Commons Chamber

Monday 24th February 2025

(began 2 weeks, 3 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:35
14:35
14:36
None Portrait Oral questions: Home Office
-

Measures) Bill act 2025. We come to
14:36
None Portrait Q1. What steps her Department is taking to help protect consumers against fraud. (902835)
-

questions to the Secretary of State,
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
None Portrait Q3. What recent progress her Department has made on tackling antisocial behaviour. (902837)
-

Question number three.
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:50
Jess Phillips Portrait Jess Phillips MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Yardley, Labour)
-
-
domestic abuse in Gloucester is financial issues. Will she agree to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meet with me to discuss my 10 minute rule Bill to discuss the safety for the victims of domestic abuse and violence. And grateful to my honourable friend for his commitment to supporting victims and he will be aware has Private Members' Bill is the responsibility of the Department of Business and Trade. I am of course willing to meet with them to discuss it. Speak about the recent report by the government response to violence against women and girls, which of course includes domestic abuse, amid a number of recommendations.

We will look at this but I wonder if the Minister will make any comments on the government response and how she will make sure domestic abuse is tackled make sure domestic abuse is tackled across the country, including Gloucester. I was waiting for the 'Gloucester'. As the rate honourable lady will know, the report was largely based on the office of the previous government and made some clear recommendations that it would be premature of me to say that the violence against women and girls strategy will undoubtedly look to that for recommendations.

 Question six, Mr Speaker. girls for sexual exploitation is a horrific crime and the government works closely with law enforcement to tackle the drivers of this offending and prolific perpetrators including operational initiatives aimed at tackling the threat of modern slavery. The Online Safety Act sets out priority offences including sexual exploitation and human trafficking offences. Starting from March 17, companies must adopt systems and processes to address these offences.
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:41
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr Speaker, to ask the Secretary of State about the Plant Oxford site.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oxford site. Thank you, Mr Speaker, this government is determined to see a government is determined to see a strong, thriving, UK automotive industry. We recognise the vital role the British motor industry plays within the landscape, employing over 150,000 people with tens of thousands more working in the wider supply chain. It is why we are ploughing £2 million into the sector's agreed transition, and 300 million encouraging the uptake of new, clean, green electric vehicles, a big incentive for the global automotive sector.

Building on this momentum, our industrial strategy will back automotive companies who want to invest in Britain and drive long-term, sustainable, UK growth. We know that BMW has taken a decision to delay the production of two new electric mini models at the Oxford plant. I know that this news will be unsettling for the company's many hard-working employees, not least those working directly on the production line. But I must stress, BMW remains committed to its investment in the UK. And it is by no means unusual for a manufacturer to address the product line-up or production start date for commercial reasons.

We are proud that BMW considers Oxford the heart of many production, and as a government, we are throwing our weight behind its investment. We want big brands from Britain and around the world to lie at the heart of our growth mission and our plan to change, creating well-paid jobs and putting more money into people's pockets. As part of the effort, this government is working closely with BMW, as it reviews the investment timelines, ensuring that more cars are built in the United Kingdom.
15:43
Greg Smith Portrait Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. It seems it also applies to EVs, this weekend, we saw the disastrous consequences of the rigid approach to net-zero, BMW hitting the brakes on a £600 million investment into Plant Oxford. The deal from 2020 would have secured 4,000 high- quality jobs and was a strong vote of confidence in the UK. Like other deals, this was only possible because the previous government was willing to be pragmatic.

Conservatives made the sensible decision to delay the ban on internal, and cars, bringing the UK in line with major global economies, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, but Labour said they knew better, restoring the 2030 face out-of-date. When the negative impact of the approach became clear, they launched a fast-track consultation on the mandate, pitifully attempting to buy themselves time. Surely no constellation is necessary, the effect of the puritanical session is clear, JL our state their mandate is causing severe disruption to the market, oxo confirmed they would sit down factory, citing the mandate.

And now the future of Plant Oxford, the home of the mini since 1959, is uncertain. Labour's reckless policies have shattered industry confidence with consumer demand for EVs dropping off a cliff with numbers only just about sustained by subsidised fleet sales. Will the Minister do the right thing, stop hiding behind consultations and acknowledge the ideological approach to net-zero will only lead to economic disaster for our automotive sector and consumers alike?
15:45
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
It is hard to know where to start, really. The puritanical obsession was a Conservative policy from the last government. The only changes that were made to that policy, and the last prime Minster, was to dampen demand by changing the deadline but hampered manufacturers are not changing any of the Flex abilities or pragmatism in how the policy operated. It was the worst both worlds. Labour, by contrast, and this government, is acting with pragmatism, we are ensuring that we are listening to industry, we are ensuring that we get this right, we are working at pace to do that, but we are also creating the conditions in which the automotive industry cannot thrive, that does not just mean delivering the economic stability and political stability that was lacking under the previous government.

It also means delivering and Industrial Strategy that delivers growth, including the automotive industry, it means investing £2 billion in the budget for automotive transition, it means investing in R&D, supporting industries and talking to them and understanding the global climate. It was clear in the statement that BMW made that there were macroeconomic, global and commercial reasons why the decision to delay has been made. BMW are also clear that they are still committed to this investment I have talked to my honourable friend who is liaising closely with workers and unions, as you would expect, and he will continue to work to make sure we have the right economic and political climate to make sure that these industries can thrive.

thrive.
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:01
David Lammy Portrait Rt Hon David Lammy MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Tottenham, Labour)
-
-
We now come to the Secretary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

David Lammy. With permission, I will make a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With permission, I will make a statement on Ukraine. In January, statement on Ukraine. In January, 2022, I visited the wall of remembrance of the fallen in Kyiv. With my right honourable friend, the Defence Secretary. Seeing the faces Defence Secretary. Seeing the faces of all of those who had lost their lives since 2014 brought home the lives since 2014 brought home the human cost of Kremlin imperialism and Ukrainian determination to stand up to it. Some weeks later, just as British and American intelligence services had warned, we awoke to news of Putin's full-scale invasion, launched to shatter the sovereign state of Ukraine.

Today we mark three years of Ukrainian courage in resisting. That brittle, legal, unprovoked invasion. I have witnessed the fortitude, first hand, on three visits over the past year. That defiant spirit as Russian missiles and drones rained down, night after night, after night. On this grim anniversary and amid all the talk about talks, we must not forget that Russia's barbaric war goes on. Ukrainian people are suffering and the on Europe, the conflict is piling pressure on the world poorest.

Mr Speaker, this debate takes place against a backdrop of intense diplomatic efforts, responding to president Trump's cool to bring this to an end. At the G 20 last week, I listened to Sergey Lavrov, once again he shamelessly played the victim, rehashing the same lies. I will say to this House what I said in response, if Russia is serious about a lasting peace that respects Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, and the United Nations Charter, guarantees Ukraine's security against future aggression, rejects imperialism, then Britain will listen.

No one wants this more than Ukraine. At the Munich Security conference, Ukraine must be at the conference, Ukraine must be at the heart of any talks about the future. I said that the West must learn from our history. Vladimir Putin and his war is no historical aberration. He draws on a czarist tradition, the imperialism and authoritarianism of Peter the Great or Nicholas the first, and a Soviet tradition, he is, after all, a KGB agent who operates by deception.

It was an American diplomat, Mr Speaker, who warned, in 1947, of a deep continuity in Kremlin thinking. It is referred to as the long telegram. He argued they would only respond to strength and that was the basis for the policy of containment. A part of which Britain contributed tens of thousands of troops to the British Army of the right. It was this strength, not paper promises, which deterred more scope from further advances West. Today, let us look at the Kremlin's recent record.

The Helsinki final act of 1975, trade. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994, betrayed. The NATO Russian finding act of 1997, betrayed. The Minsk agreement of 2014, and 2015, betrayed. This is a foreign-policy by lies. We must respond by being true to ourselves and provide the support that Ukraine needs to stay strong. Because that is what is needed to secure a lasting peace and shape the collective security so that Putin never invades. The UK has a unique role in helping to shape and make this happen.

My right honourable friend, the Prime Minister, was in Paris last week, talking to European allies about how we step up support for Ukraine. Accelerate work on security guarantees, and take more responsibility for the security of our continent. In Munich, I spoke to Vice President France and Secretary of State, Rubio, my Defence Secretary -- right honourable friend, the defence sector, chaired a group where the US Defence Secretary confirmed that, like us, the US wants to see a sovereign, prosperous Ukraine.

Europe must shoulder its share of the burden. With the United States and their unique capabilities, we can deter Putin from attacking Ukraine again. From escalating homebrewed, Russian attacks in Europe -- hybrid Russian attacks in Europe into some form of direct consultation. This week we will be visiting Washington, DC, Ukraine needs friends and allies on both sides working together to achieve peace. Both president Trump and President Zelenskyy, have spoken of their desire to achieve this. The Prime Minister will reaffirm to Zelenskyy, in a call today, that this is Britain's goal as well.

This must include European countries investing more in our own defence and capabilities. Already, the UK has stepped up and sped up military assistance. We have committed 3 billion per year every year for as long as it takes. Over the next two years, we will provide an additional 2.26 billion, earmarked for military spending, via our share of the 50 billion G7 loan, backed by frozen Russian assets. In addition, as the Prime Minister has made clear, we know our Kremlin history, which is why we are ready to contribute to future security guarantees for Ukraine in the context of the US backstop.

Including by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary. That would not be an easy decision. Anyone in this House who has taken responsibility for the lives of British servicemen and women can attest to that. I know that the whole House recognises that Ukrainian security is our security. The UK also continues to set the pace on ratcheting up economic pressure on the Kremlin. Together, with international partners, we have denied Russia access to $400 billion.

There war economy is increasingly unsustainable. Inflation is 9.9% and rising. That is just the official figure. Interest rates are running at 21%. This year, Russia will spend almost 41% of its budget on defence and the. Today, Mr Speaker, we will announce the biggest package of sanctions since the early days of the war. Over 100 targets, including 40 oil tankers, our largest set of ship specifications in a largest package yet, as well as third country neighbours, pouring money into Putin's war chest, a new legislation imposing additional sanctions on Russia as well.

This will deny Russia access to world leading expertise needed to maintain the war. Today, UK has also certified our historic 100 year partnership with Ukraine. Signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelenskyy, in February I saw for myself how much the partnership means for Ukraine and how much potential there is for our collective growth and security, together, we made the agreement to Parliament for scrutiny. I look forward to it entering into force when the process is complete. A clear sign of our confidence in Ukraine's future.

This is a critical moment. I want to acknowledge how colleagues have stood united these past three years, honourable members from all parties, as well as noble Lords in the other place, the shadow Foreign Secretary, several predecessors, I am proud of this unity, proud of this country's unwavering support to our Ukrainian friends, proud that the United Kingdom is rightly taking on the response plenty of ringing allies together. That is how we confront the foreign-policy based on lies.

How we secure Ukraine's future, secure Europe's future and face down a Kremlin dictator once again. I commend this statement to the House.
16:11
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Foreign Secretary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary for his statement and advanced sight of it. statement and advanced sight of it. Because, the House stands united with Ukraine. On this absolutely with Ukraine. On this absolutely grim milestone. Three years on, we grim milestone. Three years on, we all think of the innocent lives caught up in this terrible conflict. The civilians mercilessly killed in times and in the east. The young children, forcibly deported to children, forcibly deported to Russia.

The families of brave troops who have not returned alive from the frontline. And all of those with life changing industries make injuries and those who have lost homes and possessions. UK led to global efforts to back Ukraine and punish Putin. From training tens of thousands of Ukrainian recruits on British soil, donating battle tanks and missiles, to be part of an unprecedented sanctions response that has deprived Putin's regime US$400 billion. To be one of the first countries to provide Ukraine with the multibillion, multi-year funding pledge military aid.

The UK has led the way for Ukraine. Our support has made immaterial difference to Ukraine's ability to hold the line. Never forget that the cost of this war to Putin has been catastrophic. Russia's Black Sea Fleet has been pummelled, it is likely that by the summer Russia will have incurred one million casualties with Putin desperately turning to North Korea for trips and demand for weapons. Meanwhile, as we have heard, the economy is in dire straits.

They have been our prices against Putin's regime is and the pitch of his leadership that he was a great restorer of Russia's stability lies in ruins. The British public continues to stand resolutely with Ukraine. They expect us, as politicians, across this House, to do so. I want to thank again the many thousands who have generously opened up their homes to Ukrainians fleeing the war. Including through the homes to Ukraine from -- Homes for Ukraine scheme. They have shown the best Britain.

Although there has been much debate, we have heard already about the course of the conduct in recent days, this war continues to rage. I urge the government to continue giving Ukraine everything that they need, all of the hardware that they need, and all of the diplomatic support to strengthen their hand and I am sure the Foreign Secretary will do that in Washington this week. There must be no letup whatsoever. We welcome the announcement of new sections, can the forensic to confirm there are no plans to lift sanctions in the future? If he discusses the use of sanctions and he goes to Washington this week, and the role of the United States on this policy, can the Foreign Secretary give us an assurance and update us on whether we should expect to see any new resources and support, either in terms of military aid or humanitarian support in the coming weeks? Now is the time for Britain to lead, as we did from day one, and ensure that Ukraine is in the best possible position to decide it and future.

We should be clear, it remains that Ukraine is a proud and sovereign nation, they should decide the future and that is peace through strength. We want the war to be brought to an end, like President Zelenskyy, we want a lasting, reliable and just peace. The euro and 90 unity must continue to be robust in the face of aggression. A lesson of the last 20 years is clear, he only comes back for more. We must ensure this illegal invasion can never happen again, we need a stronger deterrent, we recognise the Prime Minister has commented on the options and security guarantees in recent days, I can assure the House that his Majesty's opposition stands ready to engage with this government at every single level.

We must lead our NATO allies in Europe, both in the long-term, collective defence and planning must be coordinated. There is already a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030, from the previous government, I would urge this government to look at a minimum plan to match that commitment, we will work with them in terms of how that is delivered, to set a new benchmark for other countries to follow. And to fire up countries to follow.

And to fire up The US also knows that the UK has a vital role to play in NATO and I'm sure it will be discussed this week. In terms of the 2.5% target, it is not a goal in itself but an important step on the journey to improve Defence spending. Given the threats the nation faces, I would urge the Foreign Secretary to review and re-purpose some of the money we currently spend on ODA on Defence and safety and security.

Finally, the case of mobilising sovereign assets to support Ukraine is very clear. The Foreign Secretary has spoken about this already and I urge the government to do more and we stand united as one House to support Ukraine.
16:17
David Lammy Portrait Rt Hon David Lammy MP, Foreign Secretary, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Tottenham, Labour)
-
-
I am very grateful to the rate honourable lady for the unity she demonstrated once again in this chamber on this subject. I confirm to her that all of the diplomatic and humanitarian support continues and we will continue to discuss these issues with our European partners in particular with meetings at the Munich Security Conference and subsequently and we will continue to do that to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position. She rightly mentions British casualties over the past few years.

There have been 17 British nationals who have served us members of the Armed Forces of Ukraine who have been killed in action over there. She also rightly mentions Ukraine and the solidarity that we continue to shore with Ukraine. We continue to discuss sanctions, of course, with European partners and just as we have announced a sanctioned package today, there has also been the announcement of another sanctions package in Berlin to bear down on Vladimir Putin's war machine.

We are continuing to support Ukraine with a medical aid package for men and women on the frontline. I'm very grateful to the Defence Secretary for making further funds available in relation to that. She rightly comments on Defence spending. We are grateful for the unity that the official Opposition is demonstrating on this issue. As we have said, it is very clear to all that Europe must pay a big part of the burden. In capitals across the continent, leaders are considering these issues and we have said we will put forward our plan shortly and we will.

In this context, NATO, and we have seen this from the Secretary-General, they have been very clear in terms of the burden sharing and shifting on the situation we are now in.
16:20
16:21
16:22
Calum Miller Portrait Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the Foreign Secretary in advance for his statement. Today marks three years since Putin launched his invasion and many people expected Kyiv to be captured within days Vladimir Putin did not consider the resolve of the Ukrainian people and three years on the briefly continue the fight against his imperialism in defence of their sovereignty. The UK and the South has stood together with -- and this House has stood together with Ukraine. People have demonstrated their opposition to the war by opening the host to Ukrainians.

We must consider to provide support, including urgent clarity on what options for employment the government will introduce for them. The past week has exposed the fragility of Western support for Ukraine and in parroting the false claims that Ukraine started the war and that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is dictator, President Trump cannot be trusted. That is why the UK and continental allies must step up to lead in Europe and this must include the UK committing to spending 2.5% of GDP on Defence as soon as possible and all parties working together to build consensus on 3%.

The Liberal Democrats agree a just settlement could be reached and this will depend on parliamentary approval for such military deployment. We support the government announcement of new sanctions targeting Russian kleptocrats and I am requesting another name be added to the list. The government should also seize Russian assets totalling £40 billion Russian assets totalling £40 billion in the UK and Europe and channel these funds into Defence. Can the Minister up to the House on what is building the £2.5 billion that was promised from the sale of Chelsea football club? The Prime Minister in Foreign Secretary must make clear the UK will continue to stand side by side with Ukraine for as long as
16:25
16:26
16:27
16:28
16:29
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:34
16:35
16:35
16:36
16:37
16:38
16:39
16:40
16:41
16:41
16:42
16:42
16:43
16:44
16:45
16:45
16:46
16:47
16:47
16:48
16:49
16:49
16:51
16:51
16:52
16:52
16:53
16:54
16:55
16:56
16:56
16:57
16:57
16:58
16:59
16:59
17:00
17:01
17:01
17:02
17:03
17:03
17:04
17:05
17:05
17:06
17:07
17:07
17:07
Alec Shelbrooke Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP (Wetherby and Easingwold, Conservative)
-
-
I can barely believe I've got to say this to the Foreign Secretary, but he will be unaware that in past moments the United States has just voted against the UN resolution, condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine. I understand freely the position that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are in and the approach they have got to take in Washington this week. But we do know that President Trump listens to people who last spoke to him. So can I ask the Foreign Secretary that he outlines two very important points.

The first important point is that European military assets, not native assets, European military assets are often used to support American operations in the Indo Pacific, something that the American military really appreciate how we put our shoulder to the wheel, so this isn't just the Americans only ever supporting Europe. The also help the Americans. And last week, I and several honourable members and noble members were at the NATO Parliamentary assembly in Brussels where it was made clear that at The Hague summit, they are going to present what actually is needed for European defence rather than just targets of GDP.

So I may also say to the Foreign Secretary to advise the Prime Minister that will be important that he takes the position with president of the United States to say if those demands do add up to more than 215, 3% of GDP, that our country will set itself on a path

**** Possible New Speaker ****

within the time targets to achieve those? Can I just remind members that if we are going to get everybody in, shorter questions would be very
17:09
17:09
17:10
17:10
17:11
17:12
17:12
17:12
17:13
17:14
17:15
17:15
17:15
17:16
17:16
17:17
17:17
17:18
17:19
17:19
17:20
17:21
17:21
17:21
17:22
17:23
17:23
17:24
17:24
17:25
17:26
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Breakfast Clubs Early Adopters
-

That brings us to the second statement this afternoon, breakfast club early adopters.
17:26
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
With permission, I will now make a statement to update the house on this governments work to deliver free breakfast clubs and give every child the best start in life. This is a government that acts on its principles, the delivers on its promises. That drives the change this country needs. Change that is felt in villages, towns and cities, change that will help families of the cost of living, change that left the life chances of children across our country.

Because that is where change begins. That is where the biggest difference can be made. During the early years of life and into primary school where the possibilities still stretch out. Our action is urgent. Far too many children growing up in this country are held back by their background. Denied the opportunity to go onto happy and healthy lives. The bad luck of a tough start weighing down their life chances. I won't stand by while these children are let down because I believe that background shouldn't mean destiny.

Every single child deserves the very best start in life to achieve private school is the right of all children. Our manifesto outlines the action Labour government would take, and now not eight months on from that election, we are delivering. Changing early years, changing primary school, change in our country. So I am delighted to update the house today as early adopters of our free breakfast club schemes, a promise made, a promise kept. I will always protect the livelihood of working families for children and their parents.

It is for them that we are working tirelessly to deliver change, and it is for them that we will introduce free breakfast clubs in every primary school in this country. That is what we were set with what we are doing now. Evidence shows why this matters so much. When schools introduce breakfast clubs, behaviour improves, attainment grows. It is no surprise. Given children are calm welcoming start the day filled with fun, friends and food for doctors the foundation for success that every child needs.

And it is about parents as well as children. The breakfast clubs will save families up to £450 a year to money directly back into parents pockets. That is why we are moving ahead with such energy and urgency for children and parents. We are working to cement the clubs and legislation through the children's well-being and school bill. Thousands of schools applied to take part, an indication of overwhelming demand. So from this April, free breakfast clubs will begin to reach more than 180,000 children, 70,000 pupils from schools in the most deprived parts of the country will be able to take part.

Our early adopter schools have driven from all places, North and South, East and West. Affluent areas are more disadvantaged communities. Bigger schools, smaller schools, mainstream schools and special schools for children with sand. Schools that have had a club before and schools that haven't. Schools in which parents have had to pay for breakfast clubs in the past, and places that are currently limited, It gives as a representative sample so we can see what works, when, where, why, and how, guided by the best evidence.

That is how we will maximise the impact of a full rollout, bringing the benefits to children across the entire country. We are taking a new approach to the challenges we face demand it. Breakfast clubs are one part of it but we are going further to deliver more change. We are a mission led government bringing meaningful change that is felt in our towns, cities, and communities. And I am proud to be leading our mission across government to break down barriers to opportunity. In December, the prime minister and failed our plan for change and within that plan lies a vital milestone.

A record proportion of children starting school ready for learn because that is crucial for closing the opportunity gap and gets right to the heart of what it means I believe that delivering the best start in life is about families, parents and children. Breakfast clubs are one piece of the puzzle, but our actions start early on in life with great early education and childcare too. It's I spent many years in this House fighting for, but which our childcare system has denied families.

Areas underserved with childcare places yet overwhelmed with demand. Additional hours offered nationally but unavailable to families locally. The opposition's failure to keep their promises is the reason their party suffered such an emphatic defeat at the last election. Because a promise made but not acted on is not a promise at all. I pledge without a plan to deliver is meaningless. That's why this government is committed to delivering the entitlements parents were promised before the last election. And because of the hard work of this government, in making that pledge a reality, families can access 15 hours of government funded childcare a week when their child is nine months old.

From September, that will increase to 30 hours a week, matching the offer for three and four-year-olds. This government has matched the pledge with a plan, a promise now backed by funding. In the next financial year alone, we will invest over £8 billion in early years entitlements. Up by more than £2 billion. And on top of that a new £75 million expansion grant to support the sector to provide the extra places and staff that are needed. We would use those 30 hours a week to combine childcare with great early education to give children the very best to start in life.

And want to double down in support for those children who need the most in the areas that need it the most. That's why of introduced the biggest ever uplift the early years pupil premium. Childcare delivers for parents too. Just like breakfast clubs, the entitlements give parents power and choice and freedom over their lives to go back to work if that's what they are able to do. It's work choices for parents, life chances with children. These are the steps that we are taking.

The promises we are keeping to support families. And I'm determined to see this change through, but this is not a shot in the dark. The value of giving children the best start in life, the power of spreading breakfast clubs across the country, it's as clear as day it's there for all to see if you know where to look. On the northern edge of Saint Helens sits Carr Mill Primary School. Children at Carmel can come in before the school day starts and eat breakfast with their friends in the school bistro and when they reach year five they are invited to become bistro leaders.

These young leaders help their peers get a good breakfast, but they also learn about responsibility, about caring for their classmates, about what it means to be part of a community. Parents see the change in their children. More confident, eager to go to school in the morning. The younger ones look up to the bistro leaders. It's not just the breakfast, it's the club too. It's helping children to settle, showing them that they belong in school, getting them ready to learn. Shaping not just the students of today but the citizens of tomorrow.

Setting children up for success in school and in life. Because that wider goal we are chasing to give every child a start in life, that means giving them the best start to their school day each and every day, week after week, year after year. That's how we are breaking the link between background and success. That's how we are delivering the change that parents voted for. And that's how we are driving the change that the children of this country deserve, and I commend this statement of the House.
17:34
Neil O'Brien Portrait Neil O'Brien MP (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, and I thank the secretary of state for advance out of the statement. The last government substantially expanded access to breakfast clubs in primary and secondary schools and created the holiday activities in the program. A national school breakfast . 85% of schools now have a breakfast club and one in eight schools has a taxpayer funded breakfast club. In March 2023 the previous government announced 299 million for the wraparound childcare funding program, some of which is being used for breakfast clubs and that was part of a much wider expansion of free childcare which saw spending in the free childcare entitlement more than double in real terms between 2010 and 2024.

I was struck by the comments of Mark Russell from the children's Society during the evidence sessions for the schools bill he said that given the resource constraints they would focus on using taxpayers money to roll out free breakfast to a great number of deprived secondary schools rather than a universal offer in primary. He said I would like to see secondary schoolchildren help to live with what is limited. I would step back from universality and provide for those most in need. That amount I want to draw attention to the uncertainty being created by the governance refusal to commit to fund the existing free breakfast provision in secondary schools beyond next year.

Likewise the holiday activities and food program. A number of charities have called for this to guarantee that funding beyond next year, so I join them in asking the Minister shouldn't she give us that guarantee, getting rid of them would officially be a cut in provision for secondary schools deprive children so the camera secretary of state make a guarantee to continue them? According to a report by the fiscal studies last year, based on the national school breakfast program expands, the annual cost would be around £55 per pupil participating the food any provision and double that, around £110 for a traditional before school breakfast club.

Labour's manifesto offers 350 million overall in 2028 was that this could be enough to fund all primary school pupils under a food only model whilst 60% of pupils if the party implements for a -- goes free traditional breakfast club. I wonder if the sector of state could respond to that point, does the government plan food any provision or how else you see planning to close the funding gap? Paul Bertram a head teacher inbox with primary school in Derbyshire told schools week that he had to pull out of the pilot scheme as it left him with a £9000 funding shortfall, and the charity magic breakfast have said, " If it's expected that 100% of people can access traditional breakfast club setting with the appropriate staffing, then the government would require...

Sorry, then the government is many many millions away from the budget we expect that would require." So this pilot for the sector of state say how many schools apply to be part of this filer but subsequently pulled out? In a number of journalist asking that. How many of the schools chosen the pilot already have a breakfast club and Tammy have a free breakfast club? Looking at the first 100 on the list, 17 have and 13 have free breakfast clubs. What are the numbers overall? When people need one-to-one to you, how that work? Minister say the policy will save money, but they used to use a figure, to give £450 to all primary school peoples would cost over £2 billion a year.

In contrast the pilot we're talking about today will cost 33 million and Labour's manifesto said the program spent 350 million the program spent 350,000,000 x 20 28. That would be a spend of £70 per primary school child, not 450. Second secretary of state explain the discrepancy between the planned spend and the much larger benefits the Minister is claiming? Parents are lower wages than the ones bearing the brunt of the national insurance, which will directly hit wages, something the Chancellor has acknowledged.

And the biggest losers are those earning less, less than 50,000 a year. So if your hunger is affected by the tax increase, you may not feel better off with 350 million of planned spending, so it's vital we are clear about what ministers already claiming on that basis. I mentioned 85% of schools already have a breakfast club. The new requirements offer free school breakfast in primary schools will interact with that existing provision in different ways for the many breakfast clubs currently run for an hour and a paid for basis and I know that most will continue to provide at least a period they do now.

But the breakfast club is provided for say an hour or more, then the school will have to charge the first 30 minutes of the hour but not the final 30 minutes. This is likely to give rise to considerable complexity. Ministers agreed to report on the length of time clubs are running for in schools and any reduction in this that change may inadvertently bring about? Taxpayer funded breakfast for those who need it are helpful but there are a number of questions about the minister's plans and also about their claims on the scheme.

So look their claims on the scheme. So look forward to the Secretary of State for Defence answers.
17:39
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. The shadow Minister asked a number of questions but at one point did he not welcome the massive investment and the benefits this will bring fair children across our country, including in his own constituency. Not a word of support. Hoping that breakfast club in his constituency open? Take the time to visit that school and see the massive benefits being delivered to children and families there. And before I respond to the very number of detailed questions the honourable gentleman asked, I do note once again how disappointing it was that the Conservatives voted to block the children's wellbeing and schools bill, and let us remind ourselves what that would have meant.

It would have completely stopped the rollout of free breakfast clubs that we are announcing today that will be rolled out across England, subject to the progress of the bill. It would have stopped us limiting the number of branded uniform items that schools can demand. Again, saving families hundreds of pounds of money at a time when we know that families are under real pressure. And most shamefully full, he knows full well it would have stopped dead some of the most far-reaching child protection measures in a generation, just so the party opposite can grab a cheap headline.

He talks about the national school breakfast program. And the investment there. I say to him that that program is an online platform from which schools can order food. It only covers 25%, 75% of food only. It does not cover wider costs, and schools are required to contribute the remaining 25%. So there is a significant difference in terms of what we are setting out. One in seven of the schools that we are announcing today as part of this pilot had no before school provision.

The rest remaining are a mix of painful provision or in many cases school breakfast clubs where caps are in place and the numbers are limited. These breakfast clubs that we are introducing will be free and available to every child and every parent who seeks to take them up, and that's why the savings estimate that parents will save £450 a year. When it comes to the evidence around the rollout, he is someone who says on many occasions that he is interested in evidence- based policy-making.

The evidence is very clear that the impact is greatest at primary school level. And you'd think that he would recognise it. The purpose behind the early adopters is not simply to demonstrate parents the difference that a Labour government is bringing and a real difference to children's lives, but it also allows us to test really effectively what works ahead of a full national rollout. That's why we want to work with school leaders as part of this program to ensure that all children are able to benefit from universal free breakfast clubs across our country, including children with SEND.

The party opposite have no plan for education. Except preserving the tax breaks for students in private schools whereas we have a plan to give every child the best start in life. They are going to spend the next five years defending their record, we will get on and deliver the change that this country voted for. We made a promise to the people of this country and today we are of this country and today we are
17:43
17:43
17:44
Munira Wilson Portrait Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
With three in 10 children growing up in poverty, any measure to tackle child hunger is to be welcomed to enable children to learn and flourish, so I congratulate 750 schools that have been selected as breakfast club early adopters. Learnings from these pilots will be absolutely critical as the government seeks to scale up the program. So a number of questions I've previously put a ministers still stand and I have the secretary of state will address some of these. Many school leaders have raised concerns about proposed funding rates, reportedly around 60p per child per day.

If the pilot clearly shows this is insufficient, will ministers committee reviewing and increasing this? School simply cannot afford to make savings elsewhere. For instance from teaching budgets. Will ministers review school food standards to ensure breakfast are specifically addressed as the House of Lords recent report on childhood obesity recent report on childhood obesity recent report on childhood obesity How can the universal childcare provision will interact with existing provision, most commuting parents need more than 30 minutes childcare in the morning.

The child poverty action group has highlighted the breakfast clubs will probably only secure about 40% take-up. The most honourable children, especially those in Tempe accommodation travelling long distances may not make it in time to school for breakfast. The children's Society has argued that when money is scarce, we should target resources most for those who most need it, so why won't the government prioritise hot healthy meal in the middle of the day when children are guaranteed in school where children are being fed, and is it not high time that ministers introduced automatic enrolment for all children to school meals? Finally, the secretary of states childcare announcement, can she confirm how much of that money will be going to national and rights for significant providers and push

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up costs for parents? Thank you. I am grateful for the questions that the lady raises. Turning 1st to
17:47
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
that the lady raises. Turning 1st to the question of funding, sadly, there has been some misunderstanding about the funding rates, decides to set those out for the benefit of the house, in the summertime, funding will be paid in two parts. An upfront payment, a one-off payment to cover initial setup costs, and a lump-sum payment to cover fixed staffing costs for the summer term of £1099. That is in addition to the rates which exist in mainstream and specialist provision, and rates will be higher in special schools to recognise the additional staffing requirements that exist there, and schools will receive report around how they manage requirements of the scheme and will be provided with opportunities to learn from one another.

When it comes to food standards, we always seek to keep all of those areas under review. What I would say to her is that we want to make sure that all of the food served in our schools is healthy and nutritious that the children are well fed and ready to learn, and the school statutory guidance which regulate the Food & Drink provided at school already applies to breakfast and we want to make sure that healthy meals are offered as part of breakfast clubs but we will continue to keep these areas under review.

She is right to ask these question around existing wraparound and we expect those to office to be complimentary and schools will be able to offer a paid for offer alongside the 30 minutes of childcare and food through the universal offer as well. I note the concerns that she raises around child poverty. I agree very strongly with her about the need for further action to tackle the shocking rates of child poverty we see in our country. That is why we are leading work across government as part of the child property task force.

We look forward to setting out findings from that in due course including to this house, including a range of measures in ways that we can support children out of poverty. The shocking legacy left behind by the last Conservative government. She asks about the additional investment going into the sector. The big going into the sector. The big investment that we are putting into the early years will be crucial in providing support to deliver the places and the staffing required ahead of September, and I look forward to continue to work with her forward to continue to work with her to ensure that we get this right.
17:49
17:50
17:50
17:51
17:52
17:53
17:53
17:55
17:55
17:56
17:56
17:57
17:58
17:58
17:59
17:59
18:00
18:01
18:01
18:01
18:02
18:02
18:02
18:03
18:03
18:03
18:04
18:04
18:05
18:05
18:06
18:06
18:07
18:07
18:08
18:09
18:09
18:09
18:10
18:11
18:11
18:12
18:12
18:13
18:14
18:14
18:15
18:16
18:17
18:18
18:18
18:19
18:19
18:20
18:21
18:21
18:22
18:23
18:23
18:24
18:25
18:25
18:26
18:27
18:27
18:28
18:28
None Portrait Points of Order
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

order. First, I should declare an
18:28
18:29
18:30
18:31
18:31
18:32
Llinos Medi Portrait Llinos Medi MP (Ynys Môn, Plaid Cymru)
-
-
selection paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the new clause one which stands in my name. This amendment transfers the management of the Crown Estate to the Welsh of the Crown Estate to the Welsh government within two years after the commencement of the act. The principle behind it is simple. The principle behind it is simple. The people of Wales should benefit from their own natural resources. For much of Welsh history, this has not much of Welsh history, this has not been the case with resources often exploited for the benefits of exploited for the benefits of others.

Many resources including others. Many resources including steel in Newport and four across the valleys, the rivers of wealth which have flowed from the communities have seen them damaged by poverty. Wales is blessed with natural wealth and building people but we are also a nation afflicted with deprivation. Shocking new figures show that child poverty in Wales is set to reach 34.4% by the end of the decade. This is the legacy from our past. Past is the legacy from our past.

Past where wealth was generated but not used to benefit the Welsh economy communities. In 2025, this is being repeated with the wealth of Wales. There is immense renewable energy potential on our seas and coastline and this is demonstrated in many projects but the seabed along with thousands of acres of land is owned by the Crown estate. Renewable energy projects using these resources are expanding rapidly and delivering benefits. We see this in the valley of the Crown Estate which has skyrocketed from £96 million five years ago, the £853 million in 2023 but all profits generated by the Crown Estate in Wales is transferred to the Treasury.

This green wealth, just like the coal and minerals in the past, is being sucked out of our nation. Millions of pounds generated on the Welsh Crown Estate is taken out of Wales each year, away from our communities who have borne the brunt of decades of economic decline. In 2017, Scotland gain control of the Scottish Crown Estate and insured all profit is kept in Scotland. Devolution has generated millions for the Scottish public purse with funds going directly to deprived communities such as those in the Highlands.

Why do the Scottish people could benefit of their own water, wind, and the resources and the people of Wales do not? -- sea. It is no longer credible for the government to three it is to costly, complicated or time-consuming because the issues could be addressed with proper planning and resourcing. Scotland's Crown Estate was developed in 2017. It is ludicrous to say the Welsh Crown Estate cannot be devolved in a similar way. Measures were put in place in Scotland to ensure smooth transition from devolution to the implementation of a long-term framework for managing assets.

The amendment I have tabled takes a similar pragmatic approach by implementing a transition period. It worked in Scotland and can work in Wales, too. Throughout the debate, the government has not addressed the principle of control. I would like to administer to answer directly. Thus his government believe that the people in Wales should control their own natural resources? The people of Wales definitely do and the polls show support is higher than ever. It is supported by the Welsh Liberal government and the majority of councils in Wales have passed in favour of devolution and it happened with the support of the council's Labour group.

More councils will follow suit and we may likely have all councils in Wales declaring support for devolution in the near future. There is a mandate for devolution across Welsh society. Members of Parliament would do well to remember that they are here to serve and represent the people and the people had clearly made the advice known on this matter. In closing, I returned to the principles which are outlined at the beginning of my speech. Do members of this House believe the people of Wales, after centuries of exploitation, should finally be given the right to control and benefit from their own natural resources? If you believe in this principle, I urge members to join me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the voting lobby. The question is that the new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause one be read a second time. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
18:37
Henry Tufnell Portrait Henry Tufnell MP (Mid and South Pembrokeshire, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We currently find ourselves living in uncertain times and as a nation, in uncertain times and as a nation, we face many challenges ahead. For one, they are is Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The impact on domestic energy prices has shown the extent of reliance on international oil and gas markets. The 2022, prices for gas have spiked at the cost of living continues to bite. Putin's boot is on the right foot. Another challenges the rapid deindustrialisation since the 1980s in the UK with too much economic focus on London and the south-east of England.

We have seen massive job losses and retirement and there is uncertain future at Grangemouth and we have the scars of the loss of the mining industry. Regional in the quality of stock and in temperature the rate of child poverty is increasing. It is the climate crisis with wildfires in California and torrential rain in Spain and extreme heat waves and droughts. Even in Pembrokeshire in the village, the local community council, the increase in the frequency of flooding is easy to see, not to mention the damaging effects for residents and farmers.

Prior to the July 4 general election the Chancellor set out her economic vision of secure economics - that we would make, sell, buy more in Britain and in doing so deliver energy security and deliver well- paid jobs while tackling the climate crisis. My colleagues and I sat on these and benches and stood together on that election manifesto and now it is time to deliver. It is against this backdrop that, when the challenges are so great, the need for leadership so acute, that it is vital that the Crown Estate is provided with greater scope to rise to these challenges and do its part for revitalising this great mission.

The inclusion that commissioners of the Crown Estate must review the impact of activities on sustainable development in the UK at clause 3 point a of article 4 is to be welcomed. The amendment was hardfought in the other place by the noble Lords and I commend them for it. However, it is our duty in this House to provide clarity and scope of sustainable development and the mechanism it can be enforced, maintaining transparency and accountability for an organisation that combines the level of size and influence of the Crown Estate is critical.

To allow the Crown Estate to define the term and report on it annually a straight out of the environmental social governance playbook, allowing an organisation to effectively self regulate on an issue of national importance, given issue of national importance, given the financial firepower the House is granting the Crown Estate is dereliction of our duty. My amendment, amendment five, that commissioners must have access to economic growth and energy security does not impede the progress for the Crown Estate but provides an ambiguous purpose and direction to an otherwise undefined and unexplained.

It should be welcome. I gladly give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the key issues, certainly for us in Northern Ireland, is any development that might be net zero development like wind farms will impact the fishing sector in my city was the ice has been discussed at was the ice has been discussed at the past. Does he share my concern the past. Does he share my concern for the fishing sector, that it for the fishing sector, that it cannot be impacted by something like this and we must be able to fish species around the UK.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention. Of course the for his intervention. Of course the fishing industry has a great history in my constituency and it is vitally in my constituency and it is vitally important the Crown Estate takes on board the issues within the fishing board the issues within the fishing industry but it looks at the process and I thank him for the intervention. I'm also grateful to intervention. I'm also grateful to the Minister for his assurances at the committee stage of the bill that the public framework document will the public framework document will give context to the clause of sustainable development.

However, no tax has been sheared with this House and nor will there be until after the bill received Royal assent and this reduces scrutiny and will encourage a retrospective view rather than a proactive approach. Furthermore, relying on public framework document reduces the ability of the House to ensure the clause is properly enforced. What is the mechanism for enforcement should non-compliance take place? What are the Crown Estate fail to report in good faith? What are the penalties? The back of the resounding Labour victory in July last year, we know that there is democratic consensus across the nation for an economic vision which promotes economic stability, growth, Nancy look about the Crown Estate is relying on the windowdressing of ESG to optimise the desire to maximise the 12% at the expense of the nation.

Furthermore, I will give way...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentleman makes a powerful argument and I share his concern for community such as hers. I am sure he would agree with me that you make the best use of supply that you make the best use of supply chains and make sure the money stays as local as possible, particularly as local as possible, particularly in Wales, devolution of the Crown Estate will be a key way of doing this. this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I feel that sometimes that the ideas of her party are for the birds. The idea of devolution - where is the plan? There is no plan. What are the practicalities? I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The plan is simple. Look at what is happening in Scotland at this very moment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very moment. There... I thank the Member for his intervention but the issue is practicalities. Are you going to draw an artificial line in the draw an artificial line in the Celtic Sea? What is the issue in Celtic Sea? What is the issue in respect of consenting? What does that do for the leasing runs fine certainty and investment for the private sector is critical at this private sector is critical at this stage? Furthermore, if I continue, further government agencies and departments have to take account of this economic vision.

The Department for a, Security and Net Zero, as part of the latest contract, set part of the latest contract, set criteria to have shorter supply chains to deal with areas of deprivation and also adhere to scientific, science-based targets for business he said to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero by 2050. The national wealth fund has a goal to support the Nancy Drew transition and contribute to improved economic activity. -- The net zero transition.

In partnership with the private sector and government, there are two key strategic objectives to tackle climate change and increased economic growth. Great British Energy facilities, encourages, participates in the production, storage, and supply of clean energy and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and improvements in efficiency and measures for improving the security of the supply of energy. In providing clarity and purpose, this House is not overreaching and dictating individual organisational decisions. Instead, it is setting out a broader direction of travel based on the democratic will of the people of this great country.

In my constituency, people are desperately in need of that radical intervention to address the high levels of social deprivation and bring back economic prosperity. Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this bill but for this government to deliver on its election manifesto, the Crown Estate must be given clear purpose and direction directly in line with the plan for change of the Prime
18:47
James Wild Portrait James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
Back it is a pleasure to speak, I will focus on amendment four, this Bill was delivered under the previous Conservative government to previous Conservative government to increase the ability to compete by providing a broader power to borrow providing a broader power to borrow so that it maintains, and enhances, the value of the estate and income the value of the estate and income derived. The assets managed by the Crown Estate are not the property of the government, nor are they part of the sovereign's private estate, they are held in right of the Crown and appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate is essential, which is what the amendments seek to ensure.

Over the last decade, the Crown Estate generated £4.1 billion for the nation's finances and believe the measures in this bill can enable it to generate an additional £100 million by 2030. This is a price worth seeking. Before speaking to the amendment in my name, I turned briefly to you close one, which proposes evolving wash functions of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government. I wonder if the on has support for businesses for this change, splitting the Crown Estate at this time would introduce risk in terms of assets of revenue streams, for example, in Committee, we had about the potential problems and complexity in terms of licensing of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Celtic Sea, which the honourable member referred to. I know he is interested in his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know he is interested in his argument against devolving, can I ask, simply, his government devolved ask, simply, his government devolved the powers to Scotland, why does it work for Scotland but is too complicated for Wales?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

complicated for Wales? To do it at the moment would be too complex for the licensing reasons and other reasons that have reasons and other reasons that have been set out during the committee stage, which could undermine returns stage, which could undermine returns that could be made for taxpayers. The honourable member spoke to amendment five, a version that was moved in Committee and in Committee we recognised that the amendment has been revised. There is a danger of overreach, which he spoke about.

We will certainly listen to the response from the Minister with interest. Madam Deputy Speaker, the kernel of the bill is expanding the power of the Crown Estate to borrow there is a lack of oversight on borrowing levels. Amendment four would limit borrowing to a net debt to asset value ratio of more -- no more than 25%, which could be amended by affirmative regulation. This is, I believe, a proportionate check on this power. When pushed at Committee, the government stated limit on borrowing our best set outside legislation in a memorandum of understanding.

A memorandum of understanding is all too easily altered at the stroke of a pen. The point that the Minister did not address in Committee stage and will he give an undertaking that any changes to a memorandum of understanding will be reported to Parliament. Given that Parliament is being asked to remove the restriction on borrowing, and the government agrees they should be a limit, I do not see why the cap should not be set in the decision with the ability to amend it, borrowing more than 25% carries a risk which could affect the sustainability of the estate, which is why the government has accepted there should be.

As this is a new power, affecting assets held on behalf of the nation, it should be subject to control, this would be a reasonable check that I hope members will back. I turned to new clause 5, which would require the Crown Estate to seek a Treasury approval for disposals amounting to 10% or more of the total assets and then later report before Parliament. Disposal of assets has been an important part of discussions, both here and in the other place. Clause 5 was introduced after pressure to ensure that Treasury consent is required before disposing of any of the Crown Estate right or privilege us in relation to the territorial seabed.

This is a welcome safeguard, can the Minister concede of any circumstances in which the government will approve such a sale? Given... Can he give a commitment that national security and will ministers come to the House before agreeing to any such disposal? At Committee stage, the government set out the current process ensures the government will be consulted on any potential sale. Can the Minister stay! Say how he defines that? He also argued that requiring Treasury consent will undermine the fact that he needed by the Crown Estate to operate commercially.

The amendment simply requires Treasury consent to be sought and then reported to Parliament. The Crown Estate is not going to suddenly decide tomorrow to dispose of an asset, it will go through the internal processes, business cases, a version of which can then be provided to ministers and, depending on the ministers, that could be a rapid approval process, it ensures accountability. These assets are held for the benefit of the nation and we should inform -- ensure transparency and scrutiny.

I turned to new clause 6, which would require the Chancellor laid before Parliament any partnership agreement between Crown Estate and GB Energy. This new clause is fundamental because without being able to see details of the agreement, we obviously do not know what has been agreed. Currently, there is a lack of clarity about how this new partnership will work. We are concerned it has been created for political rather than economic reasons. On this side of the House, there is scepticism about what the government says about GB Energy because, during the election, Labour claimed GB Energy would cut energy bills by £20.

Bills are going up. The chair has refused to say when people can expect money off the energy bills but we know that GB Energy will spend £8.3 billion of taxpayer money and will not generate any energy, it will not be a supplier, and it will not save families £300. We are concerned that the government has resisted greater transference here. When pushed at second reading and in Committee, the Secretary said that whilst the partnership agreement will not be partnership agreement will not be published, the Crown Estate is committed to publish information relating to the partnership as part of the existing annual report.

The provisions include reporting an annual report, could that mean there is a lack between such an agreement becoming operational and unlimited detail being published? That is not good, which is why we have tabled new clause 6, this is important there is plenty because we do not know how much the Crown Estate might invest. We don't how much the funds from this borrowing power could be used for that. When I asked the Crown Estate how they would choose between projects, I was told there would be a business plan for the partnership.

Further lack of transparency, I assume, the Minister will not be placing that before Parliament. I also ask about decision-making, the response was, the intention is that both parties will seek agreement on investment decisions whilst retaining their own independence. The Crown Estate will not be compelled to agree to anything which it does not wish to in fulfilment of the statutory duty. I note the use of the word intention and compelled. There is a lingering concern that ministers might pressure GB Energy and the Crown Estate to invest in the energy Secretary's pet project, clearly, a chairman of the GB Energy is close indeed to the Labour Party.

Nominating a Labour Party donor as a nominated chairman of the Crown Estate add to this. Publishing this agreement could help allay these concerns about government intentions. If the Minister contends that the agreement, which does not yet exist, is to commercially sensitive, when he consider making a redacted version available, equally, as I raised in Committee, will he consider providing the agreement to the Public Accounts Committee on a confidential basis as a member of that committee previously, I know of the precedents for that.

For example, in January 2018, when the Cabinet Office provided a risk register of strategic suppliers to government. A sensitive government -- document handled by that committee. I remain concerned about political pressure, the new clause would require the Chancellor to lay the partnership agreement before Parliament. The Crown Estate Bill will deliver the modernisation the Crown Estate delivers the amendments we propose will ensure oversight and has plenty as it delivers on the primary duty to maintain and enhance the value of the assets and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

return for taxpayers. Thank you. Thank you I would like to speak in favour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak in favour
18:56
Matt Rodda Portrait Matt Rodda MP (Reading Central, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak in favour of the Bill. And address some of the proposed amendments, although there is possibly not time to address all of them. I believe this is a very of them. I believe this is a very important and necessary step to help the government to take speedy action to tackle a climate emergency and also to help ensure energy security in this time. The Bill modernises the management to the Crown Estate, the Crown Estate is potentially a sleeping giant of green engine provision.

The estate is responsible for vast amounts of coastal land and sea bed which have potential to deliver wind power and other renewables. Tackling the climate emergency is a significant challenge but it is achievable. It is part of a wider transmission of government policy to do that. The Bill, as we heard in the previous stage, is urgent because whilst the Crown Estate has potential, the rules governing the management are unduly restrictive. For example, the 1961 Bill which governs the resources set out rules which are deemed to be inappropriate for holding very large cash balances.

Making it difficult for the Crown Estate to work with investors to transmit this urgently needed party the grid. So, there is a clear need for these measures and I hope that, after sufficient debate, it is now time for the Bill to make further progress. I would like to support the Frontbench by turning briefly to some of the new clauses in the amendments which have been proposed. Just discuss some of them and point out some errors them and point out some errors inherent in them.

For example, new clause 56 Treasury approval for disposal of more than 10% of the Crown Estate SX. This would clearly reduce flexibility of the Crown Estate in managing the business. New clause 6 require the Chancellor to lay a new partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy before Parliament. As we have heard earlier, partnership agreement are usually commercially sensitive and there could be a risk to further and there could be a risk to further business if this was carried out.

In the time available, I'd like to turn briefly to the amendments as well. For example, amendment three is also misconstrued, in my opinion. This requires the commissioners to assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by offshore activities. However, the UK already has a whole series of dedicated statutory bodies in each of the devolved Administration's which are tasked with this activity. Equally, amendment five, in my opinion, is unnecessary. When reviewing the impact of sustainable development,...

When reviewing the impact of its work, the amendment would ask the Crown Estate to consider the impact on both net zero targets and regional economic moment and energy security. However, it is clear that the whole Bill is intended to tackle the challenge of addressing and reaching net zero. And referencing specific targets risks complicating what is already an important Bill, which has had some considerable discussion at committee stage. In conclusion, as my honourable friend said, earlier in the progress of the bill.

This is an important bill, it is a measure to help the UK achieve climate targets and a significant step forward in helping us retain energy security. I hope it is time for the whole House to support this Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Dipti speaker, I extend my thanks to colleagues in the other place, the public Bill office staff and those in this House who served on the Bill Committee, efforts have been invaluable in efforts have been invaluable in scrutinising and refining the Bill. I support the Bill, however the amendments to date seek to ensure
19:00
19:01
19:01
Pippa Heylings Portrait Pippa Heylings MP (South Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
jobs, bring us closer to achieving climate targets, we must not lose sight of the need for a financial account ability, the duty to protect nature, and the necessity of taking communities with us and providing communities with us and providing communities with us and providing It is important to note that this It is important to note that this coincides with the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are consequences for the Ukrainian suffering in the wall and families here with a bill of sale, skyrocketing energy prices due to our reliance on regimes like that of our reliance on regimes like that of Putin.

It is a stark reminder that we must improve energy security and the UK. The last government said the UK back in meeting climate targets and seizing the opportunity to be global leaders in green energy due to indecision and broken pledges. We have the chance to be global leaders in offshore floating wind. I would like to speak to Amendment two, clause 3, which I hope to vote on, to ensure sustainable development is clearly defined within the framework agreement, explicitly including reference to climate and nature duty.

The Crown Estate plays a crucial role in managing land, seas, natural resources. It is central to offshore wind expansion, biodiversity conservation, sustainable land use. Given its influence, merely requiring the commissioners to keep under review the impact of sustainable development without a clear definition of what it entails is insufficient. It is key to ensure insufficient. It is key to ensure that there are social and economic considerations in all investments and the costs and benefits in particular to local communities and economies are taken into consideration.

Nevertheless, this amendment builds on the concession of Baroness Hayman in the other House. She said, "What matters is the impact we have had and how much we have shifted the dial in terms of what they Crown Estate achieve supporting climate and nature objectives." By clearly including this in the framework agreement, this amendment establishes the benchmark for accountability in existing legislation. In contrast to the honourable member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire this amendment also mentions nature but builds on the agreements in the other House.

It seeks to entrain the assurances given to the Lords in the House, ensuring the framework agreement does indeed include a climate and nature duty, a leading Crown Estate responsibilities with the UK's legally binding climate targets under the Climate Act 2008 and Environment Act 2021. It is also about future proofing Crown Estate decisions against economic risk of climate change and let your loss. And clause 3 is new and I strongly support this and it ensures the bill brings local communities along with it.

This is essential. That is why we have tabled the amendment, to guarantee coastal and rural communities see will benefit from Crown Estate activities. This amendment would require a proper assessment of NFS before decisions are made and mandate that -- of benefits before decisions are made and mandate that 5% of net profits are reinvested. There must be a fair return for abilities from large- scale developments around them. They Crown Estate generates billions from these projects and local people often see little benefit.

This amendment addresses the imbalance, ensuring communities are not just impacted by change but actively benefit from it. It is about fairness and economic regeneration. The government is serious about levelling up, if so, should back this amendment and ensure the success of the Crown Estate is shared by all, not just a privileged few. We have other amendments. We were busy at committee stage. Clause 2 focuses on marine spatial planning coordination, ensuring the Crown Estate duly collaborates with the marine management organisation which has the mandate to make decisions about marine spatial planning and that fishing communities are fully consulted.

This aligns with the work that has been going on for years with the Liberal Democrats calling for comprehensive land and sea frameworks, to resolve conflicts, determine priorities, improve coordination. With growing pressure from offshore wind, marine conservation, fishing, tourism, decisions must be joined up and we must balance economic and social and environmental interests. The Crown Estate must work closely with the prioritisation framework, the expertise of the M all and also Heritage. -- MOO. The requirement of seabed sales authorised is an important step that highlights the broader need for transparency and oversight in marine planning.

This amendment seeks to avoid potential conflicts of interest in prioritising decision-making arising from the Crown Estate's new borrowing and investment powers. Members may have noticed I then running through amendments, ensuring local communities benefit and have a real say in decisions that will affect them in this bill and that is why I have tabled new clause 4. The appointment of commissioners from Wales, England, Northern Ireland is positive but Wales still lacks the legal and financial control over the Crown Estate that Scotland enjoys.

We must ensure that was communities stand to benefit from the changes in the bill. I hope the government and the Opposition will join the Liberal Democrats in supporting amendment two, to ensure sustainable development within the Crown Estate Framework Agreement is clearly defined and includes a climate and nature duty. This represents opportunity because it can enhance energy opportunities, create jobs, bring us closer to net zero targets. We cannot afford to lose sight of the need for financial accountability, the duty to protect nature, and the need to ensure all committees are included in this crucial journey to net zero.

crucial journey to net zero.
19:07
Sureena Brackenridge Portrait Mrs Sureena Brackenridge MP (Wolverhampton North East, Labour)
-
-
This bill is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet. Ultimately, for my constituents, it is about jobs, opportunities, a better future for this is like Wolverhampton North-East. Right now, the Crown Estate is held back by outdated rules which limit its ability to invest. It is forced to sell assets just to raise capital. That is not sustainable and is stopping us from reaching our full potential. This bill changes the game. It gives the Crown Estate the power to borrow, invest, back long- term projects that deliver real benefits for our communities.

Wolverhampton North-East is ready to seize those opportunities. With our forthcoming Green innovation corridor, world class manufacturing industry, and a skilled workforce known for their true grab, we are perfectly placed to drive the UK's drill economy. This bill means more energy, more investment, more demand for the products we make in Wolverhampton. More investment means more jobs, apprenticeships, chances for young people to get the skills that they need to build a career in industries for the future.

Whether it is engineering, fabrication, high-tech manufacturing, this bill will help us to build more, make more, and sell more, right here in Wolverhampton, in the heart of the country. The unprecedented £60 billion partnership between Great British Energy and a estate will supercharge offshore wind development, creating huge opportunities for local businesses. This is not just about turbines on This is not just about turbines on land or at sea and we know that Wolverhampton and the surrounding area is not geographically suitable for offshore wind but it is about the supply chain, manufacturing, innovation that we can drive right here in towns and cities like Wolverhampton.

I will give way. Footy I thank my honourable friend for giving me. The CBI said this morning written's net economy is booming. The average salary in the net zero sector is higher than the national average and productivity is nearly 40% higher in this sector than the wider economy. Will my honourable friend agreed with me that this is an opportunity we cannot afford to ignore and that this will make the opportunity more achievable?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely agree. This is an example of how this government will respond to the changing world that respond to the changing world that we live in. This bill is about backing British industry, investing in local committees, and making sure places like Wolverhampton north-east lead the way in the future success

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the UK. I will. Does my honourable friend agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does my honourable friend agree that removing these outdated restrictions on the Crown Estate restrictions on the Crown Estate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will allow greater return for the public purse and benefit all constituencies across the country including hers and my constituency, Harlow. Yes. I must agree that, based on the make up of constituencies, the make up of constituencies, become from a different angle from other members who have raised very important points earlier in the debate in this House. For us, it is about jobs, apprenticeships, the about jobs, apprenticeships, the local economy. I'd back this bill and I hope the House will join me,
19:11
Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone MP (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
too.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Amendment three was tabled by my Amendment three was tabled by my honourable friend. My north Norfolk honourable friend. My north Norfolk constituency plays host to key energy infrastructure, vital to security and renewable transition. security and renewable transition. We have got the exciting transformation of hydrogen transformation of hydrogen production and carbon capture and production and carbon capture and the transition from gas. It is the significance this place in the energy ecosystem. It is energy ecosystem.

It is understandable that £20 million for a scheme was welcome a few years ago because it gave protection to the energy terminal and the surrounding area. One local business owner spoke of how such a scheme means he no longer feels trepidation when he checked the weather forecast. The coast in the villages, where the windfarms make their lunch, 40 homes have already been lost to the sea. This is a village battling climate change and they are hosting renewable energy infrastructure but have not been compensated.

The double standard is deeply unfair. It is in our interest to protect renewable energy infrastructure but also to protect committees who live alongside it. People have the threat of coastal erosion and frequently feel left behind are forgotten about. It feels like this is happening all the time. I'm sure if there was an erosion risk of this scale in central London of the South-East, the government would move heaven and earth to take action but in North Norfolk, people are despondent about the situation they are facing.

We have to right this wrong. We believe that efforts must be made to secure where they make landfall. Renewables are the future. We must make sure communities please for key infrastructure have a future, too. I'm aware the Minister did not support this amendment at committee stage. I'm not expecting the recess has led to conversion but I hope he will find reassurance today and how the government will look at this double standard for energy products going forward. What steps are being taken to provide protection for villages like his.

I'm sure would be happy to welcome him to the village to see the situation for himself. The community is being affected by climate change and seeing the effects of understanding what we will lose would convince anyone. I would be delighted if the government the amendment today. If they cannot do so, I hope that the Minister's team can provide premises and progress for all the communities that live with the accidental threat we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

facing. -- Existential. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was on the Bill Committee and followed this bill throughout
19:15
Jayne Kirkham Portrait Jayne Kirkham MP (Truro and Falmouth, Labour )
-
-
followed this bill throughout because I represent a constituency that has the potential to benefit from offshore wind. If the roulette in the Celtic Sea is done quickly and well than our young people will benefit from well-paid jobs in a strong local supply chain and I was going to mention the report published today by the CBI showing how the economy is growing three how the economy is growing three times faster and has a higher average wage and we could do with some of that in my constituency.

I welcome this bill and the changes would make it possible for them in partnership with GB Energy to invest in ports like Falmouth without losing assets and affecting the local supply chain. As I said in an go to bed, college in my constituency were struggling to get funding for a level two course in a floating engineering course for people age 40-16, the Crown Estate stepped in with your's funding for a pilot scheme and with these changes, more positive changes can be made and would be welcome in places like Falmouth, where qualities are struggling to get going with these We do need a special strategy for the ocean that links energy and fishing and nature restoration, that has to be done with consultation with all of the industries and environmentalists, but this Bill is not the place for that.

New clause 3, communities will benefit so much from the economic boost this Bill will enable, training and education, good jobs, supply chains and investment in our ports. An amendment to and five, this is something we did discuss in the Bill Committee and I would ask that the Minister can give assurances that the public framework that he mentioned will include regard to environmental and economic growth and social value benefit. And confirm that this reform will enable them to invest in a wider range and benefits.

To those regional economies. So, in summing up... The partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy has real potential to be a huge force for good. Spearheading the development of offshore and in a speedy but sustainable way, investing in energy production initially and laying the groundwork for our energy security of the future, building our local committees, instructor and supply chains for some of those most left behind and deprived parts of the UK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Dipti speaker, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Dipti speaker, I write in support of new clause 4 and to address frustration with the
19:18
David Chadwick Portrait David Chadwick MP (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
to address frustration with the refusal thus far to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales. It is the firm view of the Liberal Democrats that this decision is wrong for Wales and its economy, under the current system, the profits generated from Wales's natural resources flow directly to the UK Treasury, offering no benefit to the communities where the wealth is created. The Crown Estate in Wales is said to generate millions per is said to generate millions per year annually from energy leases in Welsh Water.

If this money was kept in Wales, it could contribute to the budget. At a time when public budget. At a time when public services in Wales are crumbling, the vital sources of income that could address the crisis in our public services, economy and instructor. That refusal to devolve powers further, further entrenches the outrageous notion by Labour and the Conservatives that Wales is a lesser nation than Scotland. Scotland had control of the Crown Estate since 2070, Wales, despite having vast Crown Estate assets, has been left.

With the Scottish Crown Estate generating over 103 million for public finances since 2017, the excuses that we have heard from the UK government for failing to put Wales on an equal footing simply do not hold up. Patronising comments from ministers, devolving the Crown Estate would not be in Wales best interests or is that an insult to the people of Wales? This government claims to support growth but seems determined to keep Wales from reaching the full potential, instead of empowering Welsh communities to harness the benefits of their own resources, profits continue to flow to London.

This is not the vision of growth that will benefit local communities what level up left behind communities. It is a continuation of the Conservatives failed investment in the south-east of England over everything else. It would be a great mistake if those in power in Westminster were to deny Wales the opportunity to build a better future for our communities and I hope the government benches will change their mind.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, I wish to address primarily new clause 7 and discuss primarily new clause 7 and discuss opposition to it, tabled by the opposition to it, tabled by the honourable member for Belfast South.
19:21
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-
honourable member for Belfast South. It reflects very much in terms of seeking devolution of the Crown Estate, but in this case, to Northern Ireland Executive in respect of the assets there. I oppose it for a number of reasons, it is a reserved matter, I strongly believe that it should stay and I say that because, ideological, I think that is right and because practically, it is right. It is the belief that the current Stormont executive could ever handle the controversies that come with the Crown Estate.

This is an executive instalment which has been in existence for almost 13 months, and I still can't agree a program for government. If we were to hand them something as controversial as all of the Crown Estate, we all know what the outcome would be. Why is it controversial? For one very specific and historic reason. Lough Foyle is controlled and is in the ownership of the Crown Estate. It is a piece of water which separate Co Londonderry, Northern Ireland, from County Donegal, in the Republic of Ireland.

But the entirety of Lough Foyle, since last we had a King Charles, rests under British control. In 1662, Charles II gifted Lough Foyle and the surrounding waters, the seabed, the waters within it, to the Irish society, which was a Colombo at -- concomitant of various sizes from the city of London which did a great deal to develop the city of London Derry and build it. As part of that, I presume, they were gifted control. I presume, they were gifted control.

The Irish can siting conveyed Lough Foyle to the Crown Estate. We have a situation where rate divided executive -- a divided executive in Northern Ireland would be hopelessly incapable of resolving the issues which flow from the somewhat controversial aspect of the entirety of Lough Foyle, right up to the coastline of County Donegal, being properly controlled of the Crown Estate. Therefore, for the good management of that, for the uncontroversial continuance of being able to be developed, I think it would be disastrous, disastrous, to devolve the Crown Estate to the Northern Ireland Executive.

That might be one which attitude my opposition from an ideological point of view, believing that the Crown Estate is a national asset, which should be a reserved category but I do think that new clause 7 would be the utmost folly in respect of the proposition.
19:25
Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Jim Shannon. debate, I follow what my honourable friend has said, in relation to what he is seeking as well, I want to make a specific request, and I know I intervened on the honourable gentleman who spoke for government. My issues will be in relation to the fishing sector, the impact upon the fishing sector, trade around the whole of the UK, and particularly in Southdown. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue which affects Crown Estate in the entirety.

We are all aware it has been outlined at the Crown Estate focuses on activities that align with wider national needs, including security and sustainable economic growth, it manages the seabed, and much of the coastline, playing a fundamental role in the sustainable of this national asset and the world leading offshore Insecta. -- Wind sector. I am concerned about the impact this will have on the fishing sector. I want to state my concerns support for the fishing fleet.

Fishing as an important economic sector, providing jobs, investment, that has been going for hundreds of years, and I want to see that maintained and I hope the Minister, when he sums up, can give me reassurance from the fishing sector's point of view, what could happen from that point of view, it will not be to the judgement of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fishing sector. -- Detriment of the fishing sector. One problem in this territory is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One problem in this territory is that we do not have the definition of what is meant to be sustainable, it would appear to me, upon reading it would appear to me, upon reading this Bill, the whole focus of what sustainable is going to be in the sustainable is going to be in the green energy site, rather than the sustainability which could sustain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the fishing industry. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for that intervention, that is the thrust of where I am coming from. I am not against the idea of green energy, I want to ensure that the sustainable sector of the fishing sector and industry over the years that has been sustainable, it still gives jobs, and it can continue to do so. That would be my concern. Fishermen in my area are well aware of the limitations on the coastline and concerns have been expressed regarding the partnership announced by government of the Crown Estate and Great British Energy, the very issue that my honourable friend referred to, to bring forward new wind developments.

I welcome Nuble energy and the attempt to harness -- renewable energy but only ever insomuch as they do not stop the fishing sector from operating and being successful, this must always be the key consideration. If we lose one of our primary sectors, fishing, and we gain the green energy, it has got to be something the government has got to consider sensibly. The regeneration Department, my local council, have indicated that the addition of red tape that comes from altering existing leases.

We are saying this, they are thankful for the Open Doors and access ability when needed. However, there is a willingness to consider the national needs requesting the need for alterations and this is appreciated. When we look at the national needs, we'd make sure they do not take away the local needs of those in Strangford and North Down and those who own land and farms around the Irish Sea. During 23/24, the Crown Estate generated a net profit of 1.1 billion. Over the past decade, it has referred -- returned 4.1 billion profit to Treasury.

It is being run at ultimate capacity, bringing the money that can come, but only with a social conference -- conscience ensuring that we are using the estate to do good for all. Everyone, including the fishing sector in my constituency. I was inspired, as we all were, by the Prince of Wales scheme for her business, the fact that he is using his personal estate to help build 24 homes to tackle homelessness. The construction of the first homes are due to be completed in the autumn of 2025, this is good work being carried out and it should not spare us all to ensure the Crown Estate is operated by the Prime Minister whilst similarly attempting to impact where it can for the better good.

My understanding is that this Bill would broaden the scope of the core purpose across net zero. Economic growth, the fishing sector and others, and generating coins for the past but enable the client estate to invest in -- Crown Estate to invest in the project. If this is the case, I supported. As long as the obligations to existing businesses and partnerships such as the fishing sector and others, I welcome the commission appointed to have an eye towards Northern Ireland.

Can the Minister reassure me, as a member for Stratford, and others, that the elected representatives can have direct contact and discussion with the appointed commissioner and will the Commissioner be available in relation to any fishing sector actors -- issues that come to my I welcome the progression of the Crown Estate and the Cabeza benefit that would come with improvement. A lot of this can come off the back of existing relationships. -- Recognised the benefit. You have set out to help us and reassure us and there has not been too much reassurance lately.

I seek assurance in relation to the fishing sector in Strangford and Southdown because that register is not even mentioned here. I want to work and support the fishing industry. We are all in the book together. They all need our help. If you can do that, you might be going the right way to reassure the fishing sector, who are not sure what is happening.
19:32
James Murray Portrait James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to begin by thanking all honourable members who have contributed and provided further detail about amendments and concerns. I start by making clear that the government has carefully considered all amendments throughout the passage of this bill. Where we have agreed with the intent behind amendments we have worked hard to find the appropriate way forward that this is evidenced by the approaches taken to ensure there are appropriate protections for the seabed.

As a result of changes made to the bill, the credit it will be required to seek Treasury approval for permanent disposal of the seabed and I thank the Opposition for the constructive debate on that matter. constructive debate on that matter. Alongside this, changes made in the other police have also helped strengthen the bill including changes to require the appointment of commissioners and we have received advice on Wales, in, Northern Ireland, and it is a requirement to amend state law. I requirement to amend state law.

I thank the honourable member for tabling there is a responsibility to the Welsh government. It would allow the Treasury, by regulations, to make provisions about transfer relating where necessary and require provision that the employment of any person is not affected by the transfer of responsibility. I thank the honourable member for South imager for clause 4 which a colleague is also spoken to. This would require the Treasury to set out plans of transferring the powers of Crown estate Commissioners to Welsh ministers.

As I set out at the committee stage, the government believes there is greater benefit to the UK and retaining the current form. The new clause would require the creation of a new entity to take on the management of the Crown Estate in Wales which, by definition, would not have had from the capital and system stability. It There There is There is the There is the possibility There is the possibility of devolving to develop. He is listed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the ombudsman for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the ombudsman for the intervention, the matter we are considering as a result of new considering as a result of new clause is identified in the proposal put forward by opposition parties to put forward by opposition parties to have devolution with respect to Wales, we are not analysing what happened in Scotland, we are looking happened in Scotland, we are looking at the new clauses. The impact of at the new clauses. The impact of the changes would delay the pathway

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to net zero. The Minister said this would be beneficial to the people of Wales as beneficial to the people of Wales as it stands, could he quantify

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nappies. -- That please. I am going to address the direct

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am going to address the direct benefit to the people of Wales. I will come to that in a few moments. It is important to emphasise, the Crown Estate Marine investments are Crown Estate Marine investments are made of a portfolio wide basis across England and, two devolved to Wales would disrupt existing investment. They are structured to accommodating Welsh specific entity. Jeopardising the pipeline of wind develop meant in the Celtic Sea plan in the 2030s.

Round five is spread across, it was launched last year and is expected contrary 4.5 gigawatts of energy capacity and power of 4 million homes. The extensive jobs and supply chain benefits will deliver significant benefits for Wales and the wider United Kingdom. An advisory firm has estimated manufacturing, transporting and assembling the windfarms could create around 5,300 jobs and create a 1.4 billion pound boost to the UK economy. Devolution would allow grid connectivity reform, the Crown Estate feeds into the national system.

For Wales, the Crown Estate is working with the Energy System Operator to ensure the current pipeline, the biggest of which can benefit from the connectivity,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If evolution presents enormous barriers, why are they proposing to put the headquarters in Scotland?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

put the headquarters in Scotland? GB Energy is for the benefit of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

GB Energy is for the benefit of the whole of the UK and it is right to locate the headquarters in Aberdeen, given the strong Aberdeen, given the strong connection, using the assets of the North Sea to generate power for the North Sea to generate power for the United Kingdom. That is an example that underlies my point, having different parts of the UK working different parts of the UK working together to achieve more than we can separately. I thank the ombudsman for endorsing my point there, it would not make commercial sense to introduce a new entity with control of assets only in Wales, into a complex operating environment where partnerships have already been formed.

The Crown Estate assets in England are a smaller magnitude, which would not be commercially viable if the costs were unsupported. The Crown Estate in the present form can take longer form approach and spread the cost across the portfolio. Eight self-contained single entity in Wales would not have the same ability or benefit from the expertise developed over decades of delivering offshore when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on a scale The Minister has told House that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister has told House that Wales is too small and too poor to benefit from the devolution. That is benefit from the devolution. That is an extraordinary argument and I'm sure that Welsh Government will sure that Welsh Government will share my amazement. I wonder if he has discussed that with his partners in Welsh Labour?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in Welsh Labour? I think the honourable member has misunderstood the point, I would reply by saying, if we were to have a devolved entity, it would be starting from scratch, midway through, at a time when the Crown Estate is undertaking critical investment in the past two net zero. For example, the commercial viability of all three wind project development areas would straddle the English and Welsh boundaries, benefiting from the Crown Estate investment of time, expertise and capital to enable entry into the market.

It would be particularly vulnerable to market disruption. It is important to underline that income generated by the Crown Estate benefits the people of Wales and, as I have noted, it places all asset into the Consolidated Fund next year. Much of the revenue already is consolidated in Wales, and the Welsh Government block power funding.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I mentioned in the Bill Committee, it is not a fair formula Committee, it is not a fair formula for Wales, and in the Scottish model, we know that £10 million was model, we know that £10 million was taken out of the block grant but they still received 103 billion to put back into the community, I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

put back into the community, I think that is a fair exchange. The honourable member opposite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable member opposite has highlighted that the changes made in Scotland led to a reduction in the block grant going to in the block grant going to Scotland, and the focus of the new clauses that we are debating today is around the proposal for devolving Crown Estate capabilities to Wales and, as I am setting out, this would not make commercial sense in terms of advancing energy capacity and would not make sense in terms of increasing net profits made by the Crown Estate, which is reinvested into Public Services right across the country and other parts of the UK.

To bring the debate on these clauses to a close, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the government supported the inclusion of clause 6 into the bill in the other place which requires the important commission is responsible for giving advice, this will ensure the board of commissioners continue to benefit the work in the best

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interest of Wales. In relation to the fishing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In relation to the fishing sector, the ambitious target for net zero would not detrimentally affect zero would not detrimentally affect the fishing sector, some years ago, there was a wind farm, the fishermen there was a wind farm, the fishermen were concerned it was going to be a prime fishing sector where scallops were penned. If this continues, the were penned. If this continues, the fishing sector would lose out. I want reassurance from the Minister about the Commissioner that is set up for Northern Ireland.

We will have an opportunity to contact the commission. I want assurance, if you don't mind, in relation to the fishing sector for Northern Ireland, thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the on-board Antman, I can reassure him, the Crown Estate is committed to the sustainable management of the seabed. The Crown Estate proposals go through the standard planning appraisal briefings which includes -- planning process. There is an objective to take a leading role in studio the natural environment and key to natural environment and key to delivering on this is managing the seabed in a way that reduces pressure on and accelerate recovery of the marine environment.

The Bill will not impact directly how much commercial fishing takes. To draw to a close on the new clauses that I was debating considering amendments the opposition have put forward, I was pointing out the inclusion of clause 6, provided they are responsible for giving advice but England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The recurrence will be alongside existing duties, this change will existing duties, this change will I hope I have set out clearly why the government believes the existing structure is the best approach and I structure is the best approach and I .

The estate must ensure . The estate must ensure that . The estate must ensure that this does not impact any community going The collaboration is governed by the Marine and coastal access act 2009. This act establishes a framework for planning in the UK and requires the Crown Estate to have regard to policy documents in its decision- making. The work of the estate is governed by the Hampton regulations which require them to commit assessments. Furthermore, the Crown Estate jointly agreed statement of intent in 2020, which is reviewed periodically to provide a -- focus on opportunities for alignment.

This statement, meant the memorandum of understanding which sets out a framework to encourage cooperation between parties in relation to the sustainable element of the seabed and Right to Manage by the Crown Estate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand we won't be taking this amendment to the vote but I this amendment to the vote but I want to seek reassurances that, the new investment and borrowing powers, new investment and borrowing powers, this changes the context for the memorandum of understanding and memorandum of understanding and perhaps we could seek the possibility of a new memorandum of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

understanding. I thank her for her intervention,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for her intervention, as I said, the Crown Estate and the Marine Management Organisation is reviewed periodically to provide focus on opportunities. Hopefully that might approve -- provide the opportunity to be reviewed in due course. Madam Deputy Speaker, in addition to the relationship with the Marine Management Organisation, there are regulatory requirements on developers who lease areas of the seabed from the Crown Estate to manage themselves. That includes marine licensing, developers must obtain licences for activities that could impact on the marine environment.

The process includes consultation with statutory bodies. As part of a marine licence application, developers must conduct impact assessments for project that could alter the environment, including consultation with marine management organisations and other authorities. Developers are, encouraged to engage with others throughout the process to address concerns and ensure compliance with plans. I welcome the honourable member for indicating that she feels unable to withdraw her amendment. I will turn to clause 3, which has been tabled.

This amendment would require commissioners to assess plans for benefits in respect of offshore activities before making investment decisions. It will require commissioners to transfer at least five% of the net profit to local communities impacted. As I set out at Committee stage, local communities benefit from onshore and offshore the moments in the form of economic benefits that such developments bring, for example, through job creation. Local communities will benefit in the long time as the country transitions away from fossil fuel markets towards domestic reduced power which will enhance the energy Independence and Security.

As I highlighted, the Crown Estate has designed the leasing process so that round five in the Celtic Sea so that developers must make commitments to environment a value. It is are required to think about how they can encourage more resilient and prosperous communities, creating lasting benefits to extend beyond the lifetime of leases. These commitments will be monitored, reported throughout their lifetime. As previously laid out, they are committed to work with partners to enable skills opportunities, the Crown Estate has invested £50 million to supply chain accelerators to develop a green skills pipeline.

They are supporting develop meant in the skills that we need for the future. Funded by the Crown Estate, a post-16 renewables course with premature college. They are partnering with an employment charity created pensions. The Crown Estate already works closely with communities, charities, and the government to ensure that they stay sensitive. Whilst I respect the concerns, the government considers it important that the Crown Estate retains flexibility in the ways that the initiatives are funded. This enables it to contribute to skills training in an important way whilst not competing with statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate.

On that basis, I hope unable can withdraw the amendment. I will close to you because five, which seeks to limit the ability of the state to dispose of assets. It would require the Chancellor to lay a report before Parliament within 28 days of being notified of disposals. As the government has set out, in the recent public Bill Committee and in the other place, it is the view that imposing a limit on disposals would undermine the fact that he needed to enable the Crown Estate to It is important to emphasise the bill is not intended to alter the Trinity.

Requiring to prove ordinary business transactions within a for the independence of the Crown Estate and this is inconsistent with the government's vision of the Crown Estate. The honourable member has concerned the Crown Estate could choose to sell off significant assets and he raised this point in committee. I would like to reassure the House there are already strong safeguards in place to ensure the Crown Estate maintains and enhances the estate. The first measure is a relative safeguard to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the returns from it with due regard to the good management and that is set out in the 1961 act and will remain unchanged by the bill.

The second is a requirement set out in the framework document which covers the relationship between the Treasury and the Crown Estate. The framework document is clear that the Crown Estate should inform the Treasury of any matters that are replicas of our novel. This should include any sales of nationally significant assets which was raised by the Shadow Minister. I recognise he may not agree but I hope you understand the current position and is able to withdraw his amendment. The Shadow Minister tabled clause 6 which would require the Chancellor to not enter into any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy.

Disagreements are highly commercially sensitive and it is right that anything not made public comes before Parliament so as not to affect the interests of the Crown Estate are GB Energy. Turning to the amendments, one and four, which I will consider together to try to make some progress as speedily as I can. These amendments would impose a legislative limit on the amount of borrowing undertaken the amount of borrowing undertaken by the Crown Estate and amendments one and four would require regulation such as a borrowing limit of no more than 25% of the net asset valuation.

I thank honourable members for their contributions on this matter. The government this matter. The government recognises that the matter of borrowing is an important consideration for this bill and as such the government made available the business case for the Crown Estate as well as the memorandum of I have listened to the points made by the member opposite that outside regulation can be changed. I would like to assure the House that it has There is due regard for the requirements we are managing and it must be maintained and taken together, these elements provide clear guardrails the ability of the Crown Estate.

I will turn to amendment two which is tabled by the honourable member for South Cambridgeshire which is require any framework document to define sustainable develop in. That definition would be required to reference any climate or nature duty for any target set out in part one or under sections 1-3 of the Environment Act 2021. The understands the intention but the key part of the act was statutory provisions which have built up over 150 years previously but hampering the ability of the estate.

By focusing the duties of enhancing the state value and the return generated, the commissions have a clear objective for which they can be held to account. It is an important principle that giving an organisation to many objectives will make it less effective than if you have clear and focused priorities and as I set it in committee, the Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent of government, operating for profit and that mandate is unchanged by the bill. I'm getting vibes that I should...

I may not respond as fully as I would have hoped so. I will address one final amendment because it matters to several members behind me who have spoken to it. This is a moment five and it would require the commissioners keeping the impact of activities under review with respect to clause 3 with regard to the net zero target and resilience of energy security. I thank my honourable friend for the discussions that we had on the topic and before the committee in the last week.

A version of this amendment was debated in committee stage of the bill and I would particularly to thank my honourable friend on the committee for engaging with me on this matter and for city council clearly what is important to them in the constituencies that they represent. I understand the sentiment of the moment but is helpful to set up the context behind clause 3, to which the amendment relates. That clause was supported by the government in the other place as it sought to clarify and enhance the accountability of the Crown Estate to deliver on environmental, social, economic outcomes.

Clause 3 will require commissioners to keep under review the impact of activities of the achievement of sustainable development in the UK. I must emphasise that the public framework document which governs the relationship between the Crown Estate and Treasury will be updated in light of this and will include a definition of sustainable development, as I set out several times. The Crown Estate will times. The Crown Estate will continue to have information on their activities in the annual report for Parliament. The government's intention throughout the passage of the bill has been to ensure the bill can stand the test of time without the need for regular updates and that is why impact the term 'sustainable develop in' was adopted.

I hope I've been able to address some of the issues raised by honourable members in the debate today but I regret I was not able to address all the details in the detail I had hoped. As I made clear earlier in minor marks, the government has carefully considered all amendments throughout the passage of the bill and I hope honourable members will understand the approach we are taking. I think my honourable friend from Reading Central, Wolverhampton Southeast, Harlow Rushcliffe for the amendments and I hope this bill will provide benefits to people in the constituencies across the country people understand the approach we are taking and support are targeted and measured changes to ensure the Crown Estate is able to operate independently and in the national independently and in the national
19:59
20:01
20:15
20:28
20:40
None Portrait Division: Crown Estate Bill (Lords) Report, Page 2, Amdt. 2
-

of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". Division, clear The The question The question is... The question is... The The question is... The question The question is... The question is as on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". Tell us that the Ayes Max Susan Murray and Charlie Maynard, tell us of the Noes Kate Maynard, tell us of the Noes Kate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Lock the Lock the doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Order order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order order. The ayes to the right, 61. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left, 316. The ayes to the right were 61.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 61. The noes to the left were 316, said The noes have it, The noes have it. The noes have it, The noes have it. King's consent. Minister to move, third reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I beg to move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I beg to move that the bill now be read a third time. The Crown Estate is an independent commercial business with a varied commercial business with a varied portfolio of assets across London, rural and urban holdings. It operates profit and compete in the marketplace for investment marketplace for investment opportunities, are however is governed by legislation which has not changed since 1961. That's why not changed since 1961. That's why this bill has been focus on modernising the Crown Estate by removing legislations limitations that have changed would hamper its ability.

The bill aims to ensure this has a future. Particularly in respect of its investment and borrowing powers, the government is building the Crown Estate strong track record of success, in creating long-term prosperity for the nation. These changes will ensure that the Crown Estate has flexibility to support sustainable projects and preserve our heritage for generations to come. And crucially, this will unlock more long-term investment, helping to drive growth investment, helping to drive growth across the UK. I would like to take this opportunity to note that this bill has been strengthened and improved in its passage through both houses.

It's been amended to require the Crown Estate Board to include commissioners with special responsible diva giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will ensure that the Crown Estate continues to work in the best interest of the UK. There have also been changes to strengthen its transparency and accountability, for example through the requirement for example through the requirement for the Crown Estate to report on its activities and the partnership of the Great British Energy and the requirement to give its activities under review with regards to sustainable development.

On this note, I'd like to express my thanks to all honourable members and all Noble Lords of the other place for their thorough consideration and scrutiny of the bill and for the many and varied amendments which have been tabled and debated. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has played a role in getting the bill to the stage. My colleagues and the Treasury, members from across the House you take the time to provide scrutiny, all the Parliamentary staff who worked on this bill and the officials in my department who have put in a significant amount of time and effort.

Grateful for the broad support across all benches in this bill for that this will ensure the Crown Estate can operate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

successfully for many decades to come and I commend this bill to the House. The question is the Bill be now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the Bill be now read a third time. I called the shadow Minister. Thank you for and arise very briefly to thank honourable members
20:55
James Wild Portrait James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
briefly to thank honourable members across the House and my Noble Friends who worked hard to scrutinise what is an important has helped scrutinise this bill. Across the House there is support the aims of the bill which will deliver the modernisation that the Crown Estate needs and should generate greater returns to the Exchequer. We are disappointed the government resisted our proposals for greater transparency and appropriate Parliamentary oversight, including on borrowing. Similarly the Crown Estate is about to embark on a novel partnership with GB Energy and the lack of clarity around that is a concern, notwithstanding the limited transparency there will be in the annual report, and it raises concerns about political pressure that may be brought to bear on the partnership to use that to fund the energy secretary's costly plans, but notwithstanding that, to conclude we do support the legislation and we are watching carefully to ensure the primary purpose of the Crown Estate to maintain and enhance its assets for the benefit of the nation and the income derived from it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protected. The question is that the Bill be now read the third time. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, The ayes have it. I will now move on to the SIs. Motion two on move on to the SIs. Motion two on Social Security, minister to me. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, The ayes have it.

Question number three. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now move on to motion four, business of the House, minister to me. The question is on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have the contrary, "No." The ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to motion of the five, relating to the environmental audit committee, Jessica Morden.

The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it. contrary, "No." The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
20:57
None Portrait Motion on behalf of the Committee of Selection: Select Committee nomination: Environmental Audit Committee
-

I beg to move that this House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. I will give the Frontbench a few

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give the Frontbench a few If they could conduct their personal
20:58
20:58
Simon Hoare Portrait Simon Hoare MP (North Dorset, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourn. I call Simon Hall. Thank you very much indeed. And we have the enjoyable prospect of an hour and 1/2's adjournment debate in which I know will feel the Minister with a smile. He just can't contain himself. I don't intend to take an hour and 1/2, because members of the House have indicated. I'm very pleased to have secured this debate. And it's very clear that our banking world is going through a period of transition. Technology, a move some would say to higher speed towards a seam to be cashless society.

And of course, the cost of running branches intensive insurance, business rates, staff costs, and the like. It does not bode well that the closure of a High Street bank hits an area hard, whether it's urban or rural. The rural constituency in the first of my thesis if you will, -- the thrust of my thesis is that the impact on our rural communities is felt disproportionately harder than in an urban setting. Why do I say that? I don't believe that these cities are unique in how it operates itself.

Sorry. Thank you. Heckling from the seats. But our market towns operate on very much... The market grows and the villagers are magnetised towards it. And that is good for business. Large and small across the sectors as we all recognise. It's good for community cohesion, bringing people in together, particularly where we all concerned rightly about rural isolation. I also made the point that our rural areas by accident I suppose rather than by design have a disproportionately high number of retired or elderly people.

Somebody who is neither retired nor elderly, but I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very kind first can I commend the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very kind first can I commend the honourable gentleman North Dorset for bringing this forward. He is right to highlight this for elderly right to highlight this for elderly people. Social isolation is the issue for many people, not just those who are elderly or vulnerable. And this has worsened by the fact And this has worsened by the fact that... I think the honourable gentleman told me they have lost 14 gentleman told me they have lost 14 banks, I've lost 11 in my constituency.

Which means a bank becomes an all day job, taking buses becomes an all day job, taking buses and connections to get there. Does the honourable gentleman agree with me that there is a moral obligation on banks to ensure that they look after their customers, indeed if the banks don't do it under a moral obligation, does he feel this time that the Minister in his place made

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation makes it a legal I agree with the honourable gentleman and I will certainly come onto what I'm asking the government to give some consideration to. But he is right to talk about social isolation and bank branch closures isolation and bank branch closures in my constituency since 2015 we in my constituency since 2015 we have lost 14 banks in 440 square miles we have five banks remaining, miles we have five banks remaining, we had a fall of 74% across the whole of the county of Dorset that's including major conurbations of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole.

We had a decrease of 68% overall, 101 branches closed with only 48 remaining in the whole of the county, that's eight parliamentary constituencies just served by 48 banks. A point I thought was well- made by my constituent Deborah Jones, this was in response to the recent announcement by Lloyds that they are closing their branch in Langford Forum. A large market town in my constituency, certainly with a large village hinterland, now with the exception of nationwide has no what we would describe as a proper traditional High Street, I will give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

He mentioned nationwide there, I understanding is that there are now 142 towns in the UK that do not have 142 towns in the UK that do not have a bank in them but in many cases are only left with the Building Society, only left with the Building Society, it does feel that the banks have exited what the building societies have stayed behind. I appreciate the honourable member's thoughts on what honourable member's thoughts on what this is about the community and the lack of cohesion that we are seeing is a result of losing these, we is a result of losing these, we should also mention we also losing Post Offices at the same time.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Post Offices at the same time. She is right and she does allow me to pause to pay tribute to the post office, and of course to members of the Association of Convenience Stores who have stepped in to provide some level of service for those areas where the banks have gone. One of my key asks of the banks and therefore through these remarks through the Minister as well is that yet again there seems to be a rubric which is used to defend or argue in favour of enclosure like a closure.

Which is blind when it comes to establishing whether it's in an urban or rural setting. I think it's that differential that certainly needs to be taken, of course I give way but I just want to make this point because I think it's well made by my constituent. She emailed me following this she is a customer of Lloyds in Langford. She does do IT, digital online banking, but during the storm. The digital services were down she needed to do some important banking and had no way of doing it.

She asks how does her 92-year-old mother-in-law who no longer drives and does not use the internet or have a mobile phone, how is she supposed to contact her bank? At the moment she is taken into Langford every Wednesday for shopping and pops into the bank what does she do? She isn't very independent lady not ready to hand over all her affairs to a family member just because they have internet access. A number of organisations draw attention to this, Age UK for example reported in 2023, before I get to Age UK let me give way full stop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm so grateful for giving way, I congratulate him on securing this important debate. In my constituency important debate. In my constituency and leak are about to lose our last two banks, will be left with a Building Society in cashpoint and Building Society in cashpoint and the post office will top yet link have done a review suggesting we do not need a banking hub because we have, there are sufficient branches have, there are sufficient branches nine or 10 miles wide was it does nine or 10 miles wide was it does not take account of the reality and the fact that we are a market town as he describes, a market town hub and spoke type model, it simply isn't possible for those other people -- elderly people to get to those branches that do not have bus routes and are not easily accessible.

Would he agree with me that actually reality and topography is incredibly important and that should be considered when a banking hub is decided upon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She is absolutely right and I remember hearing when a bank on an remember hearing when a bank on an earlier occasion close to my constituency telling me whether their customers needed to talk to an their customers needed to talk to an actual person they could of course use their branch in Poole. When I explained they were absolutely right that that would take two days out of that that would take two days out of the week, they would have to get us to Paul, book a hotel, stay over and to Paul, book a hotel, stay over and then get the return bus the following day -- pool.

It did sound a little bit nonsensical so I'm grateful for to her for underlining the point I'm seeking to make which is the rural proofing of the rubric when they come to these decisions in the first instance, but also to have a better understanding of just the geography of our rural areas and the lack of public transport or other connectivity between those two. It is easy direct say it, I'm thinking of Ealing because that is where the ministers from, but there are plenty of buses and tubes and have a knows what else which will take the people around Ealing I have little or no doubt.

North Dorset doesn't have those things nor do many of our rural areas. I just don't think that is a point recognised by the banks. Let me make a little progress and then I will give way first to my honourable friend and then to the honourable gentleman. I think at the heart of everything this place does we have to think about social inclusion. We have to think about trying to deliver services which meet the needs of a wide range of our population.

According to Age UK four in 10 adults over the age of 65 do not bank online. Four in 10. Three quarters of those over 65 have expressed a very clear desire that they wish to bank in person. The over 80s, people with disabilities and those on low incomes disproportionately want physical facilities. And yet they are being denied them. The RNIB point out, I think the figure in my constituency alone is 4170 constituents who are either blind or partially sighted, they are unable to conduct banking online.

Why are we excluding them from the personal financial management of their financial affairs? Let me give way to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable friend and then to the honourable gentleman. I'm extremely grateful. Congratulate him on obtaining this Congratulate him on obtaining this debate which has attracted a large number of colleagues and has touched number of colleagues and has touched a nerve, can I intervene on behalf of coastal towns like Harwich which suffer exactly the same difficulties somewhere like his constituency where the TSB has closed down and where the TSB has closed down and the Halifax has closed down, businesses need a banking hub and businesses need a banking hub and it's affecting the business in the town.

The government has really got to come up with some kind of solution to this and a single hub representing all of these financial institutions has got to be able to provide some kind of efficiency so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very much looking forward to what proposals are actually going to be. I'm grateful and his constituency

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful and his constituency and a lot of coastal communities will have again that profile of constituent which is older, more constituent which is older, more settled. And will want to see things delivered in the way which they are delivered in the way which they are used to. That doesn't mean they shun change completely, but they do have change completely, but they do have a legitimate expectation. Let me take the House briefly and then I will give way to the honourable gentleman.

Briefly through the timeline narrative of justification. We all remember, you and I would remember as part of that rate Tory intake of 2015, those with a days, as it nearly 10 years? When we were told that there would never be a town without a bank. That was the first promise. Then that seemed to disappear quite quickly. Then the post office came in and there did seem to be an overreliance on building societies, I notice I think if the nationwide I think in the television advertisements saying we pledged not to close a branch before 2028.

But again they are under exactly the same cost and other pressures as their high-street competitors. Then we were told that the answer to the prayer was going to be the banking hub. I think there has been quite a lot of disappointment surrounding that and I suggest to the Minister in part it is to do with the erroneous conflation of access to cash and access to banking services. Because Link assessed perfectly properly they have told me in Langford, there is an ATM at the Tesco, there is an ATM at the local Morrisons, there is an ATM at nationwide.

Try and ask an ATM to amend or set up a standing order or direct debit. Try if you are a small businessman who wants to do, or a businesswoman who wants to extend their line of credit, or has it? Over something, try and ask an ATM those questions. So this access to cash, as important as that is, is I would suggest far too blunt an instrument when trying to assess the actual impact of these closures. He has waited terribly patiently I will give way to the honourable gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

full stop I'm very grateful for giving way and the point he is making in his speech. North Dorset is far away from the north-east but many of the issues he is talking about issues I am encountering in my constituency as well. The rural side of my as well. The rural side of my constituency contains many villages and towns with high deprivation and reality and I'm endeavouring to get a banking hub in one of those towns a banking hub in one of those towns that has lost access to banks over the years.

Does he agree with me this point about deprivation also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

needs to be included as a metric alongside being rural? I agree absolutely as does a more sensitive and refined definition of the hub and smoke model. If you just look at the resident catchment of the market town you can construct a very compelling argument to say that the proposal for a hub doesn't stack up, but when you add the thousands living in the villages which look to it and are magnetised to it, and then of course will spend more money in those businesses supporting and of course businesses themselves using those businesses not just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

individuals, but, let me give way to my honourable friend full stop I would like to claim that I'm a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to claim that I'm a member for the whole of Surrey, in member for the whole of Surrey, in my day the Barclays bank in Farnham closed leaving the whole of my constituency of 101,000 people just constituency of 101,000 people just one bank, Santander, and one building society, nationwide. We are lucky enough to have one banking hub in Haslemere and we are going to get in Haslemere and we are going to get another one in, another town hasn't got one.

Given there are only 100 banking hubs could country and the government says it's going to put forward 350, with the honourable forward 350, with the honourable gentleman agree with me that the government is going to have to turbocharge the hubs, not just for access to cash but more especially as he mentioned for proper banking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

services for residents in rural constituencies? I agree entirely with my honourable friend for both Surrey and part of Hampshire full stop something for the Minister, very something for the Minister, very happy for him to write to me on this point if it is easier, but it point if it is easier, but it strikes me there is scope for a little bit of wiggle room with regards to the 2023 financial regards to the 2023 financial services and markets act. That act did not give the FCA powers to did not give the FCA powers to reflect and assess upon wider banking services.

The honourable banking services. The honourable gentleman's party may be in opposition were very keen that it did, when my party was in government than some unknown reason we resisted amendments to that effect. The Labour Party when in opposition didn't push them to a division at the time. I think there is too gaping a lacuna in all of this which has access to cash only which is assessed but not access to banking services. Let me give way to the honourable lady for North Shropshire

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and then my noble friend for Gordon. I'm grateful to him for giving way, he is making outlining the issues. In North Shropshire four of my five market towns have lost all my five market towns have lost all my five market towns have lost all of their banks and only two will be in receipt of a banking hub. Would he agree with me that we need to be looking at a much wider area to make looking at a much wider area to make those banking hubs work because people who live in small hamlets and villages without access to public transport simply can't access one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

transport simply can't access one that is nearly 20 miles away to The honourable lady is right and again, I hope the banks or regulators you may listening or read this report will understand that this is not an issue which divides party. This is an issue which is affecting constituents across the country irrespective of who, which party represents them in this place, this key point of a proper assessment of being rural and the differential of living in a rural area then you have, then one has in And I do think the government, and I commend them for their support of hubs, but just needs to be more physical and more robust.

In driving these things forward. It's almost as if the banks themselves mark their own homework as to whether the argument in favour of a hub stacks up or not. Sarah Coles of Hargreaves Lansdown commented a year or so ago now, the bank branches are a vicious cycle, the more banks close, the more people move online, and of course the more people move online, by definition you almost hollow out the argument to justify the creation of a harbour.

And I understand that the banks initially were slightly reticent, just as the mobile phone operators were about shared masts that somehow or other clients would be pinched, but a shared facility, jointly financed by the banks, who really do need to remember that they are still in business principally due to the goodwill of the British taxpayer and the Exchequer and the financial crash of 08 who kept our banking sector afloat. They do over a little bit of payback. As a number of my constituents have been keen to point out.

The hubs seem to work. point out. The hubs seem to work. They seem to fill that gap. But as I say, marking one's own homework, setting the rubric to decide whether a hub is going to work or not isn't I think quite right, and I think the Treasury could be taking a more proactive leadership role on this. And I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And for bringing this debate was the pits really important debate was the pits really important and similarly timely. I spent a lot of time in recess looking at banking hubs, especially in a tangled Ellen in my constituency which has recently lost its last bank. It's a large town, over 7,000 people, and large town, over 7,000 people, and if you include the surrounding villages as welcome is getting up towards 11,000. It's not however towards 11,000. It's not however qualifying for a banking hub.

It has not got permission to have a banking not got permission to have a banking hub, and saying it doesn't have enough businesses in the town, which doesn't take into account the farming businesses around, the rural nature is not taken into account in the criteria set out by link. And many that my honourable friend did mention the importance of rural proofing the conditions that they look at in order to deliver a banking hub, and hope in the debate today and the Minister's response will put some pressure on Link to look at more holistically the rural environment when it comes to considering these because places like Ellen really do need a banking hub.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to my honourable friend because again, she enhances and because again, she enhances and underlines the argument which have been deploying, which colleagues across the House have been kind enough to also grow in support of. enough to also grow in support of. And I suppose my annoyance is that And I suppose my annoyance is that the people who write these policies, whether they are the regulators or in the bank boardrooms, don't know what living in a rural area is like. what living in a rural area is like.

If you are in the Square mile, you are not part of a rural community. are not part of a rural community. You may have a getaway weekend retreat, but you might dash off to in the personalised Land Rover or Range Rover or whatever, and take your food from Waitrose and come back to London on the Sunday, that is not living in a rural areas. That's not running a business in a rural area commander give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him. Both for securing this important debate and for giving way. He mentioned the Square mile way. He mentioned the Square mile there. In my constituency of North Northumberland, the third largest in Northumberland, the third largest in England, there are eight branches in England, there are eight branches in 2,100 km. And that's gone down by 64% since 2015, and just wanted to highlight the point raised elsewhere highlight the point raised elsewhere in the debate, banking hubs are very important, and I like other members are pushing them in my constituency, are pushing them in my constituency, but the role again of a Post Office in those banking services is key, and in my constituency we had to fight together as a community to secure the Post Office there.

I must give credit to Glendale Gateway trust secured that, and that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vital. They agree with me that post offices are absolutely vital and part of the solution to this problem? The honourable gentleman is absolutely right. And in many absolutely right. And in many respects... I hear voices. The honourable gentleman is absolutely right to make the point that he right to make the point that he does. And I pay tribute to how the does. And I pay tribute to how the Post Office have stepped up. And very often in providing those sort of transaction bank services, they themselves have supported the continuance of rural post offices, which of themselves can often be very marginal, fragile businesses.

But again, I think it's an easy crutch to lean upon which is to say of course the Post Office does this. And we can all applaud what they do, but again, you can't talk to somebody from your bank to discuss your overdraft or your loan or your mortgage or your business credit card. Whatever it happens to be. And I say to the honourable gentleman on the Treasury bench, if we want our local business, small micro, family-owned businesses very much the hallmark of a rural economy, if we want our SMEs to flourish, they are the ones who probably have the greatest need on a more regular basis to have their relationship with their banks.

So that the banks know the nature of the business, they know the long-term viability et

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cetera, and you can build that relationship. For a second time, of course. Grateful. I think he's making a very important point. One of the things I've always found interesting that when a bank is closed North East Fife, the bank offers to deliver not an access to cash surface, but some kind of pop-up advice banking service in the advice banking service in the constituency. That suggests to me that banks know very well that that banks know very well that giving that banking service advice is very important.

And actually is very important. And actually instead of doing it as a stock for a number of months before they give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up, they need to do it on a more regular and permanent basis. Let me just answer the honourable lady from Fife. She again as Apsley lady from Fife. She again as Apsley Road, and surely it makes good Road, and surely it makes good commercial sense for these as we used to call them, High Street banks, increasingly not particularly banks, increasingly not particularly High Street banks, but it makes good business sense for them to be able to tout their wares to customers to tout their wares to customers either existing or potential.

That's either existing or potential. That's how degenerate business, by having a presence. And the harbour I think makes a very good presence for all makes a very good presence for all of them. But again, they seem to move at the speed of the slowest, and if one is not particularly convinced, then the whole thing sort of seems to four down. And I know that the government is trying to do more on this, but think it can do even more to as I say, turbocharge.

And I give way. And I give way. , we are just losing our last bank. Lloyds is going at the end of the year, and the interesting thing about it is the banking hub will actually be open 95, five days a week, potentially even more. Where is the banks, very slowly by cutting the hours they were open after COVID and it was very hard to find a bank outside school hours, which of course doesn't help those rural businesses who then can't get there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in time. The honourable lady is right. The cynic might suggest that opening cynic might suggest that opening hours were set in order to try and deliberately reduce footfall. Possibly. That might be hugely Possibly. That might be hugely cynical, and if it is, I will plead

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cynical, and if it is, I will plead guilty as charged. Who could refuse? My Lords this a very generous and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords this a very generous and indulging a second time. But as he indulging a second time. But as he makes his excellent speech, I'm struck on the impact of charities because anyone who is a trustee of the charity will know, you quite regularly as a trustee have to go to the bank that the charity chooses to bank with. The impact on rural charities is going to be absolutely devastating when it is simply not possible for trustees to get to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

branch of the bank to prove their identity. I admire my right honourable friends perseverance in trying to ever change the signatory on a ever change the signatory on a charity banking hub. People have sort of died of boredom and exasperation when trying to do it. exasperation when trying to do it. You have to turn up with your great-grandparents and your first great-grandparents and your first cat and everything else in order to prove who you are. The fact they have actually known you because have actually known you because you've been a customer for years seems to pass them by.

So listen, I seems to pass them by. So listen, I have spoken I think... I hope I've made my point to the Minister. Let me just rehearse them very briefly in bullet point form. The rubric to defend a closure of a bank, the assessment of access to cash needs to have a rural dimension to it. And a much more granular understanding of the geography and hub and spoke of a rural economy, far far different to an urban one.

We need to move away pretty quickly from merely assessing as being satisfactory, and access to cash as defined by access to an ATM. We need to turbocharge the delivery of hubs and bring pressure to bear on the banks, and there is a variety of ways of doing it. It can be carrot and stick, three other policies to try and nudge them to move at a faster pace. But again, for them to understand, and I would hope the government could take a leaf for our rural relations for social inclusion, reflecting the fact our rural areas actually have far more small independently owned shops and businesses, that they have a disproportionately older and all retired age-group.

Which of course will then have an accumulation of disabilities, infirmities, frailties et cetera. Those things should be taken into account, and I remain to be convinced that they are. I think an opportunity exists as I say to reflect upon giving the FCA greater powers through an amendment to the financial services and markets authority 2023. Given the power to look at the wider banking services, not just cash. Our rural communities struggle. Our economies are fragile. Wages are usually lower than they are in their urban counterparts.

This is just another bank closure, not just another bank closure in a rural market town. I will give way very briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him. I just want to emphasise that while obviously I do welcome banking helps, I am welcome banking helps, I am increasingly concerned that it is used as an excuse for the banks used as an excuse for the banks themselves to accelerate the closure of the core services. Therefore would he agree with me that pressure would he agree with me that pressure first and foremost needs to be applied on the banks to keep their banks open on the High Street, and banks open on the High Street, and the banking hubs should remain as an infill as opposed to being seen as infill as opposed to being seen as the first line, which there is a danger that we as a collective start

**** Possible New Speaker ****

talking about banking hubs. The honourable gentleman makes an interesting point. And I think the trend has been pretty clear. And the goalposts have moved. I think if we goalposts have moved. I think if we had our time again, between C delay had our time again, between C delay 2008 2009 23 about 16, I think the government should have been and could have been much tougher and could have been much tougher and more exacting, but we are where we are.

And so I think... I take this point, and I understand it. But let's not let the delivery of the good be sacrificed in pursuit of the excellent, which seems unattainable. I think the trend for what the banks are doing is now pretty well set and probably irreversible. There are also the things that play into that. What I think is arrestable is... We will pull out, even if we are the last branch open, and somebody else will pick up the slack.

Principally, the Post Office. We expect our customers to travel great distances to go and actually find a bank which is open and which can help them, and may actually require a number of visits if it's an overdraft or something which they are having. So that's where I think the idea of a hub, they understand we are due to have our first hub in Dorset at some point this year and share them in the constituency the honourable gentleman called West Dorset, but North Dorset as well.

I will certainly be campaigning for one there. I will value the support of the Treasury bench to put greater expectation on the banks, that they have a duty of care to their customers. They can't just cut them adrift and say make your own way. Find an alternative. Beat a path to another branch. It's terribly inconvenient view, but that's will be telling you to do because we just have no social responsibility at all. So for the sake of our rural communities and business, from charities as my right-wing -- right honourable friend said.

And for a whole host of other people, who just want to have their personal interaction because they don't have access to the internet, they don't want to use online banking, don't want to use an app et cetera, there should be a bank teller as we used to call them from a bank in a hub at set times in order to help their customers. In so doing, they will not damage our rural economy and our market town economies as much as many of us fear and as many honourable members have tested to -- honourable members have tested to --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I first commend the honourable member for North Dorset for securing this debate, he has for securing this debate, he has made sure the views and concerns of his constituents I heard this
21:31
James Murray Portrait James Murray MP, The Exchequer Secretary (Ealing North, Labour )
-
-
his constituents I heard this evening by -- by government ministers and he set out the particular dynamics of the rural banking hubs in rural communities. I think the fact that he received so many interventions from other members underscores how important this issue is to constituents of ours) the country so I thank him for raising this important debate. To begin with it may be helpful if I outline some of the context around this issue. We know that in recent years people across the UK have reaped the benefit of the transformation of the U.K.'s banking sector, particularly enhance accessibility, convenience afforded by remote banking.

For instance in 2017 For instance in 20 1740% of UK adults regularly used a bank branch will stop 2022 only 21% of UK adults did, and almost 9 in 10 adults banked online or used a mobile app, notably that include 65% of over 75's. However the government recognises that these changes presented considerable challenges for others. Bank branch closures can have a particular impact on rural communities given the distances to alternatives, we have had examples of this this evening from the honourable member and other honourable members who have intervened to highlight specific cases and who have used their time speaking this evening to draw house has attention to the challenges they constituents are facing.

I would like to assure honourable members and the people they represent that this government understands the importance of face-to-face banking and banking access to local communities and high streets. Our objective is to ensure people and businesses have access to banking services, supporting local communities and local economic growth. Work is well underway on this and we were working closely with banks to open 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. The Chancellor marked the opening of the 100th banking hub in December and in total over 200 hubs have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

announced. The honourable gentleman from North Dorset refer to 14 banks North Dorset refer to 14 banks closing, I have referred to 11 banks closing full stop when it comes to the criteria for agreeing whether the criteria for agreeing whether backups will be can the Minister reassure me that those who have lost reassure me that those who have lost more banks will be the constituencies that will get more bank hubs when the opportunity come through?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through? I thank him for his intervention, by way of his intervention he highlights how this is an issue affecting communities right across the UK. I will turn in just a moment to the criteria by which the location of banking hubs are decided, that's obviously been an important issue for which honourable members have raised and put on record their concerns about all their feelings toward this evening. We know that banking hubs offer -- post office staff which allow personal business customers with over 30 banks and building societies to withdraw and deposit cash, deposit checks, pay bills and to check their balance.

They also crucially contain rooms where customers can see community bankers from their own bank carry out wider banking services such as registering bereavement, changing a pin number, and as the Member for North Dorset pointed out banking hubs offer more than just access to cash, that's an important point in why they can bring so much to an area which has Community banking hubs can clearly contribute a great deal to local areas where existing banks have closed and decisions over the opening of the hub are guided by the Financial Conduct Authority's regulations.

It may be helpful in response to the Member for Strangford's intervention if I briefly outline how the FCA's process works when a bank announces , link, the operator , link, the operator of , link, the operator of the , link, the operator of the U.K.'s largest ATM network, conducts an impartial assessment of the communities access to cash needs. Link considers criteria such as population size, the number of small businesses and the levels of vulnerability. They also consider the distance to the nearest branch and the cost and time taken to get there by transport.

Should Link recommend a banking hub then cash access UK, a not-for-profit charity, entity funded by banks will implemented. Crucially the bank branch cannot close until any recommended services are in place. Additionally individuals including Members of Parliament can directly request access to cash review by the Link website. In collaboration with industry the government remains committed to advancing the roll-out of these hubs. It's worth pointing out the customers have alternative options for accessing everyday banking services as well. Notably And 95% of business banking customers can conduct banking including taking out and depositing cash at over 11,500 post office branches nationwide.

The post office, as several members mention this evening, has a duty to serve rural communities with the Department for Business and Trade requiring that 95% of the total rural population across the UK be within three miles of the post office. Therefore where communities might be too small for a banking hub as may be the case for some rural communities we are focusing on this evening, individuals and businesses can still access essential services at the local post office.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wonder whether the person

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wonder whether the person That three miles is a very long way to go if you can't drive or don't to go if you can't drive or don't access the car and there is no bus service, which is certainly the case for large numbers of people North Shropshire and I'm sure other rural communities discussed in this debate communities discussed in this debate as well. People set their lives up to build access services where they are, if they are taking away a are, if they are taking away a server somewhere else is likely to be somewhere they can't get to and it's really problematic.

Will he consider reassessing those criteria so banking hubs are where the banks were so people can still access

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them? I thank her for her intervention

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for her intervention and she is correct to say that clearly having a banking hub open requires people to be able to get there and I will address that point there and I will address that point in one moment if she will let me conclude my speech I will address conclude my speech I will address that point directly. More broadly this government is committed to improving quality-of-life for people living and working in rural area so that rural communities and businesses can realise their full businesses can realise their full potential.

Across -- a prosperous rural economy will be underpinned by rural collectivity to the honourable members point, and access to a diverse range of services. At Autumn Budget 2024 the government therefore announced funding of over £500 million next year to deliver digital infrastructure upgrades to through project getting a bit and a shared rural network. This investment will Of 4G connectivity to support access to good internet in rural areas across the UK. We have also confirmed investment of over £1 billion to support improved bus services and keep thousand affordable.

In recognition of the fact that each community has individual needs we've introduced the bus services bill which will put power over local bus services back in the hands of local leaders. Every region in England including the rural communities at the heart of this debate will benefit. Taken together, these investments will help improve access to banking services whether digital or in- person and more broadly, they help to deliver economic growth more evenly across the country helping rural areas to thrive. In closing on behalf of my honourable friend the economic secretary let me again thank member for North Dorset for his continued work in highlighting this important topic.

Let me assure him and other members that this government is that FastIn is commitment to supporting rural communities in access to banking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

services and I thank you again for raising concerns of his constituents in the House tonight. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do Naujan. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The "Ayes" have it.
21:45
None Portrait Speaker's statement
-

21:45
21:45
None Portrait Speaker's statement
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page