not the bland view that she has put forward.

A 3,000-acre solar farm is disproportionate for any part of the country, because it surrounds villages and makes life miserable for people. Multiple towns and villages will be completely surrounded by the East Yorkshire solar farm. Another one, the Mylen Leah solar farm, which would cover another 3,000 acres, is proposed for right next door. That will effectively be 6,000 acres. I am not very optimistic about the attitude of the Government in the approval process.

We have also heard slightly sneering references to nimbys. What are we talking about here? We are talking about actual people in my constituency. They range from pensioners who have spent their entire life savings to go and live in a quiet part of the country with a beautiful view, who will instead have a view of black plastic, to people not very far from me who bought a place in the country because they have got a child who is severely autistic and needs the peace and quiet and the rural environment that is provided. We have people who take lower salaries to work in the country because that is what they want. We have people who are committed there in farms and rural industries. They are the so-called nimbys and they do not want their lives ruined. That is what we are here to defend.

When I surveyed my residents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) did, I found that 90% were against the size of the farm and against the overwhelming impact. They were not against the idea; they were against the ridiculous way this is being done.

I am running out of time, so I will make one other point about the ill-thought-through nature of the policy. It depends on access to the grid. Therefore, the reason I have farms of 2,000 acres, 3,000 acres—probably more—is that we are near Drax on the grid. That encourages a concentration of huge farms in concentrated areas all over the country, where ordinary people will have their lives destroyed by an ill-thought-through, rotten policy. \p David Smith: I am proud that Britain has set ambitious targets for clean energy. We want 95% of our energy to come from low- carbon power sources by 2030. The Government are changing the planning system, as we have heard, so they can deliver the renewable energy of the future.

It is important that the benefits of that ambition are felt by us all, and I am keen to ensure that my constituency of North Northumberland is not overlooked in the new energy race. That means that our solar farms should be local, farmer friendly and effective so that they serve my constituents as well as the whole country. We have heard phrases such as “large-scale prime agricultural land” a lot. We just have to think through where the solar farms are going to be. It need not be an either/or, as seems to have been suggested here at times.

First, it is crucial that solar farms have local support and are rooted in communities. I know many in North Northumberland want renewable community energy that directly benefits them and their neighbourhood now. I have spoken to very small rural communities in my constituency that are well on their way in their attempts to get local solar farms. They want to sign up to the ambition of Great British Energy for the future.

We want to make sure that solar panels are a part of everyday life. In 2013 the Government estimated that there were a quarter of a million hectares of south-facing commercial roofs in the UK. We should make good use of those roofs to ensure that new build homes, for example, have solar panels for the benefit of their owners and their neighbourhood. That is entirely legitimate.

Secondly, solar farms must go hand in glove with farmers. In North Northumberland we have highly productive land that is outstanding for local farmers and for our national food security. It is therefore crucial that we use our scarce land for the best possible purpose. However, let us be clear to the Conservative party, which claims to be for farmers and the party of free choice and small businesses: it is for those farmers and landowners to decide whether they want to diversify.

Early research by Lancaster University suggests that sheep farming, sheep grazing and solar farms—actually called “agrovoltaics”—can go hand in hand. Solar farms could represent one strand of healthy diversification for many farm businesses, and I welcome that. \p Adrian Ramsay: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s points, including about the opportunities for agrivoltaics. I suspect that a lot of residents would be more open to solar farms if they were combined with food growing in the ways that he has described. Yet those are not the sorts  of applications that I see coming forward in East Anglia. Will he ask the Government to be stronger in their planning policies to encourage and require solar farms that are combined with food growing? \p David Smith: I was just about to say that I welcome the Government’s proposed new land use framework, which I think is key. The land use framework, which no Government have had before, will help landowners make sensible and effective decisions with their land. I trust that will include a strong focus on both food production and renewable energy.

Finally, and most importantly, solar farms must lead to lower bills. I am optimistic that as we ease the influence of foreign dictators off our energy supply and generate more of our own renewable energy, the British people will begin to see the benefit. Skilled jobs and lower bills will be the reward for the countries that win the clean energy race, and the best reward for investment in solar and wind power will be lower bills for my constituents in North Northumberland.

We have heard a lot of what I think is a false dichotomy here today, for instance from the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay). Setting up that false dichotomy between food security and energy security is not the way forward. We must do both together. I want my constituents to be part of the national conversation as we move towards net zero. They are keen to see lower emissions, lower bills and local jobs, and that means ensuring that solar farms are local, farmer friendly and effective so that they serve the British people well. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. We will have a two-minute time limit from after the next speaker. I call Llinos Medi. \p Llinos Medi: Ynys Môn is known as “energy island.” However, support for clean energy should not undermine our communities. The current plans for huge solar farms on Ynys Môn do exactly that. At present we have a proposal for the Alaw Môn and Maen Hir solar farms, which would cover 3,700 acres. That is nearly 2% of the island’s total land—a huge area. Those solar farms would be built on good-quality agricultural land. Ynys Môn is not opposed to solar energy—the island already hosts several solar farms, such as Bryn yr Odyn, Bodorgan and Porth Wen. In addition, Traffwll solar farm awaits construction. We are playing more than our part in the green transition, from solar to wind, from marine to nuclear.

Ynys Môn is also known as the mother of Wales, because the island’s fertile land has served as the breadbasket of Wales. Building these projects on good agricultural land undermines food security and the agricultural sector, which is a vital part of our economy. \p Adrian Ramsay: The hon. Lady highlights food security and energy security, which are often highlighted as being in competition in this debate. Is it not the truth that both are crucial for a sustainable future and that it is not clear how the Government will relate the strategic spatial energy plan to the land use framework? Does she agree that both have to work together under a clear national strategy? \p Llinos Medi: The current approach to large solar is a sign of a lack of strategic planning, but also of a lack of food security planning. Ynys Môn has UNESCO global geopark status to recognise its outstanding geological heritage and to manage it for conservation, education and sustainable development—“sustainable” being the crucial word. The proposed solar farms are not sustainable for Ynys Môn and would totally undermine the island’s global geopark status.

I propose to the Government that solar deployment should follow a hierarchy in order to best suit the needs of local communities. First, solar should be integrated into new build domestic, commercial and industrial buildings by building developers. It should then be retrofitted to existing buildings by the building owners. I am deeply concerned that the Government are backing developers over local communities when it comes to control over land. There is a huge risk of development consent orders being used by developers to buy up land against the wishes of landowners. The threat of a DCO gives developers leverage over landowners to take on decommissioning costs for solar farms. What assessment has the Minister made of that trend? Does he believe that DCOs are being misused by developers in Wales?

We have a country to keep, a piece of land as proof of our right to survive. Coal, slate, water—our natural resources—have been extracted from our deprived communities for the benefits of others. The land of our fathers has been stripped of valuable resources and the profits taken out of Wales. It is only fair that communities in Ynys Môn and the rest of Wales are respected. Pushing through large solar projects that are at odds with the needs of local people is not the way forward. The Government must change course, end the pattern of extraction and put Welsh communities at the heart of their solar strategy. \p Jake Richards: I have been given two minutes, so I will get straight to the point and talk about Whitestone. Last July, after being elected as the MP for Rother Valley, I made a solemn promise to my constituents that I would always put their interests first. The Whitestone proposal has raised real concerns among residents, and I have held numerous public meetings and consultations since the proposal first came to my desk last November.

Numerous concerns have been raised by residents, and I have made those very clear to the developer as the proposal has developed. I will share the three major concerns that stand out. The first is the sheer scale of the proposal. It would change the very nature of the area we enjoy. The second is the particular locations that are affected. Four beautiful villages—Ulley, Brampton-en-le-Morthen, Harthill and Kiveton Park—would potentially be engulfed by the Whitestone proposal. I have had conversations with the developer. I am pleased that there has already been a reduction of 25%, but I hope for much more.

The third is the issue of tenant farmers. It is right, as has been raised, that many landowners may choose to engage with the solar farm market, and that is their choice—we live in a free economy. But for tenant farmers the situation is somewhat different. I have tenant farmers in my constituency who have farmed land for generations, if not centuries, who feel that they are under threat, and I want to support them, as is my role.

I simply urge the developer, in coming forward with its proposal later this year, to take into account the thousands of residents who have raised serious concerns about the proposals as they stand. I urge the developer to make its proposal proportionate and fair, ensuring that we get a fair deal out of the transition to a green economy. \p John Lamont: I pay tribute to the hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) for taking a brave stance against their Government Whips and standing up for their constituents against these reckless solar farm proposals. Today’s debate is on solar energy, but the points I intend to make apply to more than just this type of energy infrastructure. The manner in which these projects are being pursued—aggressively and without due care—is beginning to cause a major backlash. There are rapidly growing fears that solar and renewable projects are being forced through and greenlit for installation against the wishes of the people who will have to live next to them.

The “net zero at all costs” agenda of this Labour Government, which is enthusiastically endorsed by the SNP at Holyrood, causes great concern across the country—and for good reason. Protecting the environment should not come at the expense of our economy, jobs and countryside. The approach of Labour and the SNP needs to change. Major infrastructure projects are a particular issue in rural constituencies like mine in the Scottish Borders, where the countryside is not some far-off place we speak wistfully about; it is where we live. The countryside is part of our community. When solar projects are proposed that are bigger than some towns, it is deeply worrying for local people.

Time and again, when I look at projects across my constituency, I see a scandalous lack of regard for the views of local people. They are given little information, are overlooked and even ignored, and then expected to just agree with the project. Labour and the SNP might think that is acceptable, but Conservative Members do not. We believe that it is wrong, and that people should not have to put up with it. \p Sarah Russell: The climate crisis grows more urgent, and our children’s future is under threat. Solar energy will play a crucial role in the mission to produce secure, affordable energy in this country. Since the general election, the Government have consented to more solar power projects than were consented to over the entirety of the past 14 years. Great British Energy is investing £200 million in new rooftop solar energy panels, including for the roof of the newly built Leighton hospital near my constituency, and in renewable energy schemes for schools, hospitals and communities. That will take hundreds of millions of pounds off public sector energy bills.

New building standards will ensure that all new build houses and commercial buildings are fit for a net zero future. The standards are expected to encourage the installation of solar panels, and I welcome that. It is critical that we exclude slave labour from the supply chain for solar panels, both on moral grounds and to enable alternative producers to compete on a fair playing  field. Much of the global supply of solar-grade polysilicon —a key component of solar panels—is manufactured in Xinjiang, China, where over 1 million Uyghur Muslims are imprisoned in a vast network of forced labour camps. This week, I met people from Open Doors to learn more about its work tackling religious persecution around the world. It said in its 2022 report that

“In Xinjiang you are always watched; a computer decides your fate, against which there is no appeal.” \p Perran Moon: Is my hon. Friend surprised to hear that despite our deep concern about solar panel production in China, there was virtually zero investment in the UK’s solar production during the Conservatives’ time in office? Since we came to power— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. We really must have short interventions, or I will not be able to get every Member in. \p Sarah Russell: I agree with hon. Friend. That is disgraceful, and I am very pleased that the relaunched solar taskforce is focusing on developing resilient and sustainable supply chains, free from forced labour.

It is important that we work with our farmers and growers across the country. British farmers own about 70% of our total solar generation capacity, whether it be on the roofs of their agricultural buildings or on solar farms. I am extremely pleased that the NFU is participating in the Government’s relaunched solar taskforce. We must continue to ensure that farms are properly consulted about land use, and that previously developed or lower-quality land is prioritised.

I thank the businesses in my community that have supported solar energy, including manufacturers Siemens and Bespak, which both use renewable energy sources. The Dane Valley Community Energy company is a not-for-profit mutual society that was set up by a group of volunteers in my constituency. They have constructed and run the Congleton hydroelectricity generation project at Havannah weir, and they supply electricity to Siemens and donate money to local community groups. A sister project, Congleton Solar, has installed rooftop solar on a number of sites in my constituency and beyond. Havannah primary school in my constituency will officially unveil its rooftop solar panels next week. I know that the project will inspire the next generation of green champions. I am very proud to be part of a Government who are meeting communities where they are, and following their lead. \p Richard Tice: Obviously, I like to bring people together in consensus, and I think there is consensus in the House that there is a place for solar—on roofs. Of course, I like to lead by example, so I have put solar panels on the roofs of my industrial buildings. Then, one can sell electricity to the occupier beneath and ease the considerable pressure on the national grid.

Surely solar farms are completely inappropriate. We have been hearing about thousands and thousands of acres of solar farms. In the great, glorious county of  Lincolnshire, there are applications and plans for 40,000 acres of solar panels on top-quality farmland. That is completely inappropriate. It would destroy not only that farmland, but—this has not been mentioned—great jobs in the county of Lincolnshire for the next 20 to 30 years. That is absolute madness. It is also so unfair. Those living in a village or small town in the countryside might all of a sudden find themselves surrounded not by glorious fields, but by black plastic. There is no justification for that, or fairness in it. \p Lee Anderson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the large battery energy storage plants that will be required as we use more solar farms, but is he aware of the danger that they pose to the public and the environment? \p Richard Tice: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for common sense. Most solar farms now include huge battery storage systems, which, we have learned, are very dangerous. Three of them have gone up in flames just this year in the United Kingdom. The fires cannot be put out; they must be left to burn out. What happens when those systems burn? Toxic fumes are released, including hydrogen fluoride, and toxins seep into the ground, as we have learned from California, where one went up in flames. There are massive dangers from those battery storage systems, but nobody is talking about that—and by the way, no one knows who is responsible for battery storage system health and safety. \p Tom Gordon: I have a solar development in my constituency, and there are proposals for a battery storage solution. The hon. Gentleman mentions safety. I am hoping to address that through an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would require relevant fire authorities to be statutory consultees. Would he support that? \p Richard Tice: I would be very interested. The fact is that fire departments in counties up and down the country do not have the resources, manpower or willingness to take on these safety risks. That should be the subject of a separate big, important debate. We are all concerned about health and safety. Surely nobody wants to live next to something dangerous and toxic that could cause entire villages to be evacuated, as thermal runaway means that the fires cannot be put out. I am conscious that other Members wish to speak. We need a greater understanding of these battery storage systems. \p George Freeman: I rise not just as the Member for Mid Norfolk, but as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture. As Members will be aware, Norfolk is Britain’s first county and our leading agricultural county—the Royal Norfolk show is the premier show in the country. Norfolk is absolutely at the vanguard of this country’s agricultural industry, and of the Government’s stated—although increasingly cynically stated—commitment to increasing food security.

The globe has to double food production in the next 25 years on the same land area, with half as much water and energy, and Norfolk is in the vanguard when it comes to the technologies with which to do that; there  are the drought-resistant crops, and the gene-edited, disease-resistant crops, at the Norwich Research Park. In my constituency of Mid Norfolk, the home of Banham Poultry and Cranswick Country Foods, farming and agriculture is the No. 1 industry, employing thousands in agricultural machinery supplies, haulage and food processing. I cheered when I heard that the Government were going to support the agricultural industry and food production, and I cheered their commitment to supporting UK science, including the agricultural science that is key to meeting that challenge, but since the election, we have seen the most extraordinary attack on farms, the rural economy and small businesses taking on jobs. There is also a proposal for a 7,500 acre—that is 10,000 square miles, or 20,000 km—solar farm, reaching from Castle Acre, through Swaffham, to Dereham. This is in a constituency where agriculture, food and tourism are the No. 1 industries.

Government Members need to reflect on this. I want renewable energy, and I want cheap energy. My constituents would like to be consulted. The residents of 14 villages will wake up living in the middle of a power station, with no serious planning consultation at all, no community benefit, and the rates being taken back to London by Ministers. This is an utterly cynical move towards the industrialisation of the countryside, which will rebound seriously on the Labour party and, more importantly, on this country’s food and energy systems. It is wrong. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman. \p Edward Morello: I should declare that prior to entering this House, I spent the better part of a decade working in renewable energy finance. While I would not claim to be a solar expert, I could certainly write a whole speech debunking things that have been said today. For the record, solar panels have a lower carbon footprint per unit generated than the equivalent fossil fuel. They are 95% recyclable, and any solar farm development requires a glint-and-glare report before it gets approval if it is anywhere near an Air Force base or an airport. I will move on, because I could go on for a long time.

Those of us who believe in science know that tackling climate change means making bold, practical choices about how we decarbonise our economy. If we are serious about reaching net zero, tackling fuel poverty and protecting our countryside, we have to make renewables work for people as well as the planet. I have often made the point that the solar sector is not particularly good at communicating the benefits of a just transition to the population at large, so let me be clear: solar power means cheaper bills for consumers, protection against geopolitical insecurity and a greener future for the next generation. \p Greg Smith: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. So that we in this House and the whole country can hear clearly, is he saying that the Liberal Democrats fully support solar farms? \p Edward Morello: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the answer is in my speech.

We have made substantial progress on decarbonising our power grid: a decade ago, just 6% of our energy came from renewables, and today, the figure stands at 42%. That is a national achievement we should be proud of, but we must go further, not just because the climate emergency demands it, but because renewables are the cheapest source of energy available.

Liberal Democrats believe strongly in expanding use of solar and other renewables to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, improve energy security and bring down bills. Crucially, we believe that this must be done while protecting our natural environment. A strategic land use framework is essential if we are serious about delivering net zero while safeguarding our ability to produce food and restore nature.

We are asking more and more of the countryside—to produce food, capture carbon, generate clean energy, support biodiversity and provide space for housing, tourism and recreation. Without a joined-up approach, we risk pitting these priorities against one another. It is vital that a framework gives clear national guidance on where solar is most appropriate; sets out that solar should avoid high-quality agricultural land wherever possible; and encourages dual-use solutions that support both energy generation and nature recovery. It must enable local authorities to plan ahead with confidence, and to balance competing pressures in a way that reflects the needs and character of their communities.

Planning policy should not be dictated solely by where grid connections are available, but by a long-term vision of how we want our land to be used. It is a common claim that instead of putting solar panels on fields, we should put them on rooftops and car parks. I do not disagree, but having worked in the sector, I feel obligated—I make this point a lot—to explain the commercial realities. If utility-scale solar costs 50p per unit to build, rooftop solar is roughly double that, and carports double that again. Meanwhile, energy companies pay as little as 5p or 5.5p per unit for energy exported to the grid. That means that pure-export rooftop and carport solar does not stack up financially for investors, but that is something that the Government can fix. By mandating a minimum export price, we could unlock rooftop and car port investment, reduce pressure on farmland and cut consumer bills. Yes, wholesale energy buyers would earn a little less, but consumers, communities and the climate would all benefit. This is an easy win for a Government who have stated their commitment to net zero.

Ground-mounted solar will invariably remain part of the energy mix, and we cannot reach our climate targets without it, but projects must be done right, which means prioritising lower grade land and ensuring that new schemes come with tangible benefits for the communities they affect. Community benefit funds should receive a fair share of the wealth created. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) has tabled new clauses to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to deliver just that, alongside local authority powers to invest in energy efficiency and support street-by-street upgrades to reduce bills. In Scotland, for example, community benefit is worth £5,000 per installed megawatt per year. That means that a controversial large-scale solar project, such as the Kingsway solar farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings),  would provide £2.5 million annually to the local community. That is the scale we should be talking about, and it must be the community that determines how and where that money is spent.

Today, about two thirds of UK solar is ground-mounted, but rooftop solar has a critical role to play and the Liberal Democrats are proud to be leading on that issue. We welcome the Government’s decision to adopt our policy of mandating solar panels on the roofs of new homes, which is a core part and first step of our rooftop revolution. We also call on Ministers to go further, by requiring new homes to meet net zero building standards and include provision for solar generation. When it comes to delivery, Liberal Democrats in local government are showing what can be done. From Barkham solar farm in Wokingham to Sandscale park in Westmorland and the thousands of car park panels installed in Portsmouth, we are delivering clean energy at scale, backed by communities.

Delivery must also be responsible, and I know that many of us are concerned about the number of solar farms being approved on our best agricultural land. Let me be clear: I am yet to meet a farmer who got into farming because they wanted to grow solar panels; this is happening because making a living from farming is increasingly impossible. We must ensure that farming is sustainable, profitable, and properly supported, so that farmers can keep doing what they do best, which is producing brilliant British food and looking after the land. I also share concerns about the use of nationally significant infrastructure project schemes, which are taking land out of use. That raises questions about long-term land use and oversight, particularly given the level of foreign investment in the sector.

Finally, a very quick word on standards—I appreciate that I am testing your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are genuine concerns about labour practices in the global solar supply chain, but the industry is taking action. Having been part of the Solar Energy UK supply chain sustainability working group when it was first constituted, I can personally attest that the industry is taking the issue very seriously. Through the solar stewardship initiative, robust environmental, social and governance and traceability standards are being applied to ensure compliance with UK and EU laws. By the end of this year, certified facilities will be producing 100 GW of panels annually, which is five times the UK’s current capacity. As a result, we can be confident that we can meet our targets without compromising our values. The potential of solar is enormous. It can drive down bills, reduce emissions and create thousands of jobs, as well as protect our countryside. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Joy Morrissey: May I pause to pay tribute to those Back Benchers who were not able to contribute today?

The passion about this issue is evidenced by the number of Conservative Members present. Two minutes was an inadequate amount of time in which to describe  the distress that many of their constituents feel. I will try to encapsulate what I have heard them say, but it will not do justice to the amount of anguish that rural communities are feeling. In this solar farm debate we are talking about an attack on rural communities. It is an attack on farmers, on tenant farmers and on the English rural way of life. I did not hear people complaining about solar farms being built in industrial areas or on rooftops; I heard complaints about 3,000-acre solar farms destroying the countryside, destroying villages, and being built with no concern for the communities they will leave behind.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). By securing a debate on this important subject on the Floor of the House she has done the House a tremendous service. Moreover, my hon. Friend has done much more, and she deserves recognition for that. She has worked tirelessly on the issue over a number of years, fighting for her constituents. I can testify to that, as I was the designated Whip when we were in government; no Member, from any part of the House, bothered us more on the issue of the importance of protecting rural communities from solar farm expansion. She secured vital changes from the last Government to limit where solar farms could be built—changes that this Government have now undone.

Solar has a role in our energy mix, including on rooftops and in south-facing industrial areas, but it carries significant costs and brings a dependency on China and forced labour supply chains that are questionable and should concern us all, despite what the Lib-Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), may say. \p Lincoln Jopp: My constituency has 2,000 acres of raised reservoirs and there are 402 Members in the House from England alone who have raised reservoirs in their constituencies, but the debate has not covered the potential for floating solar. Does the shadow Minister agree that if the forthcoming Government solar road map does not contain a substantial amount on floating solar on raised reservoirs, then we will have missed a massive opportunity? \p Joy Morrissey: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent point. May I suggest that he applies to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on that topic? There is such interest today that I am sure that a debate on floating solar would be welcomed by the House.

Many people are affected by this issue. I pay tribute to Members on the Labour Benches for their bold willingness to stand up for their constituents. It is difficult to do that and I am very impressed that they have done so. The Government may struggle to understand that it is possible to be pro-solar energy while raising legitimate concerns about where and how that expansion affects communities, our countryside, farmers and food security. \p Bradley Thomas: Does the shadow Minister agree that if we continue to permit applications for solar farms in the countryside, including those at Weatheroak and Hunnington in my constituency, we erode our agricultural self-sufficiency, and that it is important that this Government do not betray the countryside any more than they already have done? \p Joy Morrissey: As the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs represents a constituency in Croydon, it is perhaps understandable that he may misinterpret the needs of rural communities. We need to continue to highlight the plight of rural communities and how such issues affect them, and we must allow for proper debate in the House about these important topics.

I hold the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), in high regard, and I hope that his response will recognise and encompass the concerns and issues that have been raised today. I know that his brief covers several Departments and that that brings challenges, but the Government need to address three key areas of concern: the loss of high-quality agricultural land, the clustering of development applications linked to solar farms and the importance of community consent.

On the loss of high-quality agricultural land, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham eloquently set out why that matters to her constituents. It also matters to constituents in Mid Norfolk, where a 7,000 acre development is proposed. \p George Freeman: Does the shadow Minister agree that as well as all the points that have been made about agriculture and solar, there is a democratic point here? Residents in 14 villages in my patch, and in many others, will find that they are living in the middle of a power station. Let us name it for what it is: a power station. They think that each village will have a bit of solar, but they will be living in an industrial power station. That should not be allowed to happen without a proper planning consultation and proper compensation. \p Joy Morrissey: I could not agree more with what my hon. Friend said. There is a lack of compensation for rural communities and no offer of lower energy bills or a discount on offsetting the cost of energy. These local communities will sacrifice their green spaces, livelihoods and way of life for energy that will not give them a direct benefit.

In Lincolnshire, this issue has a huge impact. We see solar applications in constituencies, particularly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, where they cover 7% of the overall available land. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) in Lincolnshire faces 5% of land in his constituency being consumed by solar. That is shocking. Across the country, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) faces 9% of land in his constituency being consumed by solar farms. Lincolnshire’s agricultural land is vital to our food security, but it is under threat. Developers see this land as the fastest and easiest pathway to solar farm development, enabled by a Government who seem to place no importance on our food security.

The Countryside Alliance recently highlighted that tenant farmers face threats; I appreciate that that was raised by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), and I appreciate his boldness in doing that. Those tenant farmers are being evicted to make way for solar farms. Tenant farmers are not landowners: they work the land, and they are being evicted so that solar farms can be put in place.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for  Gainsborough, pointed out, we are losing farmland and farmers and our food security in the reckless ideological pursuit of net zero. That is why His Majesty’s Opposition have tabled new clause 47 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which would limit where solar farms can be built on agricultural land. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of solar farm applications on the loss of agricultural land and tenant farmers in areas such as Lincolnshire and on our national food security? Will the Minister look at ways to incentivise the development of solar capacity away from agricultural land?

As developers seek easy access to agricultural land, this leads to a clustering effect, which many Conservative Members mentioned. We heard mention of a 3,000-acre development in East Yorkshire, which, coupled with another 3,000-acre development, means that 6,000 acres of land in East Yorkshire are being consumed by solar farms. The need for these applications to cluster around substations for cost-effective grid connection is creating an overwhelming impact in areas such as Lincolnshire, Suffolk, Buckinghamshire, East Yorkshire, Norfolk and across our rural communities in England and the south of Scotland.

I particularly want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I am sure that the shadow Minister will bring her remarks to a close very shortly. \p Joy Morrissey: I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that we can address this issue in the House again very soon, because there is much more to be said on this important matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) was not able to make all of his remarks, and many Members were not able to raise their concerns.

Finally, I will talk about community consent, which has been raised so many times already today. We need to ensure that we are listening to these communities, not ignoring them and bulldozing over our green spaces—our countryside and our agricultural land—for the sake of a relentless net zero target that will destroy our rural way of life. I mention again that agricultural land is being consumed by this Government at an alarming rate. Farming capacity is being lost as tenant farmers are evicted. Whole counties are being covered in clusters of solar farms. Local communities are being ignored and experts are being overridden. Those are the realities of a solar strategy driven by ideology ahead of evidence. I urge the Minister to heed the concerns that hon. and right hon. Members have raised so forcefully today and to change course urgently. \p Michael Shanks: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing a debate on this important issue. It is the first day in a while that Westminster has not been basking in sunlight, although I did note—contrary to some contributions made by Conservative Members—that solar is currently generating 30% of this country’s electricity, more than any other technology. Solar plays a critical role in our energy mix. The hon. Lady asked whether I would meet her to discuss proposals in her constituency; of course, I am very happy to meet her to discuss these issues, as I meet Members across the House.

I welcome all—or perhaps I should say some—of the contributions to today’s debate. When the debate began, I was not expecting the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) to endorse the clean power mission so comprehensively, not only endorsing our rooftop solar revolution but leading the way in his own industrial empire. I will include him in the next newsletter on the clean power mission; I am sure he will happily receive it. I know that we are short on time, but I am happy to briefly outline the Government’s position and respond to some of the numerous points that have been made. I also hold the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), in high regard, and I will respond to some of her points over the course of my speech.

The clean power mission that this Government have embarked on is not about ideology. It is about delivering energy security, climate leadership, and the only way in which we can move away from volatile fossil fuels setting our constituents’ bills, which is what so many have faced over the past few years. It is the only way to create well-paid industrial jobs and deliver the clean power mission right across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) referenced community benefits and the benefits to individuals of installing solar panels on their own roofs; he is absolutely right about that, and I will return to the issue of rooftops shortly. I welcome my hon. Friend’s contributions, as he is a former pupil at Park Mains, where I used to teach—although for the record, he was not a pupil when I was teaching there.

My hon. Friend also made the point, which I want to reiterate, that this is not a battle between food security and energy security. I will just say one thing, which I am sure Conservative Members will strongly endorse:

“Solar projects and agricultural practice can co-exist. For example, the science of agrivoltaics is developing, in which solar is integrated with arable farming in innovative ways. That is coming on in leaps and bounds.”—[Official Report, 18 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 184WH-185WH.]

We can achieve food security and energy security together for our United Kingdom. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: The Minister and I have had this conversation a number of times. He will be aware that paragraph 2.10.29 of EN-3 states that “best and most versatile” land should not be used for solar farms. He has already informed me that no solar farm in the country uses more than 50% of best and most versatile land; will he commit to a hard limit on how much of that land can be used for a solar project? \p Michael Shanks: As I think I said the last time we had this exchange, I always welcome the hon. Gentleman’s numerous written parliamentary questions to me—it is a treat to see them every morning, and he does raise important points. I am not going to put a figure on it right now, but we have clearly said that it is important to find the right balance when it comes to best-use agricultural land. I will come back to that issue.

The hon. Gentleman did not let me get to my point. I just spoke about this not being a competition between energy security and food security; those were the words of the shadow Energy Secretary, the hon. Member for  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), not that many months ago, before the Conservatives went down the hole of denying that the climate crisis is a real thing and that our energy security and food security can co-exist. That was their policy when the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham last brought this debate to the House, which I think was nine months ago. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: The Minister says that this is not a competition between energy security and farming security. It should not be; the reason it is becoming one is that his Government are allowing our best and most versatile farmland, used for growing crops, to be taken over by solar farms. \p Michael Shanks: I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but it was not me saying that this is not a competition—it was her own shadow Energy Secretary just a few months ago. I do not accept her point, either; I will come to that very briefly, but in a bit more detail, in a second.

Let us not forget that this is also about tackling the climate crisis. The Conservatives might be willing to ignore that crisis, but the truth is that time and again they forget that climate change will have a devastating impact on agriculture and on land across this country. We have to do something about that, and this is part of it. Solar will be part of our energy security in the future, although it will not make up the entirety of our clean power system. \p George Freeman: Will the Minister give way? \p Michael Shanks: I will make a bit of progress, because I am conscious that another debate is to start soon.

Rooftop solar, as many Members have raised, is important. It is not an either/or. We see a real opportunity to put solar on every possible rooftop right across the country. We have announced our ambitions for new homes and for industrial buildings. We recently launched a consultation or a call for evidence on car parks, too. If there is a rooftop that we can put solar panels on, we are keen to do so, but there will also be a role for ground-mounted solar to play.

Finally on this point, the public also support solar. Many Opposition Members have said that they have done their own surveys—where, funnily enough, they get the result they hope to get. In the most recent poll, 88% of people said that they support solar, and that figure has never dipped below 80%. There is a question about balance, as I have said in this House on a number of occasions and will say again. We want to build a clean power system that brings communities with us. That requires a balance of different technologies in different parts of the country, but it is not credible to come here and say, “We support the building of infra- structure, but please do not build it in my constituency.” \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Michael Shanks: I will briefly give way to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). \p John Lamont: I am grateful to the Minister, but what is he saying to my constituents who are genuinely terrified by these large-scale wind farms, pylons and solar farms coming to our area of Scotland, which I am sure he  knows well? Just as importantly, what does he say to the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), who raised the same concerns as Members on the Opposition Benches? \p Michael Shanks: First, I say to the hon. Member that I have one of Europe’s largest wind farms on my doorstep, so I know exactly what it is like. I would also say that bringing down bills and delivering energy security matters to his constituents as much as it matters to mine, and a robust planning system is in place. Opposition Members speak as though there is no process for local communities to be consulted, but there absolutely is; they are frequently consulted, and that plays a critical part in the decisions made about these projects. \p George Freeman: Will the Minister give way? \p Michael Shanks: I will not, because I am conscious that there is another debate to come.

These questions about the planning system are important. There is a rigorous process in place. We recently raised the threshold for solar projects going into the NSIP regime. I seem to remember a number of Opposition Members opposed that, but the whole purpose was to ensure we do not have the issue that we have at the moment, where a lot of projects are deliberately 49 MW, which is just below the threshold. By changing the threshold, we have more projects going through local, democratic council planning considerations, so those Members should welcome that decision. Those planning decisions also consider biodiversity, the local economy, visual amenity, protected landscapes and many other things, and those considerations also include, as a number of Members said, cumulative impact where more than one project is planned in close proximity.

Members raised many other points that I am afraid I will not have time to come to in this debate, so perhaps we should have another debate on some of them. On land use, the guidance makes it clear that wherever possible, developers should utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. Where development on agricultural land is necessary, lower-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land and so on. On questions of food security, I defer to the president of the National Farmers Union, who says that it is

“important that we’re not sensationalist about the impact on food security”.

I trust his judgment on this question above some others in this place.

I am moving through a number of points as quickly as I can. On land use, a number of Members have asked about how we bring together the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan. I had a meeting about that just this week. The Government should have had a serious look at land use in this country many years ago and at how we strategically plan our energy system right across the country. They will come together. We are also looking at regional energy plans that give a more localised view, too. The National Energy System Operator is currently taking that work forward, and that is an important step.

On community involvement, it is important that communities feel like they have a voice in this process. I have frequently said from this Dispatch Box that I do not for a second underestimate the strength of feeling for communities that have any infrastructure built near  their houses or villages—whether that is prisons, the electricity system or new housing—but as a country, we cannot simply say that we will not build any new infrastructure because some people might oppose it. If we did that, we would never build anything, we would never deliver economic growth, and we would hold this country back, so I make no apology for saying it is about the balance between how we bring communities with us and how we get on with building in this country again, and that is important.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about glint and glare, the impact on the loop-the-loop was one of my highlights of the debate. As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said, solar panels are designed to absorb light, not reflect it, and glint and glare is considered in the planning process already, so it is taken into account.

I am conscious of the time, and I apologise to hon. Members who raised serious points that I will not be able to address in this debate. I am happy to follow up in writing on a number of those points.

Solar power is one of the cheapest forms of energy that we have in this country. It is deployable at scale, and can play a critical role in delivering our energy security and in our delivering the climate leadership that we need—to tackle not a future threat, but a present reality that will affect farmers up and down the country if we do not do so. I acknowledge that any infrastructure project has impacts on communities. The planning system does all that it can to mitigate those impacts, but we need to build stuff in this country. Infrastructure has to be built, and our electricity system has to be upgraded. We will build on rooftops, we will build a mix of energy technologies right across the country, and we will take on all innovations that are possible. It is fantastic how quickly we are innovating in this space, but hon. Members cannot simply say, “Let’s not build in my constituency”, because that is not a credible option.

I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham once again for securing the debate. Although we might not agree on everything, I take her points very seriously. It is important for me to say that I hear the points that she and others have raised, and I am happy to meet her to discuss them further. \p Caroline Nokes: Dr Caroline Johnson has one minute to wind up. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope the Minister has listened carefully to what has been said, and has understood that this is not about nimbys—it is not about “not in my back yard” and it is not even about the aesthetics of solar farms. It is about the overwhelming scale of the proposals and the fact that solar farms will take up a huge amount of good-quality farmland. If one had a sensible strategy and wanted to use ground-mounted solar, one would put it in places where there is not good food-producing land; one would not put it on the best food-producing land, but that is what this Government are seeking to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered solar farms. \p Perran Moon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) referred to the Heckington Fen solar project in her speech today, and claimed that it was approved by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State did not take that decision. He recused himself from it, and that was made abundantly clear—publicly—following the decision. We have a duty in this House to be accurate and not to question another Member’s integrity. What the hon. Member said is categorically incorrect, and I therefore respectfully ask that she withdraw her comment. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member for his point. He will know that it is not a point of order, but a point of debate that perhaps would have been better dealt with in the debate itself by means of an intervention. However, if the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) wishes to respond, she may. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point was that under a Labour Government and Secretary of State, a Labour donor has been given permission to build a great big solar farm just outside my constituency. That is the point I was making: the Labour— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. We are not going to have a continuation of the debate via points of order. \p Roger Gale: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the interests of accuracy—I understand that is what we are trying to pursue—the Minister said during the course of his final remarks that 30% of power is produced by solar panels. The figure for April, produced by NESO, was 10%. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. As I said, these are points of debate, not points of order, and they are certainly not matters for the Chair. \p Natasha Irons: I beg to move,

That this House has considered the long-term funding of youth services.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate, Members for supporting it, and all the organisations that have provided material for today’s contributions.

This Government have stated that they are on a mission to break down barriers to opportunity, to ensure that every young person in every part of our country gets the best start in life and has access to the tools they need to thrive. As has always been the case, a young person is shaped not just by what they do in a classroom or what they hear in the playground, but by the community they grow up in and the stake they have in it. That is what youth services are. They are a safe space outside school, and the place to broaden horizons and build meaningful connections with the outside world.

As an elder millennial with baby-boomer parents, I know that every generation believes that theirs has had it the hardest, but in our day we at least had the luxury of living our most awkward and vulnerable years without the glare of social media. At least we had the opportunity to fail, to be odd and to learn who we were before we presented ourselves to the world. Whether it is the impact of covid, the cost of living crisis or trying to prepare for a world of work that is constantly changing, our young people are facing unprecedented challenges in a country that, for too long, has not invested enough in their wellbeing.

As a result, in England one in five children and young people now have a probable mental health disorder. The number of emergency hospital admissions for children aged five to 18 due to a mental health crisis increased by 65% between 2012 and 2022. Incidents of youth violence remain at high levels, with 3,000 knife crime offences last year involving a child. The Office for National Statistics reports that 16 to 24-year-olds are now the loneliest group in our society, and the Good Childhood report states that the UK’s children and young people are the “unhappiest in Europe”.

This damning picture of what it is like to grow up in this country should shame us all, because, as they say, it takes a village to raise a child. What has happened since the 2010 spending review, which saw funding for youth services pitted against services with greater statutory protections, is the systematic dismantling of the network of support that used to keep our young people safe. The village has been replaced by a patchwork of voluntary organisations, with fewer and fewer council-run youth services bidding endlessly for one-off pots of funding that will inevitably come to an end. \p Andrew Slaughter: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. She points out the extraordinary cuts in the funding for youth services—over 70% under the last Government—with 50% of centres lost. Can I take this opportunity to say that some centres have thrived and that continue, such as the Sulgrave youth club, which has its centenary next year, and that is thanks to long-term support and funding, but also to private philanthropy— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced enough parliamentarian to know that that was a very long intervention. \p Natasha Irons: My hon. Friend is quite right: there has been a 73% decline in funding for youth services. I congratulate the organisation in his constituency on its centenary. \p Chris Kane: Does my hon. Friend also recognise that there is also a funding crisis in Scotland, with the Scottish Government starving local authorities of the funding they need to provide these vital services? This is not just in England; it is a UK-wide problem, and the SNP Scottish Government are certainly not making it easy. \p Natasha Irons: I understand that MSP colleagues are considering bringing in a youth Act in Scotland, which is quite innovative, and perhaps we should try to emulate some of its provisions.

With the closure of over 1,000 youth centres, one in eight local councils now has no youth centres in its area. The workforce crisis has seen youth workers often stuck in low-paid and insecure work. The voluntary sector, which now delivers 80% of youth work, faces its own funding crisis, with 25% of voluntary youth organisations having less than six months of cash reserves.

Despite those challenges, organisations across our communities are stepping up to rebuild the village around our young people. Nowhere is that more evident than in Croydon, the town I have the privilege of representing in this place. In Croydon, organisations are working tirelessly to provide the support that young people need: Redthread, which is working in Croydon university hospital to offer young people caught up in youth violence a way out; Reaching Higher, which aims to support and champion young people across school, community and home; Croydon Drop In, which offers free confidential advice and mental health support to young people and families; and Croydon Youth Consortium, which is driving collaboration across local youth charities, so they avoid competing against each other for the same limited pots of funding. Croydon is leading the way in giving our young people a stake in their community.

However, due to impending budget cuts and reorganisation, Croydon, which is London’s youngest borough, is on the verge of losing its council-run youth engagement team. The team provides a critical link between the council, the voluntary sector and vulnerable young people across the borough. It provides outreach, runs youth hubs in hard-to-reach areas, and oversees Croydon’s youth assembly. To put it simply, Croydon’s youth engagement team has saved lives.

The limited statutory protections in place for council-led youth services mean that Croydon council can shut the service down without running a proper consultation; without asking key partners, such as the police or the NHS, how much they rely on the frontline knowledge the team offers them; and even without consulting the borough’s young people properly, having approached only 31 of them in the process of drawing up its plans. The council claims that some of the services will be retained by inviting the voluntary sector to put in bids to run them, but they cannot replace the consistency, institutional knowledge and co-ordinating role that the  youth engagement team provides. As one mother, whose son attends the New Addington youth hub in my constituency, put it:

“The staff do such a good job at making everything seem conversational and natural... We’ve had pop up services through charities. But with the youth club, they’ve been able to spend time with a consistent staff team and build relationships with a professional and diverse staff.”

I welcome the Government’s commitment to the wellbeing of our young people: their work on a national youth strategy that puts the voice of young people at its heart, and their plans for the young future hubs to tackle the complex causes of youth violence. But I urge them to back up that investment with proper statutory protections for youth services.

It is time to stop the erosion of youth work. It is time to introduce statutory sufficiency benchmarks to ensure that no matter where they are, no matter the community they grow up in, all young people have the right to youth work, with measurable minimum expectations. As outlined by the National Youth Agency, that would not only give youth services the priority they deserve, but provide stability to the youth work sector, giving it the long-term structure needed to invest in proper pay, training and support for its workforce.

It is not just a moral mission to provide these services for our young people; it is also a practical one. As the Government’s own data shows, young people who receive youth work support as teenagers are happier, healthier and wealthier. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates, for every £1 invested in youth services, we save between £3.20 and £6.40 in wider costs to society. For many, youth work provides a trusted adult; a guiding hand on to the next step when the next step feels impossible.

I would like to end by sharing the story of Rania. She is a young woman who, like many across our country, left education full of potential but was paralysed by fear. She battled deep mental health struggles, loneliness, isolation and a crushing sense that she was “not enough” for the working world. Rania got in touch with the King’s Trust. She began to work with Charlie, a youth delivery lead who did not just help her with her CV and job applications; she listened, she believed and she walked her through every moment of doubt. Rania went on to apply for three NHS roles and was offered all of them. She is now proudly working as a band 2 healthcare assistant. As she puts it:

“With the support provided, I hardly recognise myself. I still can hardly grasp how much Charlie’s support has impacted me and motivated me to achieve my goals.”

That is the power of youth work.

At a time when hundreds of thousands of young people are struggling to find a future, it is youth workers like Charlie who are quietly pulling lives back from the brink. If we are serious about ending the youth unemployment crisis, if we are serious about the future of our young people, and if we are serious about breaking down barriers to opportunity, then we must get serious about the long-term funding of our youth services. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Members will be able to see quite how many are expecting to speak this afternoon, so I am introducing a three-minute time limit immediately. \p Richard Foord: Young people in Devon have incredible potential. Across our whole county we see their creativity, resilience and ambition. We are lucky to have a dedicated network of organisations and volunteers who support them every week; from youth workers to counsellors, community leaders and peer mentors, people across Devon are stepping up to help our young people to get new opportunities.

In Sidmouth, for example, the YMCA plays a big role in the local community. It hosted election hustings last summer before the July elections, and the people who came to those hustings from across east Devon asked some really fantastic, searching questions. Sadly, with the demise of the Manstone youth centre, Sidmouth has seen the excellent work carried out by that centre either fold or, at least, move elsewhere in the town. The closure of this youth centre is symptomatic of the demise of youth services that we have seen over the past 15 years. \p Richard Quigley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Conservative Benches are empty reflects the conscious choice they made to underfund youth services, which is why many of us find our youth services in this position? \p Richard Foord: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Devon county council was run by the Conservatives from 2009 to 2025, over which time we saw a staggering 76% real-terms cut to youth services.

Despite that, we have some really dedicated volunteers who are doing their very best with very limited means. In Cullompton, the John Tallack youth and community centre offers weekly youth club sessions through Involve Mid Devon, providing space for young people to connect, be heard and develop together.

With the shared prosperity fund, we have seen that it is also possible to serve young people on the cusp of adulthood. We have youth and adult employment hubs, including those at Cullompton library and Honiton’s Beehive community centre, which, through the shared prosperity fund, provide one-to-one advice for people aged 16 and over to help them gain confidence, develop skills and find employment or further training.

At least, that is what we had until March 2025, when the shared prosperity fund ran out. We are now very concerned about funding for youth services in Devon. Devon county council spends just £39.30 per young person, which means that the county ranks 105th out of 174 local authorities for spend per person. According to the Totnes Times, more than 10,000 children and young people in Devon are currently waiting for mental health support. Made early, this sort of investment can alleviate concerns downstream, and indeed can actually save the state money spent on other services later on. This is demonstrated in academic studies, with a review of evidence from 74 academic studies finding that youth work produces a social return on investment of up to £6.40 for every £1 spent.

I urge us to build on what is already working and expand the brilliant examples that we have across Devon, but we need to do this through long-term, sustainable funding. We need to join up youth services with mental  health and education provision and create a more integrated, co-ordinated approach, enabling our young people to get the help and support they deserve. \p Katie White: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this important debate.

The long-term funding of youth services is not just an issue of public spending; we are talking about an investment in the next generation, and in building a future in which all young people can thrive. As colleagues have said, we face a mental health crisis. According to recent NHS data, one in five children now has a probable mental health condition. I was really saddened to read the latest UNICEF data, which places the UK near the bottom of the league table of high-income countries for the wellbeing of children and the happiness of teenagers. The UK ranked 27th out of 36 on child mental health, and British teenagers were joint second from last for overall happiness.

The economic consequences are stark, too. According to the Government’s “Keep Britain Working” report, young people with mental health conditions are nearly five times more likely to be economically inactive. Since 2015, there has been a surge in the number of young people with work-limiting health conditions to 1.2 million, and more than half a million of those cases come down to poor mental health.

Although there has been welcome progress from this Government—they have launched the national youth strategy, committed to ensuring more mental health support teams in schools, and increased investment in early intervention—the pressures on young people continue to grow. Young people face challenges that were never encountered by previous generations, including the impact of smartphones and social media, which bring increased social pressures. However, over the past decade, local services have been decimated; they have lost more than £1 billion since 2010.

In my constituency, I recently met Tahlia, who attended one of my surgeries to talk about the lack of support for her children with special educational needs, and the lack of youth services in our community. Rather than wait for action, Tahlia took it upon herself to connect with organisations to explore how best to support the youth of Horsforth. She is working with others to transform a derelict building into a community hub for young people, with a focus on supporting neurodiverse needs. That is a powerful example not only of community leadership, but of unmet need. I would like us to do more to support meaningful local consultation. We should bring together young people, parents, schools and community groups to ensure that long-term funding is targeted at youth services where they are needed most. The investment should align with the Government’s goal of improving mental health support in schools, not as a stand-alone fix, but as a broader part of our strategy.

My questions for the Minister are: how can we better support community-wide, wraparound services, ensure direct funding, and bring together schools, parents, youth workers and local organisations to meet that need? What further steps can we take to limit the negative impacts of smartphones and social media on young people’s mental health, beyond supporting the  ban on phones in schools and raising the digital age of consent? If we want a prosperous and productive future, the most powerful investment that we can make is in the opportunities, wellbeing and potential of our young people today. \p Shockat Adam: The simple truth is that the money we invest in our youth services and young people today will save hundreds of millions of pounds tomorrow. More than that, it will save lives, futures and entire communities. Across Leicester South, we are proud to have incredible grassroots youth organisations changing lives. Pedestrian allows children with special educational needs and disabilities to express themselves and build confidence through youth music sessions; it even helps them to feature in exhibitions. Shubaan youth project is a beacon in the Highfields area of the city, offering a safe space, a sense of connection, and even a football club. The Eyres Monsell club for young people stands tall, mentoring, supporting and empowering the next generation.

Those examples are all too rare. Too many young people have nowhere to go and no one to turn to. As the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Katie White) said, today we learn of the alarming statistic, published by UNICEF, that the UK ranks 21st out of 36 in the happiness and wellbeing league for children. That is simply unacceptable for one of the richest nations in the world.

In the past 15 years, local authority spending on youth services in England has been slashed by £1.2 billion in real terms. That is a 73% cut. As provision shrinks, violence rises. In areas where youth clubs have closed, people aged 10 to 17 are 14% more likely to commit a crime. Why? Because if we do not offer them real role models, as we used to in youth clubs, they will find toxic ones on social media. When there is no safe space, isolation takes root, mental health declines, physical health follows, and hope disappears.

Youth work is a lifeline. Government-funded research shows that young people who access youth work are not just happier but healthier. Investment in it is smart economics, because for every £1 invested in youth work, the social return is anywhere between £3.20 and £6.40. Youth work saves us more than £500 million a year in costs from knife crime, antisocial behaviour and criminal justice. This is not spending; it is saving. But this robust sector is under threat. Funding is short term, insecure and skewed towards buildings, rather than people, but buildings alone do not change lives. Youth workers do, yet more than 4,500 youth workers have left the sector in the last decade. A third of those who remain are on zero-hours or temporary contracts, earning an average of just £21,000 a year—far below the UK average.

There are several actions we can take. First, we could have a national youth strategy with long-term, measurable plans to protect and strengthen youth services. Secondly, we could have a dedicated youth Minister in Cabinet to ensure that youth is not an afterthought but a priority across all Government agendas. Thirdly, we could have a long-term youth workforce strategy to recruit, retain and properly pay the skilled professionals our young people rely on. Finally, we should have ringfenced, sustainable revenue funding—not just capital investment—for open-access youth services in every postcode. \p Chris Kane: When we talk about youth services, we are really talking about the kind of country we want to be. We often discuss crime prevention, education and mental health in silos, but the thread that runs through all those issues is clear: we need to invest in our young people through properly funded, long-term youth services.

Scotland has a proud tradition in youth work. In my constituency, youth work takes many forms, from council programmes to community-led projects in our towns and villages. In every case, the services work to address inequality, isolation and opportunity gaps. Let me highlight two examples. The Callander youth project has turned a former hotel into a thriving hostel and social enterprise, and offers employability programmes and training opportunities to young people. In Bannockburn, the Eastern Villages sports hub delivers sport and community activity in partnership with Milton football club, Bannockburn rugby club and St Modans cricket club. That shows how sport, youth work and community development can go hand in hand.

Those are fantastic examples of grassroots ambition, but behind the energy and creativity lies a deep sense of fragility. Too many projects rely on a patchwork of short-term funding. I want to recognise the role of organisations such as the National Lottery Community Fund and many others that have stepped in to keep services running. \p Christopher Vince: My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech, and is showing why Scotland produces some of the greatest footballers of all time, like Billy Bremner. He mentioned the short-term funding of youth projects. My experience from my work with young carers is that part of the issue is that new projects need to be funded. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need long-term funding for not just existing projects, but new ones, too? \p Chris Kane: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for recognising Billy Bremner—a very good Stirling man.

As I was saying, many projects rely on a patchwork of short-term funding, but that reliance points to a deeper problem: the retreat of local government, especially under the SNP Government in Holyrood, who have delivered a real-terms cut of over 15% to core budgets for local authorities. That makes it near impossible to deliver on statutory obligations, let alone expand services for the future.

When youth services are cut, the impact is not abstract. We see it in worsening mental health, rising youth crime and lost opportunities. We know what works. Youth services build confidence, boost attainment, improve wellbeing and support employability, and those are generational investments, not optional extras. That is why I welcome the UK Labour Government’s commitment to embedding youth services alongside mental health and careers support in communities. However, Westminster action only goes so far when Holyrood is pulling in the opposite direction. If the SNP is serious about equity and opportunity, it must properly fund councils and commit to long-term support for youth services. This is not just about budgets; it is about hope, and acting on our belief in the potential of every young person. \p Rachel Gilmour: As a mother of four born Devonians, I know that my constituency is a wonderful place to grow up. It embodies the best of England’s green and pleasant land. It is also home to a vibrant network of youth circles. I pay tribute to the fantastic sports clubs, big and small, across the patch, the strong presence of the young farmers clubs, and to the cadet branches of our armed services in Minehead, Uffculme, Doniford—though they meet in Watchet—and Tiverton. I also pay tribute to the myriad scout and guide troops across my constituency, and the King’s award-winning Exmoor Young Voices, whom I very much look forward to welcoming to Parliament next week. I apologise if I have left anybody out.

In an age when screens are increasingly a fixture in daily life for the young generation, the chance to spend time in the countryside is becoming all the more important. It boosts mental health, encourages exploration and lays the foundation for a lifelong appreciation of our natural environment. I sometimes wonder whether the greatest youth service in my constituency is the natural environment. I am keen to ensure that young people appreciate nature’s grounding force.

However, opportunities sometimes lie elsewhere for isolated and distant communities. That is a direct result of the underfunding of youth services—a short-changing of future generations. I was shocked, but not entirely surprised, when I saw the figures for 2023-24, which indicated that Somerset funded a youth service for 11 to 19-year-olds to the tune of only £4.21 per young person. Compare that to Hull, which provided £287 per 11 to 19-year-old. If only the Conservatives had not run Somerset into the ground, and underfunded local government across the country.

Finally, as we consider the future of youth services, we cannot ignore the benefits of adopting an EU youth mobility scheme. This initiative would allow young people in the UK greater access to work placements, study exchanges and cultural experiences in Europe. It would broaden horizons and foster international co-operation. Giving our youth the ability to explore, grow and develop skills beyond our borders is not just beneficial to them; it strengthens our economy and enriches our society. Surely that scheme would represent one of the greatest services to the young people of Tiverton and Minehead. Either we get serious about the issues facing our youth services, or we fail to tackle them head-on and risk losing what we have, which would be detrimental to all. \p Lauren Sullivan: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this fantastic debate. I experienced the youth work profession as a young person through my local youth club, and as a member of the UK Youth Parliament in its early days, so I know first hand how important youth work is, and how much of it has been cut due to austerity. Only last week, I went to see Gravesham Youth Council, which has been running for 25 years—an incredible achievement, given what has been going on. I ran a session on the national youth strategy called “Deliver You”, a consultation in the form of a delivery service for young people. In the spirit of food delivery, I present some ingredients.

First, young people should be truly listened to, engaged on matters that affect them, and empowered through youth voice mechanisms at each level of government. In that, they should be supported by youth work. There should be a legal duty on Government and local government to support youth work. Secondly, we need long term, fully funded, preventive, universal, open-access youth work in all areas, not an early help or social work-lite model, although those can be used for targeted help.

Thirdly, we need a trained, qualified and invested-in youth work profession, in which qualifications are recognised. The term “youth worker” should be protected in the same way as the term “doctor” is, or “lawyer”. Fourthly and finally, we need in primary legislation a duty on local authorities to provide youth work, so that it is never seen as an easy cut again. Now that is a delivery order that will truly nourish our young people across the land. Through a statutory youth service Act and a long-term workforce strategy, we can address shortages and upskill youth workers, so that they can deliver for young people. I hope the Minister will agree that that would be a step in the right direction.

We have listened as a Government to the votes at 16 campaign. Twenty years ago, I was at the forefront of the campaign, and at a recent Liaison Committee hearing, the Prime Minister and Government committed to delivering votes at 16 as part of our manifesto commitments. There have been so many years of campaigning on the issue, and I pay tribute to all the young people who have joined in that effort. We should welcome those who are joining the campaign now, and jumping on the bandwagon at the last minute. We need to reverse the trends and see good, open-access youth work return to Gravesham and the country. Youth work works, and I hope that the national youth strategy will deliver the hopes of so many young people. \p James MacCleary: I thank the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber today. Youth services are not a luxury; they are a lifeline. At their best, they provide young people with a safe place to go, trusted adults to talk to and opportunities to grow, learn and thrive. Yet all across the country, we are seeing those vital services hollowed out, stretched thin or shut down altogether.

I want to share an example from my constituency. Sussex Community Development Association, or SCDA, a respected local social enterprise based in Newhaven, has recently had to take the painful decision to close its regular youth club sessions at Newhaven youth centre. That was not due to a lack of demand—far from it. Indeed, some of the young people who use the service credit the youth workers with saving their lives.

Like so many organisations, SCDA is being squeezed by rising wage bills and the knock-on effect of national insurance changes. It is now facing an additional £20,000 in costs from the increase in the minimum wage alone and a staggering £70,000 in NI contributions. That is £90,000 in total for a not-for-profit organisation that supports young people in one of the most deprived communities in the south-east of England. Furthermore, because it is a larger non-profit employer, it does not even qualify for the employment allowance that was  meant to cushion the blow. It is being penalised for doing the right thing, creating real jobs and reinvesting in our communities.

SCDA is trying to keep the flame alive by continuing to support youth voices through the Newhaven young people’s forum, offering digital resources and making sure that Newhaven youth centre remains a youth hub. However, without secure, long-term funding, SCDA and so many others will be constantly forced to make impossible choices.

That story is not unique to Newhaven. In recent years, more than £1 billion has been cut from youth services across the UK. According to the YMCA, local authority spending on youth services has dropped by more than 70%. We do not need another round of bidding wars for limited funds. Instead, we need a proper long-term settlement that recognises that investing in young people prevents future crises in mental health, crime, education and employment. It is not only the right thing to do morally; it makes economic sense too.

I also urge Ministers to review how changes in employment policy, from the national insurance thresholds to minimum wage differentials, are impacting voluntary and community organisations. Social enterprises such as SCDA should not be left to bear disproportionate burdens because they choose to create good, permanent jobs. If we are serious about giving young people a stake in their future, we need to give youth services a stake in ours. We need not just warm words, but funding that matches the scale of their impact. \p Jodie Gosling: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) on securing this important debate. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate a leading youth provider; I congratulate Aspire in Arts in Nuneaton on its 10-year anniversary. From numerous conversations with the leader of the youth group, Amina, I know about the organisation’s struggle over the past 10 years. The success of its projects is truly a testament to the dedication of the staff; it is a true labour of love. Given that the YMCA has estimated that Warwickshire county council has cut a staggering 84% from our youth budget since 2010, it is amazing that Aspire in Arts has developed a fantastic local asset that provides support for hundreds of young people. It adds value to our young people’s lives with art, games, cooking and health provision and education. The music provision is incredible and is about to get even better, as performance spaces and a recording studio are established. The organisation is building the capital culture and creative industry talent that we need for the future, while truly enhancing lives and broadening horizons.

Crucially, Aspire in Arts provides a safety net, an open door and a safe place for young people who have nowhere else to go; those who need support and those at risk of bullying, harassment and exploitation. It also gives a positive choice to those at risk of entering into criminality. Indeed, we already know that youth provision reduces the rate of youth reoffending by 13% and reduces the severity of the crimes.

The positive impact of youth services transforms lives and maps out a pathway to embracing passions and nurturing talent, supporting young people to learn the skills that they need to live successful lives in the future. In Nuneaton, more than 20% of our young  people are economically inactive. Youth crime, antisocial behaviour and youth violence are enormous issues that have resulted in tragic outcomes in recent weeks. Aspire has been holding the frontline, supporting these young people through unmet mental health and SEND needs and providing alternative provision when the barriers to attending school are just too great. \p Christopher Vince: I was waiting for an opportunity to mention young carers, who are a hugely important part of the greater picture of young people and who often face many barriers to education. Does my hon. Friend agree that any consultation with young people should include young carers, as has my consultation in Harlow? \p Jodie Gosling: Absolutely. It is clear from interactions with young carers and parents of children who are not in school that the gratitude for youth services and the value they add is immense.

The casework stories from youth provision in Nuneaton are often harrowing: young people in crisis and on the edge of suicide, self-harm and mental health episodes, and victims of violence and abuse. The open-door policy means that we have a safety net to catch and support them. The net that the organisation provides saves lives, helps them rebuild and offers support for a brighter future.

Evidence suggests that £1 invested in youth provision results in £3.40 to £6 for the taxpayer, but I think the value it adds is incalculable, especially when we consider the impact on other services, such as health, education, policing and justice. Aspire in Arts works collaboratively with other youth groups to provide services across the north of Warwickshire and to establish ambitious, inspiring plans to support our young people. It would like to do more, and with secure funding instead of piecemeal, day-to-day, hand-to-mouth funding, it would be able to secure a place for young people across Nuneaton and to support everyone. \p Christopher Bloore: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) on securing this timely and essential debate. I know she is a champion of not just young people but local government, and her speech eloquently demonstrated the urgent need for action to build a fit-for-purpose youth service.

Rather like “Star Wars”, my youth feels a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, but I was one of those young people living in a village that benefited hugely from the presence of a bricks-and-mortar youth centre staffed by highly skilled youth workers—a profession that has been demonstrably under-appreciated and wrongly devalued for the past decade and a half. As a young man, the centre not just gave me a secure space to play games, learn skills and socialise, but—thanks to the support workers—gave me support through challenging times in my life. We did not talk in such terms then, but it was accessible and non-judgmental mental health support available on my doorstep—something not available to my Redditch and villages constituents now.

Perversely, as the internet, social media and YouTube influencers have emerged, with the challenges that that has posed to our young people, we have witnessed the dismantling of our youth service. If we combine that with the impacts of the cost of living crisis and covid-19,  we cannot ignore the fact that our young people face far more challenges than we did growing up. As a parish, district and county councillor—albeit one of the younger ones—I have witnessed how local government cuts have decimated our youth service. \p Sean Woodcock: My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech about the importance of youth centre provision. Does he agree that the Conservatives’ dismantling of Oxfordshire county council youth services by closing 19 of the 25 youth centres that existed prior to 2010 did irreparable damage to young people in Oxfordshire? \p Christopher Bloore: Every council that I served on was also Conservative, and they decimated our youth services. It is a real shame to see the Conservative Benches empty today.

I am grateful for the fact that the Government have listened to the voices of young people and launched the national youth strategy, but let us not be under any illusions: there is a lot of work to do. The benefits of youth services and youth work are painfully obvious and fit perfectly into this Government’s missions of economic growth, safer streets, an NHS fit for the future, and breaking down barriers to opportunities. I have spoken many times in this Chamber about mental health, especially raising concerns about young people. A fit-for-purpose and accessible youth service could make significant progress in addressing these growing challenges. We can give young people a space and the support they need in their communities to drown out the voice of misogynistic influences, which are poisoning our young men’s minds and putting our sisters and daughters at risk. It can be a place for education and aspiration that protects our young people from the nefarious actors promoting violence and crime.

Let us be bold and decide to invest appropriately in our youth services for the long term. Let us replace the opaque statutory minimum with a specific investment minimum, ensure accessibility for all young people, including those with neurodivergence challenges, and set greater standards for those delivering services in order to protect the youth worker profession. Surely there can be no greater or more important investment in our nation that an investment in the next generation. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: I am keen to get everybody in, so I will have to reduce the speaking limit to two minutes. \p Maya Ellis: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this critical debate. Youth services are integral to enabling young people to live safe, healthy and happy lives, but we cannot deny that issues and policy relating to children and young people often get pushed aside. We must recognise the contribution that they make and will make to our society by ensuring that they have access to youth services.

I was so pleased to hear the Government’s announcement earlier this year on developing a new national youth strategy. Just last week, I held a strategy session in my  Ribble Valley constituency and heard from the fantastic Bowland high school council about what young people in my area need and want. It was a chance to hear them talk openly about their concerns. I was taken aback by the number of students who discussed the stress, worry and pressure that they felt, particularly in relation to their exams—I wish all those starting their GCSEs this week good luck. That emphasised the need for youth services to support young people through these big life stages. They also discussed the lack of places to go where they could feel truly safe.

Youth provision is personal for me. I have been a member and volunteer of Girlguiding since I started Brownies when I was seven, and I served on the Girlguiding national board for six years, so I have seen at first hand the impact that such youth movements can have on young people. I would like to think that my confidence and self-belief as I stand in this House today come from that provision. That is the power that good youth services have.

I highlight to the Government how powerful investment can be when it follows existing infrastructure and good practice. Many organisations, such as guides and scouts, have existed for over a century, but they are reliant on volunteering, and modern lifestyles cannot sustain that. The frameworks that those organisations have developed are cutting-edge, however, so I welcome building on those provisions.

One young woman I spoke to recently said that the private stage school she had enjoyed proved too expensive for her in the long run. I would love it if we subsidised great local youth offers where possible, rather than reinventing the wheel. Doing so would also support local businesses. We must ensure that youth provision is extended to our rural communities and can be accessed across the country. I would echo my— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I call Warinder Juss. \p Warinder Juss: Some 93% of young people who have attended a youth centre say that it has made a positive difference to their lives. They have come away happier, healthier and more confident in themselves and their futures. From reducing levels of knife crime and antisocial behaviour to improving the education attainment levels of our young people, youth services not only deliver outstanding benefits to our children but provide exceptional value for money.

The Way youth zone in my constituency is a clear example of the value of long-term investment in youth services. I have visited the Way many times and seen at first hand the extraordinary impact that the service has had on our young people. They have overcome their fears, discovered their passions and feel ready to make a positive impact on the world. One attendee said that the Way had inspired her to study cyber-security at university, while another confided that the Way was the only place where they could manage to get a hot meal for the day.

Those services are too fragile under the current funding system, however. They cannot survive on good will alone; they need consistent long-term funding. Over the past 14 years of Conservative government, when Government funding plummeted by more than 70%,  750 youth clubs have been lost in England. Our young people are paying the price: one in eight young people are not in full-time education or training, one in five have mental health conditions, and one in five are consistently absent from school. We must now make investment in our young people and youth services a priority.

The Way youth zone delivers an impressive return of £13 per £1 invested in children’s wellbeing. I support the Government’s plan for change, but I ask them to commit to sustainable, long-term funding for our youth services. \p Richard Baker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech. Youth services are fundamental in my constituency, where in some wards, one in three children are living in poverty. That is completely unacceptable and shows how important the work of the child poverty taskforce will be.

Of course, funding for these vital services was cut by the Tories, but in Scotland, too, under the SNP there has been a 27% decrease in funding in real terms for youth work since 2015-16. This is failing the young people of Scotland who most need our support. Instead, the work of charities such as Fife Gingerbread and Includem should be supported with long-term funding arrangements. Includem’s “Keeping Connected” project, delivered with Our Minds Matter, supports young people in Fife to promote positive mental wellbeing and reduce stress. Such support is all the more important when I understand that in some health board areas in Scotland, children and adolescent mental health services are no longer offering a pathway to a diagnosis of autism, which can cost more than £4,000 to secure privately. That is shocking.

The Scottish Government have been promising to deliver multi-year funding settlements for youth services for nearly 20 years but have failed to deliver beyond isolated examples—welcome as they are—including in Glasgow, and a national fair funding pilot. After 20 years, this should be the approach across the whole sector. Year-to-year funding is a barrier to recruitment and retention of staff, and their ability to build the trust and familiarity that is so vital to the young people they support. If we are to achieve a fairer, better society for all our young people, sustainable funding for these vital services will be essential at all levels of government throughout our country, and in particular those communities, including my own, where too many young people today still do not have the life chances that should be their right. \p Baggy Shanker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) on securing this debate. In Derby, there are so many organisations that work really hard with our fantastic young people, whether that is Children First Derby, which provides mentoring services and support for vulnerable young children and their families, or Community Action Derby, which, through its Derby Youth Alliance, brings together partners to support vulnerable young people in our community. \p Catherine Atkinson: My hon. Friend will know that we have some incredible youth services in Derby. He has mentioned some, but there is also the local YMCA, the Derby Youth Alliance and DE23 Active. Does he agree that it is disgraceful how many other services have closed because of Tory austerity cuts? \p Baggy Shanker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The austerity cuts have affected so many groups in Derby that either no longer exist or have had to scale back their services, and it is truly shocking.

The Derby County Community Trust does fantastic work. Safe and Sound also does excellent work in our city. The Derby promise, which we recently launched, works so hard to offer aspirational experiences to young people in our communities but could do so much more if properly funded. We know that investing in the future starts with investing in our young people—charities such as the ones my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and I have mentioned in Derby do exactly that—but the Tories ignored this. They decimated funding for youth services, as we have heard from speaker after speaker this afternoon. Derby is no different, with youth service spending falling by a staggering 81% since 2010. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that longer-term funding for youth services is crucial, so that we can enable every young person in Derby and across the UK to thrive? \p Julie Minns: In 2008, the then Labour Government launched the Myplace fund for the development of world-class youth centres in some of the most deprived areas of England. Thanks to that fund, and the vision and commitment of local businessman Brian Scowcroft, the Carlisle youth zone opened its doors in April 2011. Since then, the young people at Carlisle youth zone have hosted royal visitors, designed the livery for a local bus and put politicians like me through their paces.

But Carlisle youth zone is not just a place for young people to enjoy activities and socialise; it is also a place for parents, with its newly launched parent zone giving local parents a forum to discuss the issues affecting them, and it is a place for business, with a thriving patrons programme providing much-needed funding, as well as directly linking businesses with their potential future employees.

Carlisle youth zone shows what funding and partnership with business can achieve, and the impact that it can have—an impact that is best described in the words of one young user, who said:

“I have done so much independently that I did not think was possible outside of the Youth Zone. Without the support and encouragement from everyone, I do not think I would have had the confidence to go to university, work and interact with people…or learn so many skills.”

That is the impact that good youth services can have, the opportunity they can deliver, and the potential they can unlock. \p Harpreet Uppal: Let me start by recognising the work of local youth workers in Huddersfield. Despite the financial outlook, there are many incredible  organisations, including Positive Stepz, Conscious Youth hub, Central Stars youth club, Team Kick Start, Yorkshire Community Development, Empower, Boxpower, Temple Well-Being, Kirklees youth alliance, and Kirklees council’s detached youth team. I also want to mention the foundations of Huddersfield Town football club and Huddersfield Giants rugby league club, which work with young people across our communities. Those organisations deliver outstanding services, offering young people opportunities to thrive. However, they continue to face financial constraints and constant short-term funding rounds.

We are seeing the consequences of the reduction in youth service provision, as organised criminal gangs lure young children into county line networks and organised criminality. Sadly, we have seen the devastating consequences of knife crime in Huddersfield, with young lives lost, too many parents dealing with consequences that no parent should ever face, communities broken, and too many children and young people left with mental scars. To recover from those years of neglect, youth services need sustainable long-term funding. When I met young people from Huddersfield, they said they have found it increasingly difficult to access work experience opportunities since the covid pandemic. They also told me that too many of those opportunities came down to informal parent networks, which see those from the lowest-income backgrounds lose out.

In his Labour conference speech in 2023, the Prime Minister said:

“Imagine if a whole country said we back your potential…Then look what we could build. A country where every contribution is equally respected. Where you don’t have to change who you are just to get on. Where whatever your background you feel secure.”

We must now make that our driving ambition. \p Katrina Murray: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this debate, in which we have very much been reminded of the importance of making choices, including political choices. I pay tribute to North Lanarkshire council and the community learning development team, because they have continued to invest in youth work. In the last year alone, 1,200 young people have been involved in localised groups in my community, accessing Scottish Qualifications Authority qualifications that they are not able to do outwith.

I particularly pay tribute to the group of people who are not accessing youth centres and emphasise the importance of being able to engage with young people where they are. Detached youth work is growing again for young people who have no desire to be inside those buildings—the most vulnerable people. Building positive relationships with youth workers can help them to make better-informed choices, reduce risk-taking behaviour, lower complaints of antisocial behaviour, close pathways to criminal activity and make our communities safer. That is happening in the Carbrain part of my constituency.

In the brief time available to me, I also want to talk about Kirkintilloch high school, which has seen the benefit of a youth development worker working alongside teachers. Youth development workers are trusted professionals in a different way, and they work closely  with young people who do not engage with the people they have to call “Miss” or “Mr”; they get those relationships, and they should also be valued in this debate. \p Terry Jermy: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this important debate. The issue is close to my heart because I spent many years as a youth worker in Norfolk, including working for Norfolk charity the Benjamin Foundation, as the manager of the Meet Up café in Thetford. I pay tribute to youth workers across the country, including in my county of Norfolk. It is a rewarding job, but it comes with many challenges and frustrations.

Youth work has borne the brunt of many cuts, and in too many places services are now a shadow of their former selves. Under the previous Government, there was a real-terms cut of more than £1 billion in spending on youth services among local authorities in England, so no wonder more than 50% of all council-run youth centres closed. I watched in disbelief in Norfolk as our Conservative-controlled county council entirely scrapped the county’s youth services, including important detached youth work, and closed the Connexions training and careers advice service.

Filling that void in many places were charities, including the Swan youth project in Downham Market in my constituency, which I have visited on a number of occasions. It provides a whole-system youth group, helping with a variety of needs. Anna and the team at Swan provide a crucial service for young people in that area, helping to provide support not just for young people, but for the whole family, offering a truly holistic service.

I am pleased that this Government have a bold ambition to remove barriers to opportunity for young people. We need to respond through both national and local government, and under this Labour Government we are meeting the challenge head on. \p Josh Dean: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing the debate.

Far be it from me to come to the Chamber and speak only about myself, but I want to share my personal experience. I have often said that, had it not been for the youth workers in my community, I would not be stood here as the Member of Parliament for Hertford and Stortford. I dropped out of sixth form at 17 and went straight to work in Hertford town centre. I wanted to find my path, but I was left feeling directionless, struggling to connect with the right opportunities. I cannot put into words the difference that the support of local authority youth workers—like Russell, who I have mentioned in the Chamber before—made to me, as a young person who could not see the way forward.

A young person in the same position today will not have access to a similar level. Why is that? It is not because our youth workers are any less passionate or determined to support our young people. No, it is because when the cuts came under the last Government, youth services were first on the chopping block, leaving a generation of young people behind.

In Hertfordshire, there has been a 50% real-terms cut to youth services spending since 2010-11. One in eight young people are not in employment, education or training. They are at the sharp end of crises in mental health and in provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities, with charities and voluntary organisations straining every sinew to fill the gaps and ensure that our young people do not miss out. That is the legacy of the Conservative party when it comes to young people, and it is a real disappointment to see Conservative Benches so empty this afternoon.

In my remaining time, I would like to pay tribute to the Thirst youth café and the FUTUREhope group—charities and voluntary organisations that have provided fantastic support in our community. It was a pleasure to visit them when we were hosting consultations in my constituency on the national youth strategy. I hugely welcome the work that this Government are undertaking to support our young people, and I hope to play a role in that. \p Mark Sewards: As a maths teacher, a former councillor and a dad of two wonderful children, I know the importance of youth provision. We have heard from Members from across the House that the 73% cut in youth funding since 2010 has had devastating consequences; in Leeds, that figure is 83%. Leeds has managed to negate some of the consequences with excellent work through the Child Friendly Leeds initiative, and our youth service workers know how to squeeze their budgets until the pips squeak—they know how to stretch out their finances and deliver for young people in my area—but they can only do so much. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) said, a patchwork of organisations has come in to fill the gaps. There are many such organisations in Leeds South West and Morley that I want to pay tribute to, including volunteer-led sports teams that have offered provision for young people, such as Wortley football club, East Ardsley cricket club and Morley rugby club—I could go on.

I also pay tribute to Leeds United football club. Over the past few years, I have worked with the club, which has agreed to purchase a piece of land in my constituency that it is going to transform into Wortley’s Wembley. It will provide training opportunities for young people and a hub for so many in my community to come together and play sport. We might find the next Kalvin Phillips—who knows? Hopefully this time he or she will stay at Leeds.

I would like the Minister to consider several recom-mendations on youth provision. We need stronger statutory protection: “as is reasonably practicable” is the ultimate get-out clause, and local authorities do not necessarily have to follow it, so we must consider changing that. We need to increase funding—the 6.8% increase in funding was welcome. We need to ensure that we tailor our services towards special educational needs students and young people, because they deserve youth provision too. \p Josh Newbury: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons), a fellow ageing millennial, for securing this  debate. I speak not only as a parent who would love to see well-funded youth services, but as somebody who has witnessed the consequences of short-term thinking when it comes to youth services.

In 2014, Conservative-led Staffordshire county council took the callous and short-sighted decision to close our youth service completely. The complete emptiness of the Opposition Benches speaks volumes about whether the Conservatives’ attitude to youth services has improved in the past 11 years. For them, this was a line on a budget sheet, but for communities in my county it was the closure of 38 youth clubs and the loss of 400 jobs. However, the real cost of these decisions lies not in numbers but in the experiences of young people in my constituency. The day-to-day impact of cuts often goes unnoticed, but the long-term impact is impossible to ignore.

As an antidote to the gloomy picture that I may have painted, I will mention a couple of the incredible organisations that, despite the closure of our youth service, are doing incredible work. The Staffordshire Council of Voluntary Youth Services, fondly known as SCVYS, offers practical support to charities and local groups and ensures that the voices of children and young people are heard. The VYSIONS youth service was created by children and young people in Brereton and Rugeley and provides a range of programmes and activities, from shooting and fishing to arts and crafts, in some of our most deprived white working-class communities.

I welcome the investment announced by the Government but, in closing, I urge the Minister to ensure that that funding is front-loaded in areas, such as Staffordshire, that have no council youth services left whatsoever. I sympathise with colleagues who represent inner-city areas and have seen deep cuts, but I ask them to imagine a world in which their youth service no longer exists at all: that is the world that my constituents have lived in for the past eleven years. All of us here have the highest hopes for our young people, and I am incredibly glad that once again we have a Government that do too. \p Sam Rushworth: Let us be frank: this generation has been robbed of the opportunities that it deserves. Let us think about the record of the last Government, because others have touched on it: child trust funds were cut, Sure Start centres were closed, school budgets were cut in real terms, playing fields were sold off, and free swimming, the education maintenance allowance and Connexions were cut. That is terrible.

The statistic that stands out to me the most is the fact that youth services in County Durham were cut by 80% between 2010 and 2020. It is no wonder that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, that we have a five-year waiting list for CAMHS and that one in five people have a mental health condition. That has to change. I pay tribute to some of the excellent people and groups in my constituency who step up, such as the Auckland youth and community centre, led by Maxine Jordan and her team; those who run the scouts, the guides and church groups that provide youth services; and the parents who simply stepped up to fill a gap. However, the truth is that that is not enough, and we know that.

I call on the Government to get to grips with this issue. I know that this Government have had a terrible economic inheritance, with higher debt and tax and nothing to show for it in public services. [Interruption.] I think the shadow Minister is pointing out that growth is up under this Government. This will take funding and legislative change on statutory duty, because we cannot allow this generation to be wasted. We owe it to this generation to keep the promise of Britain that it will do better, not worse, than our generation. \p John Whitby: Having dedicated spaces, support and community for young people can transform the trajectory of someone’s life. I and many Members here, I am sure, benefited from having a youth provision. I took part in activities that I would not have done otherwise. The previous Government stripping funding away from local authorities was a travesty, because it meant that youth services, which are vital but mainly discretionary spend, were often one of the first things to be cut. Our child and adolescent mental health services are overstretched, and too often young people have been left to fall through the cracks. Investment in youth services is therefore not an extra; it is a form of frontline mental health support.

The need for funding for youth services in Derbyshire Dales is particularly clear. Since 2010, spending on youth services in Derbyshire has fallen by two thirds in real terms. Those cuts have had particularly damaging implications for rural areas, as young people in rural communities face limited public transport options and more challenging access to employment. Young people today are growing up experiencing the negative impacts of social media addiction alongside the loss of youth services. As a result, they are experiencing a toxic cocktail of challenges that are having an impact on their wellbeing. A YouGov poll found that more than 65% of adolescents said they had felt alone “often” or “sometimes” in the last fortnight. With youth centres and community spaces being closed across the country, it is no wonder that young people are crying out for support.

Since 2010, there has been a fall of more than 50% in the number of young people admitted to A&E with injuries sustained outside. Of course, that is a good thing, but it implies that young people are just not going out and participating activities as they used to. Youth services do not just provide a lifeline for young people; they also set them up with skills and support for life. Very often a youth worker could be the one who turns around a person’s life. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have run out of time. \p Sureena Brackenridge: Youth services across our country have been decimated, and we all see the consequences unfolding, often tragically, on our streets. Since 2010, funding for youth services has fallen by 73% as a direct result of austerity. This issue is deeply personal to me, as I grew up with a youth club on my doorstep in Ashmore Park, one of around 30 local youth centres that we have lost over the past 15 years. The closure of that safe space left a real hole in the community, one that I was proud to serve years later as a deputy headteacher.

Despite that widespread loss, there are still community efforts that forge ahead, such as the Loft youth club at the Hive in New Invention. That youth club is run by people who care deeply, who know our community and who keep going, often without the security of long-term funding. A shining example city-wide is The Way youth zone. The Way offers more than just activities; it offers friendship and opportunity and makes memories. It is powered by passionate staff who believe in our youth.

I think of my young constituent Kira, who found her safe space, her voice and her confidence through The Way. Through inclusive programmes and nurturing mentors, Kira has grown into an incredible young person who is determined to give back. Her story is one of many, and it is testament to what is possible when we invest properly in our youth.

We must shift from crisis response to prevention, which means a dedicated, long-term funding stream to protect youth services. \p Alex Ballinger: For many of our communities, youth services are a lifeline. They provide essential support to young people, helping them to navigate the complexities of adolescence and the transition into adulthood, but unfortunately those services have disappeared across the country. The decline of youth services in towns such as Halesowen has not made headlines, but it is being felt every single day.

I recently sat down with young people aged between 16 and 25—school leavers and graduates, some with master’s degrees, all full of ambition but struggling to find support. These are young people who have worked hard, who have dreams and aspirations and are eager to contribute to society, yet they find themselves facing barriers at every turn. They told me that there is nowhere safe to go after school, that mental health services take months to access, and that they are sending out CV after CV but getting nothing back. One young woman said:

“It feels like we’re expected to survive, not succeed.”

In many ways, she is right.

In Halesowen there is no council-run youth centre. That is not a coincidence; it is the result of political choices. Under Conservative-run Dudley council, over £42 million has been cut from local services. In 2023 the borough’s youth service was shut down entirely, with youth workers redeployed, outreach teams cut and community assets sold off. Council documents show 157 service reductions, and youth provision was the first to go. We know that such cuts have real-world consequences.

The National Youth Agency has found that youth workers play a critical role in preventing crime, improving mental health and keeping young people in education, training or work. When that support is taken away, the risks grow. We see higher rates of youth unemployment, increased mental health issues and a rise in antisocial behaviour.

The young people I spoke to are not asking for favours; they are asking for fairness and a Government who have not given up on them. They want to be seen, heard and supported. They want to know that their future matters. We owe them better, and it is time that we delivered. \p Nusrat Ghani: I thank hon. Members for working with me—we got all the Back-Bench contributions in. We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Luke Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) on securing this debate, because youth services are critical infrastructure in our communities. They are not luxuries, or a nice-to-have; they are a vital lifeline, offering young people safety, support and opportunity at the time they need it most.

There can be no doubt that we are, perhaps more than ever before, engaged in a battle for the hearts and minds of young people. There have been debates and panics in this place and throughout the nation for generations concerning the challenges facing young people, but what is different in this moment is the sheer scale of the collapse in physical community spaces and, as we are here to focus on, youth services.

Many great points have been raised already, but I will focus on the most egregious consequence of not protecting and enhancing youth services: knife crime. In the fight against knife crime in London, these services are vital, because knife crime is not only a criminal justice issue but a public health issue. Like any other public health crisis, the solution lies in early intervention, community-based support and sustained investment. That starts with our youth services. In the past 15 years, youth services across England have been cut by more than 70%. That is more than half of youth centres gone, thousands of trained youth workers lost, and communities left to pick up the pieces.

Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that when a youth centre closes, young people aged 10 to 17 become 14% more likely to commit a crime. In areas already battling poverty, inequality and deprivation, a youth centre can mean the difference between safety and tragedy. In London we saw more than 16,000 incidents of knife crime last year. That is thousands of families affected and lives changed forever.

We know that young people susceptible to committing this form of violence require sustained relationships with services that can help them choose safer paths and that can offer children that vital third space when schools are struggling to maintain a learning environment and home is a worryingly hostile place. They are services that protect young people’s mental health in such troubling environments, and it is fitting that we are having this debate in Mental Health Awareness Week. Perpetuating the situation by failing to boost local council finances, whereby many councils have no choice but to cut youth services, is worse than short- termism; it is a failure to allow councils and other key stakeholders in the community to do what they want to do: invest in young people’s futures and keep them away from crime.

In Sutton and Cheam I have heard that many skilled youth workers are deterred from working in these declining services, and not just because they are not equipped to do their jobs properly, but because the financial pressures mean short-termism in grants from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and a reliance on temporary contracts.

We all know that local authorities are under immense pressure. Many are on the brink and, without proper funding from central Government, they simply cannot deliver what our communities need, so that must come first. But we Liberal Democrats are calling for more. First, we are calling for a statutory duty on all local authorities to provide youth services and pre-charge diversion schemes for young people up to the age of 25. Right now, access to youth diversion—the very intervention that steers young people away from offending—is a postcode lottery. That is utterly unacceptable. By making it a statutory duty, we would ensure that every young person in every community can access support before it is too late, not just after a crime has been committed.

We also want to see a national youth strategy that is co-produced with young people themselves, not cooked up in Whitehall without their voices. If we are serious about solving the knife crime crisis, we must treat young people not as risks to be managed, but as partners in prevention, with huge potential to be realised. The public health approach demands early intervention, but early intervention cannot happen if youth services are simply not there any more. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Louie French: I thank the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this debate. I know that she has regularly championed this issue since coming to this place. As Lord Cameron famously said,

“I was the future once.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 294.]

Although I am no longer viewed as one of the younger Members in this place, I am grateful for the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, and in the limited time available, to close today’s important debate on the long-term funding of youth services. This subject goes to the heart of how we support the next generation to thrive, contribute and belong, and it is crucial to the future of our great country.

In government, we allocated £560 million over three years to the national youth guarantee, which ensured that every young person in England aged between 11 and 18 had regular access to clubs and activities, something to do after school, experiences away from home, and opportunities to volunteer. As part of that, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing over 300 of them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) always made sure that young people were around the table when we made decisions that would affect them. We made sure that young people were not just talked about but listened to, and next week the shadow ministerial team will host a youth roundtable as part of our wider policy renewal.

I want to be clear that Conservative Members believe passionately in the power of civil society. We believe in the social fabric that holds this country together—not just the big institutions of state, but the small charities, volunteers, faith groups, sports coaches and mentors who give their time not for profit, but for purpose. They include such organisations as the National Citizen Service, which the Labour Government have cancelled. More  than 750,000 young people participated in that programme over 13 years, and it had a 93% satisfaction rate, which is something that this Government can only dream of.

We recognise the vital role of youth workers, who are often unsung and under-resourced, but who are always on the frontline. We must be honest: money alone will not solve all the challenges facing young people. A cheque from Whitehall, however large, will not guarantee that a child finds a mentor, stays off the streets or gets a first step on the ladder. However, since coming into office, this Government have made it more difficult for every single charity in this country to provide their essential services. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) recognised that in his speech, and he was the only Member who spoke about the national insurance hike.

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as the Chancellor knew when she made her decision, youth charities, like all employers, pay national insurance contributions, and they need to find additional funds to cover the rise in those contributions. According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the changes could cost the charity sector an additional £1.4 billion per year. For smaller charities with limited reserves and limited core funding, that will seem like an insurmountable challenge. Yesterday, we heard from representatives of Place2Be, a leading children’s mental health charity that has provided expert, school-based mental health support over the past 30 years. They told us that thanks to this Labour Government’s national insurance hike, they now have to find an extra half a million pounds every single year, just to pay tax. As a direct result of this Government’s decisions, it is likely that fewer children will receive the care and support that they need in an environment that is familiar to them.

That is why we supported exempting charities with an annual income of less than £1 million from the national insurance rise. However, Labour Members cruelly voted against that, and they must reflect on that, now that they are in government; they are in control. When the Conservatives were in government, we did not just talk about aspiration; we built the conditions for it. We empowered local communities and launched countrywide programmes, such as the National Citizen Service, which had a proven track record of success before this Government closed it down. The Labour Government are dismantling the NCS. In doing so, they are actively and deliberately limiting the life chances of this generation and generations to come, without giving us any answers on what comes next.

I hope that this Government will start to think properly about young people. Instead of making young people’s lives more difficult, the Government should put them at the heart of policymaking, and should reverse their callous tax on charities, youth organisations and businesses, which will likely mean a rise in youth unemployment this year. It is time for actions, not words. \p Stephanie Peacock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) on securing this important debate on long-term investment in the youth sector, following a similar debate  in Westminster Hall a few months ago. I am grateful to all Members who contributed to this debate. The shadow Minister perhaps did not read the room again—although it is rather empty on his side of the House. I will address some of his points later.

I want to make it clear that this Government value youth services. We know that they can play a vital role in young people’s lives, supporting their health, wellbeing and personal development. We also know that the support that youth services provide is under pressure. Since 2010, local councils have reduced spending on youth services by 73%. That is equal to the sector losing over £1 billion. That has meant fewer jobs, less co-ordination and too many young people missing out on the benefits of high-quality youth services. We are of course navigating a challenging financial period, but even in tough times, our commitment to finding long-term, sustainable ways of delivering effective support remains the same.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East opened the debate by painting a very powerful picture. She spoke about having the freedom to fail, and speaking as someone who grew up just before social media, I really appreciate that point. Perhaps, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), that makes me an ageing millennial; I am not sure how I feel about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East also spoke about the huge mental health challenges, about one in five young people having a mental health condition, and about 16 to 24-year-olds being the loneliest people in society. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) echoed that, and this is of course Mental Health Awareness Week.

I recognise the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East made about opportunity existing everywhere, but too often support is a postcode lottery, and we want to change that. As this debate has highlighted, young people face increasingly complex challenges, from mental ill health and the cost of living to worries about crime and violence. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), made that point powerfully.

Supporting young people and ensuring that their voices are heard is a challenge not just for national Government, but at every level of government. Strong local leadership is of course essential to delivering high-quality youth services. That is why, in the coming weeks, we will launch the local youth transformation pilot, working with approximately 12 local authorities and their partners across England. The pilot will support councils to take a leading role in planning and providing youth services that meet the needs of their communities. It will offer tailored support to rebuild local capability, improve co-ordination and ensure that services are aligned with councils’ responsibilities and young people’s wellbeing.

Many hon. Members have mentioned examples from their constituency, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker), for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger). My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) spoke very powerfully, and I was pleased to visit the Way Youth Zone with him last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) gave an impressive list of groups in her constituency, and I know she is really passionate about this subject, as she led a recent Westminster Hall debate on a similar  topic. I heard Members’ speeches, but as I have not responded to all of them individually, I am happy to meet or write to them. \p Ben Maguire: Will the Minister give way? \p Stephanie Peacock: In the interests of time, I will not.

As the Member of Parliament for Barnsley South, I know from my area about the huge contribution and value that youth services and provision bring. I am thinking of organisations such as the Barnsley youth choir, through which hundreds of young people are given amazing experiences, opportunities and skills. Over the last couple of months, I have met the Barnsley Youth Council, the Barnsley YMCA and ChileyPep to hear their ideas for how the Government can support young people. Those conversations have made it clear that we need a long-term national direction. That is why we are developing a new 10-year national youth strategy, which will set out a clear vision for supporting young people now and in the future. The strategy will guide work across Government Departments, and it will help make sure that policies and services that affect young people are better joined up. It will also move us away from a one-size-fits-all approach. We know that what works in one area may not work in another, and the strategy will support flexible solutions that reflect local needs. That important point about joined-up services was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White).

We are co-producing the strategy with young people. Their voices are shaping the priorities and the outcomes. We want to put more power in the hands of young people and their communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke about the power and role of the youth voice. Over 14,000 young people filled in our survey as part of our youth strategy work, so I assure the shadow Minister that we are putting young people at the heart of our approach.

A long-term approach is essential. Young people deserve consistent support now and over the next decade. Of course, youth workers, both paid and voluntary, are central to delivering that support. They build trusted relationships, strengthen communities and provide the vital support that young people rely on. However, after years of cuts, the workforce is under pressure and secure roles are harder to find. As we develop the national youth strategy, we are focused on rebuilding the workforce through better training, recruitment and long-term support. This is our chance to ensure that youth workers and volunteers are equipped, supported and recognised for the important work that they do. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) spoke powerfully from his experience. In partnership with the National Youth Agency, we are helping more people, especially those from under-represented backgrounds, to gain recognised qualifications.

It is clear that youth services need stable, long-term funding to thrive. Today, the Secretary of State has announced our funding plans for this financial year. I direct hon. Members to her written ministerial statement for further details, but I would highlight the £28 million that we will put into programmes that help young people to grow, gain confidence and feel connected. That funding will expand access to trusted groups, such as the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme and Uniformed Youth; go towards exploring and outdoor learning  opportunities; and boost open access to local youth services. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) spoke about the huge benefit of being outside. Over £85 million in capital funding is being allocated to the better youth spaces programme, including £26 million in new funding to renovate and equip youth centres across the country. That, of course, builds on the work being done through the youth investment fund.

The future of Government funding beyond this financial year will be shaped by our work on the national youth strategy and dependent on spending review outcomes. We want the funding to be as impactful as possible, which is why we are looking at what young people need most. In addition to Government funding, £100 million from the dormant asset scheme is being invested in youth outcomes between 2024 and 2028. All the measures that I have outlined, from strengthening the workforce to creating safe spaces and developing a long-term national youth strategy, reflect this Government’s commitment to young people. The work of my Department will allow the development of the young futures hub, the youth guarantee and the curriculum review, to name just a few initiatives. We are committed to working across Government for our young people. We owe it to this generation to keep striving for a system that is there when they need it, not just now but in the future. \p Natasha Irons: I thank the Minister for her response. It is amazing to hear about the extra funding going in, and the Government’s approach to ensuring a long-term sustainable future for our youth services. It is a different approach from that taken by the previous Government, who ripped apart that network. Given the themes of today’s debate, and the piecemeal, patchwork approach taken by the previous Government, it is great for us all that this Government are taking such a different approach.

I pay tribute to Members from across the House—although obviously not those on the Conservative Benches, because they could not be bothered to turn up. I will not name everybody individually, because I think we had over 26 contributions, but I would like to highlight some of the key themes that came up, including the need for a long-term strategy, which the Minister spoke about, and the need for statutory back-up. None of us wants a repeat of previous years and the mistakes of the previous Government, who took away support and the cover that youth services provide. We need to give them statutory back-up. The Minister is putting extra investment into this space; I urge her to really back up these services with the statutory protections that they deserve.

I will end with an African proverb:

“If a child is not embraced by the village, it will burn it down to feel its warmth.”

If we do not learn the lessons of the past, we will continue to see the mental health of our young people decline, and their experience will continue to be the unhappiest in Europe. No one who attended today’s debate wants that to continue, so let us learn the lessons and have long-term sustainable funding for our youth services. \p Nusrat Ghani: Very touching.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the long-term funding of youth services. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.) \p Ayoub Khan: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to address an issue that continues to cause deep pain and disruption to our communities across Birmingham and the west midlands, and to speak about an under-appreciated service that we will all turn to at some point in our life. The amount of time that passes between death and burial is not a matter of mere procedure or bureaucracy; it is, first and foremost, a matter of dignity, faith, and human decency, so we must afford our coroner services the urgent and serious attention that they deserve. For many, the news of a loved one passing brings not only sorrow, but an immediate sense of duty. In both the Muslim and Jewish traditions, burial cannot be postponed without consequence. It is a religious imperative to bury the deceased as soon as possible, ideally within 24 hours. That is a fundamental and non-negotiable feature of those faiths. When that process is delayed—not for hours, but for days and sometimes weeks—it causes a deep wound. These families are not just dealing with a loss, but being kept in suspense, both spiritually and emotionally, unable to complete the final rites that bring the peace, closure and healing that we all deserve when we lose a loved one.

What is worse is that these delays have become commonplace. They are no longer the exception; increasingly, they are the norm. Every week, I hear from grieving families in my constituency—

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

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.) \p Ayoub Khan: Every week, I hear from grieving families who are tired, frustrated and often feel helpless. Their stories are heartbreaking. Many do not know where to turn. They call their councillors and their MPs, and they are right to do so. When the system fails them, it is our job to listen, to act and to advocate. \p Jim Shannon: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: On coroner services in the west midlands, I call Jim Shannon. \p Jim Shannon: I spoke to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) before the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker; he and I were in a debate in Westminster Hall just this afternoon. Coroner services, whether it be in the west midlands or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, are an issue. I told the hon. Gentleman what my intervention was going to be, by the way, and he okayed it; I was happy to do so.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there are only three full-time coroners in Northern Ireland. With the historic legacy of the troubles taking up time and the coroner stepping outside his remit, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, in both his constituency and mine, the need for the coroner must be focused on and  that they should be available to those who need them most? Furthermore, does he agree that there is a need to increase the number of coroners in order to allow families to have the facts of the case when they need them, to allow the healing to begin? \p Ayoub Khan: I really appreciate the intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who makes a poignant point. The service does require modernisation. In Birmingham and Solihull we have one senior coroner, two area coroners and seven assistant coroners to look after a population of approximately 1.5 million, according to the 2021 census. In comparison, in the hon. Gentleman’s patch, there are four coroners for 1.9 million people, which is simply not enough.

As I said, these families are not just dealing with the loss of a family member, but being kept in suspense, both spiritually and emotionally. \p Warinder Juss: In May 2024, more than 6,000 inquests in this country had been delayed by more than a year. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, each of those inquests represents a grieving family unable to find closure, plan funerals or settle estates. Does he agree that this Government should now act to clear the backlog and to provide extra funding? This situation is nothing short of a crisis. \p Ayoub Khan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I was going to quote those figures in my speech. He is absolutely right that those 6,000 delays have a direct impact on not just families who want closure, but current cases that need to be worked on. The time spent by the coroner on inquests will naturally impact the basic sign-off of documents in other cases, and where the coroner is not available to sign off, families will have to wait to effect burial. We need modernisation, of course, and I seek support from the Minister on how we can modernise the service.

As I said, I hear of grieving families every week. They are tired, frustrated and often feel helpless, and turn to elected representatives for intervention. I want to share a story from my constituency that highlights the human impacts of these delays. A prominent brain surgeon had lost his father. The funeral, which should have taken place within a day, was delayed for over a week due to coroner backlogs. That surgeon, bound by faith and family duty, remained in mourning and could not return to work until the burial had taken place. His father’s death was more than a personal loss; it had a professional consequence, too. Appointments were cancelled and surgeries were delayed. There are countless examples of where family members, and extended family members, have to remain in mourning, which means that they are not able to do the work that they would ordinarily do. \p Shockat Adam: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for his very powerful speech. Does he agree that any death is very stressful and distressing, but when it is a child, everything becomes amplified? A child’s post-mortem requires a specialist paediatric medical examiner, and a shortage of them in the east midlands, rather than in the west midlands, means that bodies are sometimes taken to other cities, and this is further stressing and distressful for the family. More paediatric medical examiners are required. \p Ayoub Khan: I had not actually thought about the loss of a child, but, of course, that must be extremely distressing, especially if the family have to wait for a child’s body to be sent to another part of the country for examinations to take place. In raising this matter in the Chamber today, I hope the Minister will take on board the points that I have made and understand why we believe that there is a desperate need for modernisation, which deals with the issues felt by communities up and down this country.

Let me return to my personal experience. Patients were left waiting because the brain surgeon was unable to attend to them while he was still in mourning. This is what happens when we allow systemic inefficiencies to go unaddressed. They begin to erode the very services on which we all rely and impose hidden costs that cannot be measured, but are there none the less.

This brings us to the heart of the issue: what is causing these delays. There are several factors at play here. Among them is the state of our coroners service. Quite frankly, it is under-resourced, understaffed and overstretched. The people working in this sector are not to blame. They are doing incredible work under immense pressure, but the system is in desperate need of transformation. Let us look at the facts across England and Wales. \p Shockat Adam: My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. I would like to echo that fact: Leicester’s coroner services are doing an excellent job. One reason is that the community and any burial committee, especially in the Muslim Burial Council of Leicester, have created a real relationship, thereby overriding any misunderstandings and improving proficiency. \p Ayoub Khan: Of course, it is important that all communities form a bond with their local coroner, but, ultimately, if the coroner and their staff are limited in numbers, there is always going to be a backlog and delay in processing the very important work of identifying the cause of death and then releasing the deceased.

Let us look at the facts. Across England and Wales, more than 6,000 coroner cases were pending for more than a year—four times higher than in 2017. Birmingham and the west midlands were among the worst affected. Our population is growing. Our communities are increasingly diverse, with more residents who require specific religious considerations, yet the infrastructure has not kept pace. The Government’s funding commitments have not matched rising everyday demand. We do not have enough pathologists and we do not have enough administrative support. We do not have the essential tools that could make a significant difference—tools such as MRI and CT scanning machines, which are used for the sole purpose of conducting non-invasive autopsies. However, we do have access to these facilities, but they are not dedicated to the coroner. It is by taking advantage of technological innovations such as those that we can make life easier for families whose faith prohibits invasive post-mortem procedures. With the right equipment, we can respect those beliefs and still get the data required by law.

Another major issue is the absence of weekend services. In most parts of the country, coroners offices operates Monday to Friday, but people do not stop dying on Fridays. Deaths occur every day. When services close  for the weekend, a death that occurs on Friday night may not be processed until Monday or even Tuesday. For families who are religiously obligated to bury their loved ones immediately, the delay is deeply distressing. Introducing weekend operation for coroner and burial services is not a luxury but a necessity. In Birmingham we did have a coroner who would give up his time on weekends, but that has stopped.

To speak plainly about another area of concern, MPs are increasingly being told not to contact a coroner’s office on behalf of constituents. We are told that it constitutes interference. In fact, that is set out in the code of conduct for parliamentarians. I reject that completely. MPs are not asking coroners to change their findings or trying to influence investigations. We are not questioning their professionalism or their judgment. We are simply asking for speed, efficiency and compassion. To suggest that this is interference misunderstands both the role of an MP and the seriousness of the issue. We must be allowed to advocate for our constituents. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his wise words. We are all of different faiths, whether Christian or other faiths, and some people have no faith. A person’s religion must be paramount when it comes to the coroner’s work, and the coroner must ensure that a burial can take place within the period of time that the person’s faith indicates. I would have thought that is something that cannot be ignored under human rights and equality. Perhaps there is another way of looking at that. \p Ayoub Khan: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. There is significant case law that identifies this specific need, and coroners do abide by that and try their best to assist when expediency is required because of religion. Unfortunately, it comes back to the bottleneck, where coroners want to do the best they can within the structure in which they are working, but they are limited by resources. That comes down to issues such as staffing.

When families have nowhere to turn, it should not be inappropriate for parliamentarians to contact the coroner to assist the suffering or grieving family. Will the Minister please review the part of the code of conduct for parliamentarians that relates to communicating with a coroner? \p Iqbal Mohamed: One way that we in Dewsbury and Batley try to overcome this restriction—a rule I also could not understand—is by working with our not-for-profit and charitable funeral services, especially in religious communities. Organisations such as Fisabilillah and Sadaqah Jariyah build a relationship with the coroner to try to facilitate communication with families who reach out to MPs. Does the hon. Member agree that these organisations in communities should be congratulated and thanked for their service, and that the communication channel he speaks of should be formalised and made permissible? \p Ayoub Khan: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member. Up and down the country many organisations such as undertakers provide that support mechanism. Unfortunately, from my personal experience—this is certainly the case in Birmingham, and I am confident it is in the west midlands region too—a family’s first port of call is their local councillor or parliamentarian, and there is an expectation from the community or the  family that they will make representations to the coroner. If elected representatives are unable to have that communication because of the code of conduct, our very function is undermined. It is important that organisations maintain the relationships that they have with coroners, but it is also important to give parliamentarians the ability to communicate with the coroner directly. To ensure that the services meet the demand of their communities, they need additional funding. Coroner services require transformation, but resourcing for that transformation is important. That means hiring more pathologists. \p Warinder Juss: I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene again. Apart from him, I think I am the only Member from the west midlands in the Chamber; my constituency is Wolverhampton West. Does he agree that there appears to be a postcode lottery, as the time it takes to process an inquest ranges from 10 weeks to 76 weeks depending on where a person lives? If we do have a postcode lottery, does he agree that we must address that by having a national performance framework for our coroner services and targeting funding for underperforming areas? \p Ayoub Khan: Of course, if there is a disparity in the level of service received, there ought to be some mechanism for identifying where that is occurring and an understanding as to why. If it is because of resources and manpower, that must be addressed. I fully agree with the hon. Member’s analysis. It is a shame that we do not have other parliamentarians from the west midlands in the Chamber. I am confident that some will have received an enormous amount of contact and huge numbers of calls throughout their tenure, as I do.

One of the issues is resourcing, including those MRI and CT scan facilities available for post-mortems and dedicated to that purpose. Although our coroner in Birmingham and Solihull has access to those devices, unfortunately they are not dedicated to that task, and a deceased may lie in the coroner’s mortuary until a facility becomes available, which can take days, and sometimes even longer.

A transformation also means ensuring that services operate not just five but seven days a week, because death, grief and religious obligations do not adhere to the normal working week. We also need to develop a clear protocol across all local authorities that recognises the need for expedited burials in line with religious beliefs. There must be training, awareness and sensitivity in coroner services. \p Adnan Hussain: As I recently had the experience of bereavement in the family, may I ask the hon. Member to join me in recognising the exceptional service of the Blackburn coroner service and its vital contribution to our community? \p Ayoub Khan: I can say confidently that the coroners I have worked with work tirelessly, and often outside their working hours, to deliver the best possible service, but the limitations on them are of concern. Although coroners are doing their level best, they are limited—certainly in Birmingham—in what they can do if they  do not have the resources. I hope that the Minister can take that issue away for review and support. I agree with my hon. Friend about the good work that coroners do up and down the country.

There must be training, awareness and sensitivity within coroner services, registrars and local councils. For example, in Birmingham we have a relationship whereby there is a rapid release system as hospitals understand the sensitivities and do their utmost to ensure that a body is released. Unfortunately, to give another example, one family were left grieving because a deceased’s body could not be given to the undertaker at Queen Elizabeth hospital because there was no individual who could do the handover. The family had to wait over the weekend just to get the deceased’s body. We need to look at how we can work across all sectors to ensure that they are properly resourced and we avoid any unnecessary delay. \p Iqbal Mohamed: The lack of resources and coroners across the country has a knock-on effect on the NHS. There is an additional administrative and logistical burden from holding bodies and dealing with families who are getting in contact every hour, many times. That takes staff away from frontline services. Does the hon. Member agree that having the right level of coroner services would reduce the burden of knock-on costs on the NHS? \p Ayoub Khan: I agree, but I am conscious of the time, so I will swiftly wrap up my speech.

This is not a partisan issue. It is not even a religious issue. This is a human issue. It affects people of faith and of no faith. No one deserves to wait weeks or longer to say goodbye to those they love. Let us act not just with policy, but with purpose. Let us fund, reform and rebuild a system that respects every community, honours every tradition and puts compassion first once more. \p Nusrat Ghani: With my own father’s Islamic funeral taking place very recently in Birmingham, I too am very interested in the Minister’s response. \p Alex Davies-Jones: My condolences to you on your loss, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate. I thank him for his emotive speech, and all hon. Members who contributed, representing the views of bereaved families, sometimes including their own. It is appreciated and they have done so dutifully.

The House will be aware that although the Ministry of Justice is responsible for coronial law and policy in England and Wales, it does not have operational oversight of the coronial system. Coroner services are not centralised as part of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and are instead administered and funded through the relevant local authorities for each coroner area. The chief coroner provides judicial leadership for coroners. I take this opportunity, as other Members have, to express my thanks to all coroners, their officers and their staff, as well as the chief coroner and her team for  their tireless and expert commitment to their work. We are all extremely grateful to them for the vital service they provide to the bereaved and to the justice system.

Coroners are independent judicial office holders. They are specialist death investigation judges and part of the wider death investigation, certification and registration system. Their statutory duty is to investigate any death of which they become aware if they suspect that it was violent or unnatural in its cause, its cause was unknown, or it occurred in custody or other state detention. They also have an ancillary duty to ensure that, in appropriate cases, action to prevent future death is identified via prevention of future deaths reports.

The needs of the bereaved, particularly where there are faith concerns in respect of a death, should remain central to the coroner process. Both the Lord Chancellor, as a west midlands MP, and I are very aware of local concerns about coroner provision for communities that require swift burial or cremation. Clearly, decisions about the release of the body, including whether to hold a post-mortem examination, are independent judicial decisions for the coroner. However, I know that in many jurisdictions, including in the west midlands, families have experienced real delays. Sometimes, that is because the coroner needed to gather further evidence to support the investigation. I fully understand that, regardless of the reason, delays can cause real distress for bereaved families, particularly when faith requirements are dependent on the timely release of a loved one’s body.

We are working hard to cut delays wherever possible and to ensure that families are properly communicated with and supported throughout the process, particularly so that we can ensure that any religious ceremonies or faith requirements can be met, as they should. There are already a range of measures in place to help guide coroners as to best practice in terms of early decision making once a death has been reported, in order to ensure that families can be given certainty as soon as possible.

The chief coroner has issued detailed practical guidance for coroners in dealing with requests for urgent consideration of a death and early release of a deceased body, including on religious grounds. The guidance sets out that legal framework and states:

“Coroners should pay appropriate respect to those wishes, within the framework of their legal duties and in the context of other responsibilities.”

In addition, the chief coroner has issued guidance on the use of post-mortem imaging, including CT scanning, and on pathology more generally, which emphasises that the family should be kept fully informed throughout. I regularly meet the chief coroner to ensure that we have a shared understanding of the issues with the coroner system, including this one. I am also happy to engage with representatives of faith communities to understand their concerns and to meet hon. Members to discuss the matter further.

As the House will know, the Justice Committee undertook an inquiry into the coroner service in 2021, with a follow-up in 2023-24. The Government responded to the Committee’s letter of May 2024, summarising their findings in December 2024. That letter has been published by the Committee. It is right that our focus should be on ensuring that the bereaved are at the heart of the process. I hope the House will find it helpful if I set out a number of steps that the Government are taking to address the issues raised by the Justice Committee, other stakeholders and hon. Members.

After just a few months in office, in September 2024 this Government implemented the statutory medical examiner system in England and Wales. It represents the most fundamental change to the end-to-end process of death certification and registration in recent times. The new system means that every death is subject either to the scrutiny of a medical examiner or to a coroner’s investigation, thereby fulfilling the long-standing ambition of successive Governments to introduce a robust system whereby all deaths, without exception, are subject to an independent review.

Medical examiners and coroners have distinct roles. The new arrangements will ensure that cases are managed in the right part of the system and that only those deaths that require a judicial investigation are referred to the coroner. That will enable better focusing of coronial resource, which in turn is expected to support the reduction of inquest backlogs and delays. I hope we are already seeing the evidence of that. Just last week, the Ministry of Justice’s coroner statistics were published: 174,900 deaths were reported to coroners in 2024—the lowest level since 1995 and down 10% compared to 2023. That is because, following the creation of the new system, only those who genuinely need to go to the coroner will do so. In addition, 81,200 post-mortem examinations were ordered by coroners in 2024—a 6% fall compared to 2023. \p Iqbal Mohamed: To reduce the burden and time it takes for post-mortems, does the Minister agree that we should use technology, and MRI and CT scans, wherever possible, which will also speed up the release of the body? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I appreciate the hon. Member’s contribution. As I have said, that guidance is there and that equipment is available to coroners if they deem it necessary. Of course, we want to see anything that will help speed up the process for families.

Although we want to wait a full year for the proper data next May, the early evidence is encouraging that the new arrangements are working as intended. Reducing the number of unnecessary cases being referred to coroners means that coronial resources can be focused on the most complex deaths, while reducing the impact and burden on families. It also means that the number of post-mortem examinations that subsequently reveal a natural cause of death may also be reduced, since those cases may be identified by better surveillance and scrutiny much earlier in the process.

More widely, we recognise the concerns expressed by the Justice Committee and hon. Members present about the shortage of pathologists, particularly child pathologists, available to undertake coronial post-mortem examinations. That is a long-standing and complex problem, and its resolution requires a cross-Government approach. I am happy to reassure hon. Members that such an approach is taking place. I am meeting my counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Care to look at how we can fix the issue in the long term. Coroners rely on the pool of pathologists working in the wider medical system, including the NHS, to perform those examinations. We are carefully considering the views of the Justice Committee in its report, as well as the data we have gathered from our call for evidence on coronial pathology, which was issued in late 2023, with a view to publishing a new strategy for improving coronial pathology in due course.

We recognise the impact that inquest hearings are having and are doing all we can to process that backlog as quickly as possible. We will work with the chief coroner to continue to build on the foundation that has been put in place to reduce the time. I know that coroners in the west midlands are well below the national average, as we have already heard. The Black Country coroner area completes inquests in an average of 11 weeks, and Birmingham and Solihull, and Coventry, complete inquests in an average time of 17 and 18 weeks respectively. Bereaved families should not be left waiting longer than is necessary for inquests to be completed.

We are working on a number of areas, including on a guide to make coroner services more accessible. We are considering all we can do and all the recommendations, and I am happy to come back to the House in due course. We will work with the chief coroner on the content of all material, and to reinforce the use and dissemination of these guidance documents.

The hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr spoke about MPs making representations, MPs are elected to this House to represent their constituents, and they should be able to do so. I will raise his point with the chief coroner when I meet her soon.

I recognise the concerns expressed today, as well as the wider concerns expressed by the Justice Committee and other stakeholders, about the importance of an effective coroner service. We will continue to do all we can to ensure that the system continues to put its focus on finding answers on behalf of the deceased, that bereaved families are always at the heart of the process, that lessons are learned from any death and that this learning is disseminated as quickly and as widely as possible to protect the public.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.