Commons Chamber

Wednesday 2nd April 2025

(began 1 week, 1 day ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:35
None Portrait Q1. What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the development of a new UK industrial strategy. (903482)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We We start We start with We start with questions We start with questions to We start with questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Her fantasy figure is about as much use as Liz Truss's economic planning. She turns up every week to carp from the sidelines. Yesterday she held a press conference and she could not say whether she would reverse the decisions that we made at the Budget. I understand she can't bring herself to say that she does not want the investment of an extra £26 billion in our NHS. I'm not surprised that that, that is 2 million extra appointments 1000 more GPs, a pay rise for nurses etc.

Let me get her position right if I follow it. She wants the extra £26 billion in the NHS that was paid for by the National Insurance rise. She wants that, she doesn't want to reverse the National Insurance rises, so she has now reached this absurd position of voting against the budget, carping against the budget that she actually agrees with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't agree with making people poorer. I don't agree with pensioner poorer. I don't agree with pensioner poverty. Out there they are calling it awful April that is because of decisions he has made because he decisions he has made because he made promises and broke them. His made promises and broke them. His promises are worthless. People are getting poorer. Before the election he pledged to freeze council tax. he pledged to freeze council tax. Instead it is going up everywhere.

Even in Birmingham where there is 17,000 tons of rubbish collected on the street. Does the Prime Minister regret missing the British people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would freeze their council tax when he has so obviously failed? I have to ask she doesn't want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have to ask she doesn't want people poorer why didn't she resign when she was in government. The last government put up council tax for 12 government put up council tax for 12 years in a row. CI think was years in a row. CI think was actually minister for council tax. actually minister for council tax. What did she do she put it up. And even now conservatives in the Local Government Association manifesto, page 9 of the manifesto "We asked the government to remove the cap on council tax.

" Hampshire county council, they wanted a 15% hike and we said no. Slough council wanted a hike and we said no. Windsor and Maidenhead they wanted a hike and we said no. And it is no surprise that council tax is £300 cheaper under Labour councils than Tory ones.
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:39
None Portrait Urgent Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of the negotiations surrounding the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory
-

Thank you Mr Speaker. To ask the Secretary of State for, Botha and the Fed to make a statement on the status of the negotiations surrounding that future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Territory.
12:39
12:40
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow foreign secretary. disappointing that only one day after Oral Questions yesterday, ministers have to be brought back to the house to explain themselves as to what is going on. Yesterday at lunchtime Downing Street reefed out the agreement to give away the Chagos Islands and pay for the privilege has now been finalised between the UK and Mauritius, which is not set in this house yesterday for the Prime Minister of Mauritius has also issued a public statement confirming this.

Despite being interrogated on this deal yesterday in this chamber, ministers gave no indication about this very significant and material development. We are still completely in the dark about the fundamental questions and its importance. How many billions of hard-pressed taxpayers money will be expected to fork out to LEASE the territory we already own? Just as honourable pensioners are having their Winter Fuel Payments motorway and family farms and businesses are being punished with new taxes because of this Labour government.

What safeguards will be in place to protect the military base on Diego Garcia from other states who may try and establish a foothold on the Archipelago? Ministers have so far refused to even publish a map of the buffer zone. What happens to the vitally important military base on Diego Garcia at the end of the treaty? What kind of sovereign rights if any will we be able to exercise over Diego Garcia in the meantime? The Prime Minister of Mauritius says he forced changes to exercise some rewrites and get the lease extension arrangements change.

Will the Minister finally confirmed that his account is correct? Cannot simply stand here and avoid these questions. The House does deserve answers. The British public and taxpayers deserve answers. Put simply, British Indian Ocean Territory should remain British, but Labour are prioritised appeasing the world of left-wing lawyers and activists rather than standing up for our national interests. It is high time this deal was ditched. Finally, there have been reports of implied military threats to the Chagos Islands.

It is fundamental to the security of our country. A British sovereign territory from the regime in Tehran. Tehran, the Iranian regime, has threatened this space. An important military threats that they are now purporting. We understand a response to reports of an unusual buildup of American, aircraft and equipment, carrying aircraft at the joint UK military base on Diego Garcia. This is very serious. Clearly we need to take the threat seriously. We welcome clarity on what the foreign office is doing and the diplomatic response on this issue.
12:43
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Thank you Mr Speaker. I have to say to the right honourable lady but in terms of Parliamentary Counsel of the thing I've answered no less than five urgent questions in the last six months. I have answered I think 130 written questions to the honourable lady and her colleagues. We have discussed it twice at Foreign Office questions yesterday. As I have repeatedly said, when the treaty is finalised, it will be presented to this house and there will be full scrutiny in the usual way and I explained that the bill will be put forward into practice the important aspects that require legislative change and there will be full debate in this House.

I reject the premise of much of what her question was based on. As I have said repeatedly, there was not a problem here, why did her government which she was part of start negotiations and go through 11 rounds? There is a significant challenge here. This deal is paramount for our national security. We won't scrimp on our security, and it is important that it is put in place and that has been recognised other parties. We will only have a deal that is in the U.K.'s best interests to protect our national security was the she asks about the security provisions to protect the base.

The included full UK control over Diego Garcia control of the electromagnetic spectrum and unrestricted access to use the basis of it will include a buffer zone around Diego Garcia which nothing can be built or put in place without our consent. There will be a robust mechanism to review process to ensure no activity in the outer isles can impinge upon base operations. And there will be a prohibition on the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, either civilian or military.

The full details will be set out when the treaty is laid before Parliament. It will include the costs. We will not scrimp on security. She asked an important question in relation to Iran. She will understand that for operational reasons, and as a matter of policy we do not offer comments or information relating to foreign nationals military aircraft movement or operations. UK, in close cooperation with our allies, the US, closely monitor the security in the Indian Ocean region to identify and mitigate any potential threats to
12:46
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:49
12:50
12:50
12:51
12:51
12:52
12:52
12:53
12:53
12:53
12:54
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:58
12:58
12:59
12:59
13:00
13:01
13:01
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:06
None Portrait Points of Order
-

Is irrelevant to the question?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point of order. It is linked to the Liberal
13:07
13:07
13:07
None Portrait Urgent Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Israeli government’s announcement that it is expanding its military operation in Gaza
-

on the record. We now come to the next Urgent Question. Carla Denyer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Mr Speaker. I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement about the Israeli Government announcement that it is expanding its military operation in
13:08
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
Gaza.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker, we are deeply concerned about the resumption of concerned about the resumption of hostilities in Gaza. The UK does not support an expansion of Israel's support an expansion of Israel's military operations. Continued fighting and more bloodshed is in nobody's interests. All parties nobody's interests. All parties including Israel must observe international humanitarian law. We urge all parties to return to dialogue and ceasefire negotiations, dialogue and ceasefire negotiations, ensuring the return of all who have endured unimaginable suffering.

It is clear that this conflict cannot be one by bombs and bullets. But by diplomacy. Aid should never be used as a political tool. Israel must restart the flow of aid immediately. Blocking goods supplies and power entering Gaza risks breaching international humanitarian law. It should not be happening. We are doing everything we can to alleviate that situation. Gaza is also the most dangerous place in the world to be an age worker. Over 400 aid workers have been killed since the start of the conflict.

Despite renewed fighting, United Nations antimilitary organisations must be able to deliver their vital work. One year on from the appalling attack on the kitchen aid workers, lessons have not been learnt. We are appalled at recent attacks on aid workers including on a guesthouse in the killing of at least eight Palestinian Red Cross medics. Our thoughts are with victims and their families. Those responsible must be held accountable. The government of Israel urgently ensure that there are effective deconfliction can systems in place to allow agencies to deliver their impartial mandates safely.

On 28th of March the UK and France called an urgent UN Security Council meeting to discuss risks facing humanitarian aid workers in Gaza. Since the resumption of hostilities, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to a number of his counterparts. And these really Minister for strategic affairs and the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher. A return to a ceasefire is the only way to bring this conflict to an end and return to negotiations for a lasting peace agreement. That is the only way to deliver that two-state solution we all want to see.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to live in Peace and Security Forum
13:11
Carla Denyer Portrait Carla Denyer MP (Bristol Central, Green Party)
-
-
Thank you Mr Speaker. The Israeli Government brutal decision to expand its military operation to Gaza is not security, it is domination and erasure. It comes on top of 18 months of collective punishment including since 2 March, the longest including since 2 March, the longest aid blockade since the war began. I welcome that the government does not support the Israeli expanded military operation in Gaza. Will the Minister now finally name what is happening as genocide? And undertake a structural investigation into genocide and other crimes under international law committed in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory's? And to ensure that the UK is not complicit with Israel's ongoing genocide illegal occupation and system of apartheid, will he immediately suspended the direct and indirect supply, sale, or transfer, during transit and transshipment to Israel of all weapons, munitions, and other military or security equipment? Will immediately suspend the provision of training and other military and security assistance and recognise that otherwise there is a clear risk of contributing to the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, occluding crimes under international law? The UK is a significant provider of humanitarian aid to the region.

Can he tell us what assessment he has made to the impact of today's report on the humanitarian crisis? And although the Minister touched on this, given the U.K.'s level of influence with Israeli authorities, could you confirm that he will use his position to actively oppose current and planned attempts by Israel to establish a permanent military presence in Gaza? And to oppose moves to alter Gaza's borders and demographic make up, to shrink its territory including through any expanded buffer zones and construction of permanent checkpoints.

Thank you Mr Speaker. checkpoints. Thank you Mr Speaker.
13:13
13:14
13:15
13:16
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow foreign secretary. Be found through this dreadful impasse leading to the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement. As has been said time and again, the key to a sustainable end to the conflict is the release of the remaining 59 hostages, truly being held by Hamas terrorists since October 7. Their continued captivity is intolerable. The British Government should be able to bring influence to bear and the Foreign Secretary should be involved in all efforts to find a Working with Israeli counterpart, the US and key regional players and mediating countries, and we said this to the House yesterday.

Yesterday in the chamber the Minister stated the government is in regular contact with all those involved in negotiations, including the Foreign Secretary and he said it today as well, he is speaking to his Israeli counterpart. What direct ministerial discussions have taken place about the current military operations? Were ministers informed operations? Were ministers informed Have they been given any information about the objectives Israel are seeking? Every week we are asking questions of ministers. It is unclear what level of influence the government has got. What is their plan? What is their way through? What discussions have they had with vital partners? On humanitarian aid, does he feel he has made any progress in his efforts to try to unblock the current access situation? Can he update the House on what has happened to British aid? We have spoken about this many times.

Where is it? While restrictions remain, what has happened to it? It was our position in government and indeed it is the position of the Labour government there can be no role for a radiant Hamas terrorists in the future of Gaza. Will he propose a roadmap to our critical partners about this, how it will end and how it becomes a reality? reality?
13:18
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr Speaker. These are important questions. The Foreign Secretary has been directly involved in ministerial contact. I have been talking with all those affected as well. I welcome the comments about the hostages. Of course this whole house wants to see them all released. I'm sure many of us will be thinking about the British mother still being held in almost certainly terrible conditions and continues to be held since October 7. I know the House will continue to think about those hostage victims.

She asks about humanitarian aid. I will accept that our efforts in recent days to try to prevent a blockade from continuing in Gaza has not been effective. We have seen in the first part of this year a very welcome increase in aid going into Gaza. Including UK aid. Even during that greater flow, there were still restrictions which were unwelcome on the nature of the aid going in. That reconstruction, shelter, sleeping bags, hard to get into Gaza when they were desperately needed.

There were improvements and we can see a route to which we might see a significant increase of aid in Gaza which is needed. But at the current time the reports are very depressing which we discussed yesterday. She asks about our plan for reconstruction and discussions we have had with others. We discussed the Arab initiative with those involved and we think it is a plan with real merit. It must not allow Hamas to have a role in government. We are clear on that.

I think our partners are of the same view. That is the basic idea from which we must work. work.
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:27
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:30
13:30
13:31
13:31
13:32
13:33
13:34
13:35
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:39
13:39
13:40
13:41
13:42
13:43
13:43
13:44
13:45
13:45
13:46
13:46
13:46
13:47
13:48
13:49
13:50
13:51
13:52
13:53
13:54
13:54
13:55
13:56
13:56
13:57
13:57
13:58
13:58
13:59
14:00
14:00
14:01
14:02
14:02
14:02
14:03
14:04
14:05
14:06
14:06
14:07
14:08
14:08
14:09
14:09
14:10
14:10
14:11
14:12
14:13
14:13
14:13
14:13
14:14
14:14
14:15
14:16
14:16
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on the rolling out of nurseries. The Labour Government is bringing the change families deserve. We made promises to families and nine months in bare acting on delivering them with free breakfast clubs, the curriculum assessment review in full swing, children's social care, the biggest overhaul in a generation, funding for 10,000 new pupils with SEND, backing for apprentices to qualify, new allowances for kinship carers - promises made, promises kept.

Today, we go further with £37 million in funding for 300 primary schools to open and expand to nurseries. A big step towards delivering childcare for parents and the big step to delivering the best start in life for all of our children. I want that best start in life for every child because they want opportunity for every child because I want every child in every village, town, city across the country to grow up knowing that success belongs to them.

It is the type of country that I want to live in. This Labour Government wants to build opportunity not just for some but for all children. Do achieve that we have to start early, before university, college, even schools. In the early years of children's lives which are fundamental to opportunity and that is where gaps in opportunity first appear and the longer we wait the harder the gaps are too close. The biggest chance to make an impact on the lives of our children sits in the crucial early years and that is why it is my number one priority.

If we get this right and said children on the track to success then that is where they will stay. That is why despite the huge fiscal challenges we inherited from the party opposite we have chosen to invest £8 billion in Early Years and why it is a central part of the plan for change, setting a target for record numbers of children starting school, ready to learn. Today Ireland's 300 schools delivering the first wave of new and expanded skill-based nurseries, many of which will face big challenges and overall it means up to 6000 more places for young children where they will have the biggest impact with most starting in September of this year and that is vital because it is when the final stage of the 30 hours a week entitlement for childcare will kick in, joining up with the author for three-year-olds and four-year-olds and there will be 30 government-funded hours of childcare per week.

This is 300 on the road to 3000 skill-based nurseries working with schools and local partners to find and spread what works and by the end it will mean tens of thousands more parents with the power to choose the hours they want to work. What a contrast to the party opposite. What they left behind was a pledge without a plan, places, promises, provision, missing. Parents made decisions on the back of these properties and again and again I hear from parents so much they had been relying on promises which were scattered like confetti by the previous government.

This government is delivering change in months for which the last government wasted 13 years before signing a post dated cheque. This will give parents more control over their lives with time to choose working hours and money back in their pockets. The last report showed the effects were coming through with childcare fees reducing by half since the expansion. This is about children, launching a lifetime of learning, starting as we mean to go on and as we roll out these school-based nurseries, we are also bringing the biggest uplift of the premium and giving every child the support you need to learn and grow and supporting early years executive to build expertise.

It is not just what is taught in the nurseries that can spot where they are, in primary schools, and that is no accident. We are centred in schools in communities, starting early, working with the voluntary sector and private providers to the move from nursery to school as a natural step, from one room to the other, sometimes in the same building, just like the Church Academy in Weston- super-Mare, with a nursery on site meaning they can build stronger relationships and parents feel more part of the community and there is more engagement when the children move into school and there are no frightening changes when they start reception, building the sense that school is where they have to be.

That came through powerfully in Peterborough this week with a nursery at the heart of the school and I spoke to Hannah, a working mum, because little boy goes to the nursery and told me all about the difference it was making to her family and how her son is making friends and taking big strides in his learning, ready to join his two older siblings at school in September. The mystery is a big part about how the nursery is at the centre of the community.

It is the same for free breakfast clubs. That is why we announce the 750 early adopters and children come together here to eat, learn, grow, good for attendance, achievement, behaviour, belonging, children, life chances. That is the point. This is action for them, to give them the start that they deserve because this is my number one Dorothy, built on a deep and fierce commitment to the children of this country in the first years of their lives, taking their first steps into the role.

In the faces of our youngest children, you see something that has been Hope. The hope of a brighter future. We hope that tomorrow can be better than today. The whole that this government is on the side. That is the future a dad to be shaped together, not faith alone. That is the hope that many have found that our best days lie ahead of us and that is what the people chose in the general election last alike when they chose hope over fear and a brighter tomorrow and not a better yesterday and that is why I am so focused on getting on and delivering change because it matters for lives now, today, not the distant future.

This is where life chances are won, healthier societies are built, and that is the prize on offer. The youngest generation of the first for whom opportunity is open to all, right from the start. I know members from across the House will agree that is a price worth fighting for and I commend this to to the House.
14:24
Laura Trott Portrait Rt Hon Laura Trott MP (Sevenoaks, Conservative)
-
-
Lovely to see you, too. We welcome the announcement from the Education Secretary but let's be clear. The policies she is talking about represent an investment of £37 million but the government are ticking away £500 million from nurseries by failing to compensate them for the national endurance increase. This will have a catastrophic -- national insurance increase. This will have a catastrophic effect on the studies he will be forced to close or put their prices and 'catastrophic' is not my words but that of the Early Years Alliance, following the national insurance bombshell.

She said she inherited a pledge without the plan. What a load of nonsense. Our plan is delivering the expansion of funded childcare and she herself today confirmed that our plan has already reduced the cost for children under 3 x 50%, according to independent research. That as our plan and helpline is putting up costs for parents and shutting down nurseries around the country. I coasted around table last week with nursery owners in tears, struggling with real decisions about keeping the doors open.

-- I coasted a roundtable. Another owner was having sleepless nights worrying about providing proper care to children for whom she can no longer afford staffing costs thanks to this government's decisions. It is clearly absurd for the government to ask the sector to absorb the impact while keeping the fees the same. The consequences are entirely predictable and will either see them had to close or put up prices. A recent survey from the Early Years Alliance said 400 nurseries they spoke to me have to close due to the drop attacks and this is what the number one priority looks like.

Parents will also lose out. According to the Association, increases to national insurance contributions will force nurseries to raise fees by 10%. These are the obvious consequences of the government decision. Will the Education Secretary finally admit how much the jobs tax is costing the childcare system and monitor the impact of closures thanks to jobs tax on availability and on the specifics of the announcement today, can she confirm the locations of the schools-based nurseries and how they were chosen.

Is it on the basis of surplus or are they in areas where we need more provision? If it is the letter, how will they be identified? Will they mimic the school timetable? Will the skill-based nurseries be compensated for the impact of the jobs tax? If the government is truly serious about breaking down barriers to opportunity, it must come to the realisation that increasing the schools-based provision can only be one piece of the puzzle and failing to recognise this will mean more families lose out.

They are right. Under this government, more families will lose out. While I welcome the announcement, the reality is the Labour petitions are making childcare more expensive and harder to find and hard-working families will bear the brunt of the failure. It is time for the Education Secretary to stop making broken promises and actually make Early promises and actually make Early Years her top priority. The
14:28
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
It must be profoundly thrilling for the right honourable lady to bring such studies and forced negativity when faced with good news. Six weeks ago, I was in front of the South delivering the news we are supporting hundreds of skills to open free breakfast clubs and we got the same forced negativity. Not nine months into this government, we are beginning the rollout of skill-based nurseries which we have promised to the people of the country and speaking of deserts, the honourable gentleman should visit the school- based nursery that will soon be opening in his own constituency because maybe they could take some time out of their busy schedules to go and visit the nurseries and breakfast clubs.

The only priority they have is to bring back tax breaks for private schools and take away resources from state schools. It is the one idea that they have. Fresh thinking, the idea is to spend money they did not raise on plans they did not make and on the questions the right honourable that he asked, we are investing £1 billion on expanding Early Years entitlements alongside doubling the premium and the £75 million expansion grant and compensation for skill-based nurseries, too.

The contrast with this government and the party opposite is night and day. I am proud that at the Department For Education under the Labour Government it is week in, week out, the Department for hope with the hope of a better future for our children, our country, free breakfast clubs, cutting-edge curriculum, the biggest overhaul of social care in a generation, funding for 10,000 new school places for children SEND, backing 10,000 apprentices to qualify, new improvement teams in schools, new allowances for kitchen killers, new allowances for foster care.

That is the difference between this government and the party opposite. We are the party of hope and if the recent leadership contest is anything to go by they cannot decide if they are the party of hope or if they are the party of hope or
14:31
14:32
14:32
Munira Wilson Portrait Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Access to flexible high quality early years provision gives children the start they deserve, parents the choice they need to live their lives, and it's one of the best possible investments we can make in the future of our country. So for those families living in childcare deserts left by the previous Conservative government, today's announcement will be welcome news, and I welcome the sorely needed uplift in early years pupil premium. But school-based nurseries can only ever be part of the puzzle.

We will never fix the crisis in early years without fixing the deep problems facing private and charitable providers. They delivered the vast bulk of the government's free entitlement, and yet they face some of the toughest challenges making ends meet. The government's national insurance hike, their failure to ensure rates actually cover delivery costs, and their damaging guidance to local authority on funding agreements just come into effect this week means that many are struggling to stay afloat. We thought he heard the early years alliance survey found that four in 10 said they would reduce the number of funded places for three and four-year-olds in the next year.

94% said they would be. Raise their fees for parents for non-funded hours. Almost 1/3 said they are likely to permanently close. How consecutive state tell me is that extending choice for parents? Building blocks nursery in Teddington in my constituency is now operating at a loss and faces some incredibly painful decisions which will her parents, children and staff. So while I welcome today's announcement, I want to ask the Secretary of State will she commit to an urgent review of the rates paid for free entitlements to ensure they cover delivery costs? Would you finally take this opportunity to recognise the deep damage the national insurance hike is doing and ensure the early years providers are exempted, and finally was she look again at the damaging guidance issued by her department on charging and funding agreements? and funding agreements?
14:35
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
Grateful to the honourable lady. Like I pay tribute to the big range of providers who play a crucial role in supporting our children's early education. That is of course extend to private voluntary provider sandals are childminders who are a crucial part of the sector. The announcement we are making today around school-based nurseries is designed to deal with many of the challenges the honourable lady identifies around childcare deserts left behind by the party opposite. We also know that school-based providers have a greater share of the market in more deprived areas, and 34% of those announced today and 34% of those announced today will be serving disadvantaged communities.

Alongside this, I do note that she welcomes the biggest ever uplift we have secured in the early years pupil premium that will make a big difference to the life chances of children from more disadvantaged backgrounds. Welcome to the rates, of course we will always continue to keep those under review. In terms of the guidance, she asks about the charging guidance issued, I do believe it's important that parents have a greater degree of transparency when it comes to charging fees and where they are able to exercise greater choice about what is being offered to them.

I do believe that the right approach, not least as we move towards a system where the vast bulk of childcare is government backed. of childcare is government backed.
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to my honourable friend, and I look forward to the extra places that would be available in her constituency to serve local families. We are setting out today will create 6,000 new childcare places, most of which we expect to be available from September 2025. So we are moving rapidly to support schools to put in place the spaces

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for children that are required. Behind capital funding, will give children the best start in life is children the best start in life is actually the people. So early years practitioners, teachers, teaching assistants, and early years sector assistants, and early years sector is struggling with a crisis in recruitment and retention. recruitment and retention. Especially in rural areas like my constituency of Stratford-upon-Avon, constituency of Stratford-upon-Avon, and this leads to fewer places for children. So what steps is the governing taking to address the lack governing taking to address the lack of resources, skills and experience in schools and other early years sectors for delivering high quality education to under threes?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with the honourable lady that it's the brilliant people working in early years education who working in early years education who make the biggest difference to our children's life chances. Of course we need to put the capital in place to create the physical provision, to create the physical provision, but as the people that delivering the batter the most, to know she brings expertise to this House. I agree that there is more to do in terms of supporting the workforce. terms of supporting the workforce.

We fully taken important steps to support the sector to recruit and support the sector to recruit and retain more staff ahead of the final phase of the rollout. We also recently introduced an experience- based route to working in the sector based route to working in the sector at level 3, and also published the early years teacher degree apprenticeship standard, a new undergraduate route early years teacher status, but we will be setting out more details later this year as to wider reform, including looking at the question she raises about workforce.

about workforce.
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
Bridget Phillipson Portrait Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, The Secretary of State for Education (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)
-
-
I congratulate the amazing early years workforce and our education workforce in Weston-super-Mare and across our country. They are the people that make the biggest difference in the settings to children. Important as capital is and today gives us the opportunity to create those places, it's the people that deliver for our children and support them in their earliest years made the biggest difference, and for that they deserve our praise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We start with six honourable members on the benches opposite, members on the benches opposite, divided by two that's what's left now. Perhaps given the track record now. Perhaps given the track record in this field, the rest have been in detention for the rest of the day. detention for the rest of the day. I'm so proud to see that the Academy in my constituency has been selected in my constituency has been selected for a new school-based nursery. But the secretary of state agree with me that such nurseries are vital in that such nurseries are vital in places like small forward, not only for the clerk -- childcare they provide that help school readiness for closing the development of Early on and forgiving every single child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are best start in life? My from the subsidy right about the difference that early years the difference that early years provision makes and the difference it makes not just in those crucial early years but right throughout children's lives too. The evidence children's lives too. The evidence can be clearer, and I'm delighted that in small form and many communities across our country more children will have the opportunity to benefit from higher quality early years provision, critical to their life chances but also really important for parents in his
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
None Portrait Presentation of bills
-

Groceries Labelling (Size

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reduction) Bill. Second reading, what day?
15:22
Andrew Pakes Portrait Andrew Pakes MP (Peterborough, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

July 11. July 11. We come to the Ten

**** Possible New Speaker ****

July 11. We come to the Ten Minute Rule, Co-Operative Housing Minute Rule, Co-Operative Housing Tenure Bill. Tenure Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to ask to leave be given that those drilling should be occupied by virtue of member of their membership and to make provision for tenure of the rights of the co-operative and its members of the co-operative and its members and for connected purposes. It is my privilege and pleasure to introduce this bill. I have always had co- this bill. I have always had co- operative values in my bones. I was born in the Co-op. It's fed, clothed, and provided essential goods to me and I've taken those values with me throughout my life.

For six years, I was a director of the Cooperative Development Society. Cooperative pricing is more than an idea. Despite significant barriers, there are hundreds of co-operative housing projects across the country and the number is growing. Last week, I visited the street across the river in Waterloo, Quine Street. 40 years ago, they came together to 40 years ago, they came together to fight the unaffordable housing in London which was also leading to the total collapse of the community around them with shops, schools, community spaces are putting.

They fought hard to buy the land and build a new cooperative on the banks of the Thames and there are over four VAR now, all managed by residents, many of whom have lived here for decades. They are part of training, decision-making and power. This is housing done differently. For too many, housing is something we have little control over and the sector is broken and working people have little opportunity to change it. For co-operative housing projects, power has all the Cyprus residents.

When decisions are made, residents are in the driving seat and have an active saying in places they call home and the public should not be overestimated and crucially the provides an alternative to spiralling rent and mortgage costs that many will be familiar with that have plagued the housing sector record. I thank Lucy Grove and Finn record. I thank Lucy Grove and Finn Byrne from the Quine Street team. I pay tribute to David Rogers, the long-standing chief executive officer of CVS housing and Linda Wallace and Laura Blake for the work she did alongside me.

Now is the moment to celebrate this. I knew project has been announced for land trust, unlocking thousands more homes over the next decade. This liberal government understands community-led housing is about putting power in the hands of local people who will take a lead in designing the home they want in their communities. This is the first time the government has supported this approach to finance housebuilding at this scale and it has been greatly welcomed by the sector and communities who want to get involved in locally led solutions.

Unlocking the power of co-operative housing will only be possible by giving it ventilation in law. It does exist in the UK and in many cases thrived but local people seeking to form a cooperative face an uphill legal battle and without tenure, advisers, regulators, banks, others, normally tasked with providing people with housing are not properly equipped to do so. The UN has declared this to be the International year of cooperatives and has called on neighbouring states to help with cooperatives.

This government has a bold commitment to double the size of the sector and to be clear that cooperatives should play a role. Now should be the time to commit to the tenure alongside that to allow this part of the sector to grow and thrive in a way that has never been enabled previously. As is sadly never the case, the UK lags behind neighbours with co-operative housing and the position in law. Sweden has had it for more than a century, Norway, meteors, and in those two countries and many more, co- operative housing is more prevalent than here.

To close, I reflect briefly on the role co-operative housing projects are playing and wider communities. I am proud and privileged to be a Labour and cooperative MP and to be part of the group that argues that work is underway in so many communities to solve in innovative ways the challenges our country faces. We see this in local projects coming together not just to tackle climate change and clean energy back to up skill local people and in agriculture with initiatives like the English Mustard Growers Initiative.

Local initiatives like men sheds, fighting the loneliness academic and community kitchens, bringing people from different communities together. It is more than just a housing development. It has fostered a genuine community and is built on land owned by the co- operative there is a community pub, a collection of businesses, a centre including a nursery and is soon to be developed community leisure centre. They have a relationship with the ballet school nearby which allows residents to access dance culture for an affordable price.

It is a rich community led by the needs and wants of local people and starts with the co-operative model with groups of people coming together to build something different and reap the benefits. At a time when shared species are disappearing across the country, there is surely a case for this model to come to the fore. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move this motion. The question is the honourable member have leave to bring in the member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as of that opinion, bill. As many as of that opinion, say, "Aye.". The ayes have it. The say, "Aye.". The ayes have it. The names are Stella Creasy, Alice Macdonald, Gareth Snell, Sarah Hall, Alex Revell, Rachel Blake, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Co-Operative Co-Operative Housing Co-Operative Housing Tenure Co-Operative Housing Tenure Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Co-Operative Housing Tenure Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading what day? Friday 13th of June.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday 13th of June. Friday 13th June. We now continue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday 13th June. We now continue with the business of the day. Motion with the business of the day. Motion number two on infrastructure planning. I called the Minister to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move the motion. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Good afternoon. I beg to move that
15:31
15:32
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
instrument is another important step in supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar which are onshore wind and solar which are critical to achieving the government's mission for clean power by 2030. An effective planning system is key to unlocking the new infrastructure our country needs. To deliver our energy security and deliver our energy security and resilience. It is important that planning applications are determined through an appropriate planning group that reflects a projects size, impact, and complexity. Potential issues are identified and mitigated issues are identified and mitigated as necessary.

The Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime is governed by the planning Acts 2008. Decisions on development consent are made by the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero. The regime applies to larger projects with a megawatt threshold determining which energy generating projects are deemed nationally to. Following submission into the process, and extensive examination period will commence, where interested parties including local authorities, people of office, and the general public, make written or oral representations to be examined.

This ensures the voices of the community are heard during the decision-making process. Until recently...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rather than introducing what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rather than introducing what remains of our countryside, what assessment has the Minister made of assessment has the Minister made of the UK Morocco power project that the UK Morocco power project that would deliver 11.5 GW of energy, therefore powering up around about therefore powering up around about 8% of our grid needs? It would seem that the block to this isn't the that the block to this isn't the Moroccan government, and isn't the government countries through whose territorial seas would pass but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resides in Whitehall. What is the list are doing about it? I pay credit to the honourable gentleman for the ingenious way he brought that into a debate on solar and wind in the UK. He raises a good and wind in the UK. He raises a good point. We are looking at the detail of a proposal from private company that has been put forward that I won't say anything more on the Floor of the House. I will come back to of the House.

I will come back to the Statutory Instrument that is in front of us today. Until recently, the de facto ban on onshore wind's the de facto ban on onshore wind's generation in England introduced by the party opposite Ltd the deployment of onshore wind in England. These changes to the planning legislation set an almost impossible bar to meet resulting in the pipeline of projects shrinking by over 90%, with more than 40 MW of onshore wind's generation consented becoming operational in the intervening period.

In July 2034, this government supplied those planning policy tests and committed to reintroducing onshore wind into the regime, reversing the damaging policies of the past 10 years. Placing onshore wind on the same footing as solar, offshore wind power and nuclear power stations. As such, through this instrument, onshore wind projects with a generating capacity of over 100 MW in England will be eligible to be consented under the regime. 100 MW threshold.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. It is crucial for achieving our net zero crucial for achieving our net zero commitments, and a renewable company in my constituency recently in my constituency recently struggled with really long waiting struggled with really long waiting times for an expansion of their site which has recently been approved. For my constituency this means good new jobs for people that live there. new jobs for people that live there. But also I think it exemplifies the importance of streamlining the planning process which will eventually lead to lower bills to eventually lead to lower bills to people in my constituency and around the country.

Would the Minister agree with me that this is integral to developing the jobs across the country but also would like to come and visit my constituency?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for that warm invitation. Of course I will consider a look forward to visiting the constituency at some visiting the constituency at some point in the future. She makes a very important point. The challenges that we are dealing with through that we are dealing with through reforms to the planning system and processes like this is that, for too processes like this is that, for too long, the infrastructure that is incredibly important for our energy security has been held back by delays and dither in the process.

We want to move forward much quicker. The price of courses energy security. And she rightly points out, jobs and investment for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities right across the country as well. I will give way that I need to make progress. Has talked about our energy security. What will increase it is security. What will increase it is issuing new oil and gas licences so we can do more home-grown energy. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want them as the changes policy on that? We really are stretching this debate. I'm very happy to discuss debate. I'm very happy to discuss the point. We raised this point on a the point. We raised this point on a number of occasions, the answers are with the same, it is not delivering our energy security at the moment. We have said clearly oil and gas We have said clearly oil and gas plays a crucial role in our energy mix now. It will continue to for decades to come.

But the North Sea is already in transition and the reality of the past 10 years under the party opposite was more than 70,000 jobs lost with no plan for how to deal with that, we are determined to deliver the transition and to deliver energy security which gets off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel prices. I will make progress and then come back to him. This instrument is around making sure that onshore wind projects in England, with a capacity of over 100 MW will be eligible to be consented under the regime.

It reflects advances in turbine technology over the last decade with modern turbines larger and more powerful. Reintroducing onshore wind into the regime would provide an appropriate route for nationally significant projects requiring planning consent. Local impacts can be carefully balanced against the national impact on meeting the U.K.'s wider decarbonisation goals. This will provide greater confidence for developers, and grow the pipeline of potential projects in England once again. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. He talks about national impact. I wonder what national impact. I wonder what provision he was making in these regulations for protected national landscapes? As he I'm sure will landscapes? As he I'm sure will know, some of the frankly windiest places in the UK are often some of our most beautiful. Whether it is the hills and mountains of our national parks, all the Downs of our national parks, all the Downs of our national landscape like my constituency, and many of my constituency, and many of my resident concerns that these huge turbines that we are now seeing developed are likely to be that certainly for most of our lifetimes we will lose that landscape to these new developments.

Will this system still encompass consideration of protected landscapes and make sure that it stays as it is for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future generations? Your gentleman raises an important point. As I have always said, there's a balance to be struck said, there's a balance to be struck here. We need to build nationally important infrastructure. This means that more wind in England to match that more wind in England to match the significant amount of onshore wind in Scotland over the last two years. Colluding not far from my years. Colluding not far from my constituency. But there is a balance to be struck around protecting land to be struck around protecting land as well.

Even if we build the significant number of projects, there will still be protections for there will still be protections for land in the cases that he raises. The balance allows through the planning system for those considerations to be taken into account. We already in the regime have nuclear, have solar as part of that and the ban introduced by the party opposite was not a rational decision. The Shadow Minister says it was absolute irrational. His own former minister said it was always mad.

I think we should just remember that not everybody in that party including I expect your gentleman agrees with that. Let me come to the second part of this Statutory Instrument on the question of solar. Solar has been subject to 50 MW threshold since it was originally set out in the 2008 Planning Act. Much like onshore wind, solar panel technology has seen significant advances in efficiency, enabling greater megawatts yield per site. Evidence suggests 50 MW threshold is now causing market distortion.

Under modern technology, mid-size generating stations have a generating capacity greater than 50 MW. Therefore fall within the regime. This is likely to be disproportionate to their size, scale, and impact. This has resulted in a large amount of solar projects entering the polling system and artificially capping the capacity of just below the 50 MW threshold. This leads to potentially inefficient use of sites and grid connection.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister. The approach set out today is a continuation of the ministers work continuation of the ministers work to build the clean energy of the structure this country needs. I agree that the capacity threshold agree that the capacity threshold and reintroduction of onshore wind generated stations into the generated stations into the definition of nationalist structure projects will help deliver the triple benefits of decarbonisation, triple benefits of decarbonisation, energy security, and job creation. But as the Minister knows, Cornwall is a leader in that rollout of is a leader in that rollout of onshore and solar energy.

Does he agree with me that this legislation will further opportunities for renewable energy and growth across Cornwall that would have just been ignored by the flat earth climate change deniers in the Conservative party?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable gentleman. I'm disappointed, normally when he talks about Cornwall he invites me talks about Cornwall he invites me to visit but he hasn't on this occasion. I won't take that occasion. I won't take that personally. My honourable friend has done a fantastic job since being elected to this place in delivering jobs to his community on this clean jobs to his community on this clean power mission. Most recently looking at raw materials and we have made at raw materials and we have made great progress on that.

He is right of course that that scepticism from of course that that scepticism from the party opposite for a policy that they used to support so wholeheartedly, and one that has delivered economic growth right across the country, is one that they have now turned their face against. Whether that is flat earth or not I don't know. Your gentleman, the Shadow Minister, I'm sure will regale us with list of his commitments in the space. But what is very clear is that the drive to net zero is delivering industrial opportunities, jobs, manufacturing, investment in communities that have suffered for so long and economic decline.

As well as delivering on our climate ambitions and on energy security. It is the right path for us to be on. Turning back to solar, raising the threshold to 100 MW for solar will ensure that mid-sized projects have access to a more proportionate planning reveal the planning authorities should incentivise those projects that would otherwise have Capacity to Develop Two or More Optimum and Efficient Scale.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We Talk about the threshold, is the Minister aware of what the the Minister aware of what the average size of projects approved by this government since July is? And why is it the threshold has been why is it the threshold has been kept artificially low and not raised significantly higher? Otherwise we will see huge numbers of small projects but being classified rather projects but being classified rather than the larger projects.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than the larger projects. I note your gentleman had asked me a number of written questions on this particular topic to try and get to the heart of the question was he is now testing your number that I think we provided one of those written questions. Since it is not at the tip of my tongue at the moment I will write to him on the answer. On the general point I accept what you think. Part of this is trying to get to a more rational point where we don't have projects limiting themselves artificially to a level based on this particular figure but coming up with 100 MW, and I will come onto the point on why we set the level there.

We think it is the balance at the moment for those larger projects that can deliver the outcomes that we want in the energy system, but keeping a limit on those for the Town and Country Planning Act, for those projects coming into the national plan process. We think the balance is right. We will continue to look of course. He is raising important points in written questions I'm happy to discuss with him in more detail. This government is also mindful that mid and large scale solar and onshore wind projects that might be preparing at the moment you enter the polling system have already invested and undertaken apparently steps with the expectation of entering a particular planning regime.

And therefore changing the criteria at short notice can result in projects entering a different regime from the one that they expected to. This could of course potentially induce costs for developers and cause delays. Therefore there are also transitional periods for onshore wind and solar projects that are already in the planning process when this order comes into force. The provisions will ensure that projects already progressing under one regime will not be required to move into a different regime. In conclusion, through consultation we sought views and supporting evidence and reintroducing onshore wind into the regime.

And we received a range of responses on this question from different groups of people will stop most respondents agreed with our approach, the majority agreed with the 100 MW threshold. And while we initially consulted on the idea of a higher threshold of 150 MW, based on the analysis of the consultation responses, we have concluded that 100 MW threshold would be more This is an important step in delivering our mission supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar and establishing the UK as a clean energy superpower.

It supports all of the work we are doing on delivering an effective planning system that ensures applications are processed effectively through an appropriate regime and avoids the effects on deployment. These measures ultimately aim to support our future resilience alongside the 2030 goals and wider decarbonisation targets and I commend them to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house. The question is on the order
15:46
Andrew Bowie Portrait Andrew Bowie MP (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

paper. In just four short weeks, people across England will be going to the polls to determine the future of polls to determine the future of their local communities. At this very same time, the Labour Party is seeking to impose on those same seeking to impose on those same complainant is vast energy complainant is vast energy structures. Blade heights of 200 m destroying swathes of England Greenham Pleasant land, going against the wishes of those local people. As ever, only the Tory party are standing up those communities and only the Conservative party believes that people in those communities should have a say over their local area.

Labour would silence those communities, choosing silence those communities, choosing to impose than to seek consent, and in four weeks time, voters across this country will have that choice before them. The order that we debate bypasses the consent of local communities and empowers zealotry of the Secretary of State to impose infrastructure irrespective of the concerns of local people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my neighbour for giving way, and in my constituency, the hills are subject currently to planning applications for new onshore wind farms, and they are onshore wind farms, and they are concerned that they will get a new pop-up infrastructure next to it. pop-up infrastructure next to it. One project leads to another. It overtakes local communities and overtakes local communities and means that local landscapes change. Does this mean they can't be looking at a holistic impact on individual

**** Possible New Speaker ****

schemes. Seeing around us the huge increase in energy and infrastructure plans for rural infrastructure plans for rural communities over the next few years, communities over the next few years, it is quite daunting, given pylons, it is quite daunting, given pylons, energy substations, battery storage facilities, all of which are in the facilities, all of which are in the pipeline for our communities, and pipeline for our communities, and that is why there is such a pushback there, but also, why there is such concern around communities who will be affected by this change in England which is why we are imposing this this afternoon.

In the first week in office, we approved three windfarms against the wishes of the local communities. Today, he seeks to go further still and increasing the threshold for solar, he pressures for development of giant solar farms to be eligible. Currently, the largest is 72 MW. This is a free for all for a giant scale solar, and this is what brings onshore wind to capacity into the end scope. In Lancashire, this means that it is part to approve.

9 mi planned for Yorkshire and will be built on farmland. In Lincolnshire, it is prime agricultural land. This means potential onslaught of proposals despite the county council's opposition to large-scale plans. I know how much it means to local communities as has been pointed out. I represent a constituency which is being subjected to vast swathes of energy infrastructure, whole host of new plans seeking approval over the next few years which will change indelibly the landscape that people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are proud to live in. Does he agree that rather than making it easier for large-scale making it easier for large-scale onshore wind applications, the government should be focusing on government should be focusing on fabric first and reducing demand rather than the disruption of our countryside?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

countryside? I would be keen to see what the government is proposing on that front. The plans that they have a front. The plans that they have a stripping away the rights of local communities which is doing great damage to communities across the country and frankly, a shocking disregard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the shadow minister is so confident about the Conservative confident about the Conservative party policy, which he'd be able to come back to the house after 1 May and just see how the Conservatives

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have formed those local elections? I would be delighted to come back

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would be delighted to come back to compare notes to the respective parties and how they perform the parties and how they perform the choice before the people of England who will be going to the polls on 1 May is quite clear. You get better May is quite clear. You get better services and better value for money, as is being demonstrated right now and the comparison between Birmingham and Bromsgrove. They could not be a better indication of local delivery and Labour Party failure.

That is what is on the ballot paper and I will debate with him the arguments around that any day of the week. The Labour Party have made no secret of their plans to double onshore wind and treble solar, achieved by empowering themselves while this in franchising local communities. In Lincolnshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire, the party opposite a silencing local opposition. They risk alienating the public in their costly rash to a renewables-based system without consultation and with no consent. The race to clean power 2030 is at the expense of all else and the expense of energy security, our national security, and our standards on ethical supply chains.

Just last week, in this very house, the party opposite whipped their MPs to vote in favour of allowing great British energy to invest in supply chains despite evidence of modern slavery. The Labour Party. The week before the Secretary of State was club rating with the People's Republic of China, sacrificing our national security and tacitly omitting that his wrongheaded targets are unachievable without imports made with coal power. Perhaps they received advice on how to achieve community consent from presidents using ping.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the honourable gentleman and I understand that this particular sector is out of fashion with the government, but one of the with the government, but one of the other sacrifices is to be Scotland and England's Ruck population who often suffer from high density windfarms and are effectively minced as they are flying through the air, as they are flying through the air, certainly elsewhere, we see early deaths, particular birds of prey. deaths, particular birds of prey. Wouldn't it be better to put time and investment into low orbit solar where the UK along with Japan leads

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the world? I right honourable friends expertise in birdlife in general, it sounds like an entirely sensible suggestion and I very much hope that the Minister was taking note and will take that suggestion back to serve. The gentleman has told us that onshore renewable infrastructure can unlock lower bills or is the cheapest energy source, but that is not the case. We have the second highest renewables in Europe, yet they are among the highest in Europe, and we know from the OBR that they are subsidising renewables which will increase from 12 billion that they are subsidising £12 billion-£19 billion by 2030.

That is the true cost of their rash to net-zero. We are very proud of what we achieved in government, generating power the Great Britain and halving our emissions whilst growing the economy faster than any other developed economy. But they need to be honest with the British people about the cost of their arbitrary targets. We make no attempt to account for the whole systems cost associated with the system. The right honourable gentlemen cancelled the analysis commission by his predecessor.

He does not want to know how much it costs and it is clear that they do not want to know. It is wilful ignorance driven by ideology. Yesterday, we saw the price go up and bills go up on the side of the house. We stand with communities. We seek to empower local people and seek to understand concerns. We oppose this today which enables the Secretary of State to continue riding roughshod over local communities in vain pursuit of their own legacy.

Will the honourable gentleman recommissioned the whole systems cost analysis which has government scrapped on day one and look at facts? Can he tell us the cost of running the Gaspar powerstation fleet for 5% of power in addition to the rising curtailment cost paid to turn off growing costs of wind turbines. Can the package be significantly lower than that was lowered the previous government, can I ask what his message is for the residents of Lincolnshire, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire and elsewhere as they make their decisions on 1 May.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have formal speeches. I will now announce the result of today's now announce the result of today's deferred divisions. On the draft eco-design for energy-related eco-design for energy-related products of energy information amendments, Northern Ireland amendments, Northern Ireland regulations 2025. The eyes were 349, the nose were 14, so the eyes have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. Can I thank the Minister for expediting this important legislation to transform the energy
15:57
Cat Eccles Portrait Cat Eccles MP (Stourbridge, Labour)
-
-
landscape in the UK? I have long campaigned for renewable measures to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and produce power of our own. The UK significant suffered due to the ongoing war between Russia and the ongoing war between Russia and the Ukraine, and the party opposite did nothing by abandoning much of the companies energy storage relying on companies energy storage relying on fossil fuels are not taking energy fossil fuels are not taking energy of security safely for some they compounded the system by scrapping the net-zero targets and championing the net-zero targets and championing dirty polluting gas and oil.

Last year, the UK hit a historic milestone with 42% of energy coming from renewable sources. 31% of that generated by wind power and as energy bills rise yet again, it is energy bills rise yet again, it is clear that the shackles you keep the light on. British people simple cannot afford the status quo to continue both financially and environmentally. I am proud that this government is leading the way by setting up great British energy to give us energy independence, security and longevity, but this needs to be backed up planning infrastructure changes that support our aims, and I understand the concerns that our countryside and agricultural land can be at risk from development of renewable power sources and upgrading the grid, but I am confident that this government will ensure infrastructures are always in the right place and in the right way.

However, creating this infrastructure is not the end of the story, and due to the lack of energy storage and capacity, around 8.3 TW hours, about 10% of wind power is hours, about 10% of wind power is effectively lost, and even then the National Grid is working at speed to upgrade the networks to ensure that not a single what our is lost, we need to do more. Two years ago, my husband and I upgraded our own home by retrofitting and installing solar panels and fully insulative externally but we quickly realise that the battery was not big enough to store the energy we were producing, and despite being able to sell some of that back to the grid, it would be best to be able to store more of it for a snowy day and scale that up and it is the same situation for the whole country and we need to harness that additional energy to help reduce the need for fossil fuels.

I hope this change will also filter down into the housebuilding industry. It has long been a bugbear of mine that developers are currently only required to install an electric vehicle charging point on newbuild homes. We need to mandate solar panels in every room, cover insulation so that he does not escape through the walls and ensure himself fit for the future, and may I also say that we take the opportunity to welcome the fund made available by West Midlands Mayor to help small businesses make the transition to renewable energy.

SMEs have been hit hard by energy price rises with unpacked tariffs causing bills to spiral to unsustainable levels, and we need energy's to make bills affordable for residents and businesses alike and breaking down the barriers to tackling climate change in the energy crisis will help not targets for energy storage and grid reinforcement but we must move at pace to match the growth of Streamlining in energy production and storage will help us transition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to a low cost clean power grid by 2030. Liberal Democrats Spokesperson.
16:00
Pippa Heylings Portrait Pippa Heylings MP (South Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrats Spokesperson. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. We are living in the shadow of the former Conservative government's failure to invest in renewable energy and insulate our homes. Failures that have contributed directly to an energy crisis that has left households struggling with bills, and businesses facing crippling costs. The majority of people polled in this country wants to see more action on climate change, and to save our planet, not less. Liberal Democrats are unwavering trappings of renewable energy and now more than ever we need to strengthen our homegrown energy security and stop our energy security and stop our dependency on despots like Putin.

We therefore welcome the lifting of the effective moratorium on onshore wind, something we have long called for. This is an extremely shortsighted and irresponsible conservative policy. The planning changes they made in 2015 and 2016 introduced a de facto ban in England resulting in a loss to our manufacturing and local economies. The project pipeline for onshore wind shrinking by over 90%, with less than 40 MW consented becoming operational in that intervening

**** Possible New Speaker ****

period. I thank her for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way. Something important for the rollout of onshore and offshore with is the supply chain. The supply chain that supply chain. The supply chain that we have at the moment in the oil and gas sector will be crucial to its rollout. That is been cut away by rollout. That is been cut away by the rush to end our use of oil and gas from the North Sea. Does agree that observing that supply chain by that observing that supply chain by making sure that we have a managed transition from naughty oil and gas is vital to any sort of rollout of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is vital to any sort of rollout of onshore onshore wind? I thank the member for raising that point. We are critically supportive of a just transition in the North Sea, and what our progress is towards moving off fossil fuels. That is alongside and parallel to what must be our increase in renewable energy. So it is right to reintroduce onshore wind into the nationalist regime. Ensuring there is a level playing field with other generating technologies such as solar, onshore wind, and nuclear, that are already assessed under that regime.

This motion also raises the threshold for solar projects deemed nationally significant from 50 MW up to 100 MW. In one way this increased threshold will help to prevent poor land use, given that the previous threshold incentivise developers to putting a cap that was artificial at 49.9 MW. That led to 40% of the proposals coming in at that level. An increase in the threshold, keeping these local planning decisions also means that biodiversity net gain will be a priority of solar farms.

Ensuring that where they are approved they are nature friendly. It is that giving local voices a greater say up to 100 MW in determining the location and suitability of these large-scale solar projects that is important. However, local decision- making about large-scale solar cannot happen in a vacuum. We need that's joined up approach that balances the need for food security, energy infrastructure, new homes, and nature recovery. That is why we welcome the government's launch of consultations on both land use framework and the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan's which should, together, determine the most strategic energy mix.

How much solar we need, what scale, where best to locate across the country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like me, she is a Cambridgeshire

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like me, she is a Cambridgeshire MP. Cambridge has seen one of the largest solar farms in the country largest solar farms in the country of 2400 acres approved. We have another project in my constituency and others that are in the planning and others that are in the planning process. She agreed that residents in Cambridge should not have to bear in Cambridge should not have to bear the brunt from taking as many of these projects? I know she is a staunch advocate of the move to solar but likely, would she stand up solar but likely, would she stand up for resident someone is looking to build a nationally significant in for such a project about scale constituency?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend. This is exactly the point I am making which is, talking with my constituents, particularly around constituents, particularly around the commercial new large-scale solar farm, the Kingsway solar farm in my farm, the Kingsway solar farm in my constituency. What we need is both land use framework and Strategic land use framework and Strategic Spatial Energy Plan that tells us, informs local planning decision- informs local planning decision- making what scale of solar we need across the whole country, it is best located, where it can fit in and located, where it can fit in and feed into, and what the energy mix is.

And that makes the balance between food security, energy infrastructure, homes, and nature recovery. Equally, we need to see genuinely significant community benefit schemes applied to these large-scale generation schemes. Similar community benefit approach applied in Scotland. We want to ensure all nationally significant infra structure projects and major energy generation infrastructure, not just transition, provide minimum levels of community benefit, investing into community benefit funds determined by the local community most affected. We need to take amenities with us and ensure that they are part of the energy transition that is done with them not to them.

However, we have deep reservations about the government's approach overall to that nationally to programs in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. This appears to be a power grab stripping away local voice letting developers off the hook for the impact on nature and wildlife. Nature is not a blocker. It is an enabler of good growth and well-being. Whilst we climate proof our energy system, we also need to ensure that nature is part of future proofing our economy. We will always speak up for a climate and nature combined approach.

Therefore while combined approach. Therefore while we are supportive of the motions and ambition to streamline planning for major projects like onshore wind, we register our concern about the government's broader changes to the emphasis on planning. Including the exemption of Category 3 persons from compulsory purchase consultations. And the implementation of several Henry VIII clauses which had sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and undermine local government. It is entirely possible to accelerate renewable energy, to uphold community voice in planning decisions was protecting nature.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is what we need to see. Thank you. Thank you. I thank the Minister
16:07
Elaine Stewart Portrait Elaine Stewart MP (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I thank the Minister for explaining why this motion is so important and how it will unblock the system and unlock potential. The the system and unlock potential. The move to cleaner home-grown energy demands a delivery of critical infrastructure. The current planning system is holding that back. The home-grown energy we will not have to work worry about energy prices in the UK we will need structure to deliver that. There will always be a degree of opposition to the developing of windfarms, that is democracy.

It is how you respond to local concerns that make a difference. Having your head in the sand at the opposition benches chose to do for 14 years is simply not an option. It is important to share some of the experiences of my constituency which, with respect to windfarms. It is important to be clear about Scotland being a different place with windfarms full falling under the national framework. I want to share two lessons. People right across the country understand the natural benefits of infrastructure, and this motion will unblock them.

The local employment opportunities in construction and maintenance, a boost to the local economy and increase in local spending and a legacy of endless clean energy. However the experience in my area that the national benefits should be talked up the community benefits. Lesson one is the need for committee benefits that will adopt a fair and transparent model. The community benefit to my constituency across the area. They embody a collaborative committee approach to windfarms. This must be the way forward for the country.

Lesson two, consider the impact of building this crucial infrastructure and other crucial infrastructures. By the very nature, windfarms are often in rural areas where transport links are already under resource. In rural areas people use roads to go to work, shop, and for basic living. Building windfarms is a great boost to the economy but it can take its toll on roads. This means we need to do more to support and invest in maintaining good roads to the community. These lessons are about taking people with us when it comes to that transition to green energy.

Stories about making the move to coalfields, to clean fields must be replicated but we need to make sure our communities are on side with the process.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I would like to reiterate my opposition to the measures this opposition to the measures this government wishes to impose full stop the slew of nationally significant in projects approved by this government since last July is the vanguard of many. In Huntington
16:10
Ben Obese-Jecty Portrait Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)
-
-
the vanguard of many. In Huntington the solar farm is set to be bigger than Gatwick Airport spanning 6 miles. Nearly 75% of the Agricultural Land (Planning) Bill is graded as best and most versatile. Energy Minister has previously stated to me that no nationally significant projects will be consented of this nature, this government's track record of ideological zealotry says there is no upper limit on the quality of agricultural and they are willing to develop on. And last week the padding and infrastructure Bill deputy promised and said she would detect a high-quality infrastructure land.

I'd be interested if the government how they plan to do that given their track record. I regularly speak to constituents, and the sexual state has seen the concerns.It is willing to move the goalposts to achieve their aims. It is my constituents paying the price. There's been no firm commitments to cheap energy bills or a firm commitment to ensuring funds are used to compensate communities. The planning and infra structure built removes the requirement of Category 3 people who would be able to make a claim under the compulsory purchase 65.

This will only be taken at the acceptance stage. The villages so far have had a petition of over 11,000 signatures. The only way residents can make their voices heard. I would urge the government to listen to these people and thousands of others from across the rural heartlands. Government takes pride in announcing that the solar threshold is been raised to 100 MW. The average megawatts of solar farm application in 2010 was 3.8 MW. Since this government came to power it is 488 MW.

By keeping the threshold artificially low, this government opens the door to huge numbers of solar farms getting in by the back door and I would welcome a review of the threshold to a much higher level given the scale that we are seeing for current nationally significant infra structure projects. I asked the Minister about the quality of solar panels and the fact they will increasingly create more energy going forward. We must also look at where the panels will be sourced. Energy Minister has previously indicated the government is determined to eradicate forced labour in global supply chains including in the Manufacturing of solar panels.

Yet the government whipped the benches opposite against a Conservative motion to prevent the buying of solar panels when there's evidence of modern slavery. The government is more interested in securing critical points than they are dealing with forced labour. This government has repeatedly devastated head to ride roughshod over the interests of people in pursuit of its goals. It intends to force through tens of thousands of solar panels much of which is on our versatile land while they make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

changes to national policy statement and keeping the threshold artificially low. It shows the contempt they have. I'm very grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the honourable gentleman. As one of the contempt that has been shown to contempt that has been shown to local communities and consultation, I wonder if he laments the lack of imagination that is taking place. imagination that is taking place. There are plenty of places where solar farms will be welcomed, for solar farms will be welcomed, for example motorway and railway embankment that could easily be delineated, in a way that won't delineated, in a way that won't necessarily impact on our landscape.

But the continuing lack of any compulsion for the inclusion of solar on warehouse roofs. You could probably create the same amount of power as his constituency is likely to create by putting solar panels on the roof of every warehouse in the west of London. Again and again we are not imaginative.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable friend makes an excellent point. I would wholeheartedly agree. The government wholeheartedly agree. The government of the sea has a target of building 1.5 million, sorry, downgraded, 1.3 million new homes. It would be sensible for them to have some sort sensible for them to have some sort of legislation saying they have solar panels on the roof. I would urge the Minister to ask what urge the Minister to ask what assessment has been done as to the full scale of how much energy can be generated instead of building solar generated instead of building solar farms on our best rural land.

farms on our best rural land.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member. Would he support the Private Members' Bill of my colleague your member from my colleague your member from Cheltenham which he aptly names the Sunshine Bill which would mandate for new homes to have solar panels on their roofs?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on their roofs? I believe it will go to a vote. That is it. That is it.
16:15
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is it. With the leave of the house, I won't detain the house. I know we are keen to progress through the Order Paper. I want to thank members for their contributions in this debate. A wide-ranging debate. And set out what the motion before us actually does, which is around lifting the nonsensical ban on onshore wind in England that the party opposite drove through and held back so much development for energy security and economic opportunities across the country.

We are lifting that today, and to come to a rational position on solar and the planning system and to respond briefly to some of the points on nature and other things, I thought the honourable lady but it particularly well when the public want us to take action in the party opposite might want to pretend that doesn't exist any more but it does, and the greatest threat to nature in this country is climate change, and we will tackle that, but in doing so, we will deliver energy security, so to the shadow ministers point, people will have a choice of a party opposite that still has not owned up to any of the mistakes made.

A party that is moving forward to deliver economic growth or one that would rather hold us back and keep us locked into the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuels, and today's vote is a chance for us to demonstrate that we want that opportunity. We want to deliver the energy security and the leadership

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I urge all members on all sides of the house to support us today. The question is on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is on the Order Paper. As many of that opinion, say
16:29
16:31
None Portrait Motion: Motion to approve the Draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the draft motor vehicles driving licence Amendment
16:31
Mike Kane Portrait Motion: Motion to approve the Draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025 Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
-
regulations number 2025 which was laid before the house on 14 March be approved. These draft regulations aim to support transitions to zero emission, to reduce the regulatory burden on business, to drive economic growth on our journey to becoming a clean energy superpower. Businesses, families are choosing to make the switch to cleaner greener vehicles that are cheaper to run, and reduce noise and air pollution on our streets. The UK was the largest electric car market in Europe in 2024 full stop so far this year demand is up 42% according to industry figures.

However, zero emissions can be heavier than equivalent petrol and diesel vehicles. Because of the weight of their battery or power tray. This can push them to hire driving licence categories than their petrol or diesel equivalent. Regulations to partially solve this problem were passed in 2018 allowing category B licence holders to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles weighing up to 4.25 tons if they fulfil additional requirements. These requirements include five hours of additional training, with an accredited instructor, only driving for the purpose of transporting goods, and no ability to toe.

But with the rapid growth of zero emissions technologies in 2018, existing regulations represent an unnecessary barrier to switching to zero emission. The cost of the training and of taking drivers off the road to complete the training can be prohibited, and time- consuming for business. This instrument will therefore enable holders of a standard category B licence to drive a fully electric or hydrogen powered vehicle up to a maximum weight of 4.25 tons without these additional requirements.

Category B licence holders can also usually drive minibuses weighing up to 3.5 tons, provided they fulfil additional requirements including that the driver must be over the age of 21, the SI applies the same additional requirements to zero emission any buses weighing up to 4.25 tons. These regulations would also allow zero emission up to 4.25 tons to tow a trailer in line with rules currently in place for petrol and diesel counterparts. Provided that the total combined vehicle and trailer weight does not exceed seven tons.

It is of great importance that people with disabilities can access this driving licence flexibility in an equitable manner. To ensure that disabled people are not excluded from the benefits this SI allows, and eligible zero emission vehicle may weigh up to five times if fitted with specialist equipment, and the carriage of disabled passengers. This additional weight allowance also applies to minibuses. The fuel tanks in the scope... I'm happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. Could he elaborate on the type way. Could he elaborate on the type of changes to vehicles that would be of changes to vehicles that would be covered by the provision for additional weight for disabled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

users? This applies to electric vehicles

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This applies to electric vehicles not to gas or synthetically fuelled vehicles. I thank you for this vehicles. I thank you for this intervention. Fuel types in scope these regulations will now be zero emission vehicles rather than alternatively fuelled. The only vehicles not covered by these regulations that were scope of the old R gas powered vehicles, of which the government estimates there are fewer than 30 on the roads today. The technology does not require an additional weight allowance.

A public consultation on these proposals was held in 2022, receiving 89 responses largely in support of the changes. Some concerns were raised on safety. Following a detailed analysis, the government is confident that these regulations pose an extremely low risk to road safety. In total across the years from 2020 until 2023, there were nine collisions involving these vehicles. Six of which were minor collisions. However, we will be closely monitoring data as it becomes available to protect the safety of all road users.

In the unlikely event that a concerning trend emerges, swift action will be taken to protect the public. The department will be publishing detailed safety guidance which we are working with industry to disseminate. In closing, these regulations are a common sense measure to equalise driving licence rules between zero emission and their petrol and diesel counterparts. I commend this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statutory instruments to the house. The question is as on the Order Paper. Shadow Minister Greg Smith.
16:37
Greg Smith Portrait Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper. Shadow Minister Greg Smith. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Can I draw the attention of the Can I draw the attention of the house to my entry in the Register of Interests, in particular in relation to the use of synthetic fuel donated to my summer surgery tour last August. Unlike other pieces of Parliamentary business I have recently been involved with, my concerns about this particular Statutory Instrument are narrow. This means to the relief of members across the house I have no doubt, my remarks will be brief.

I have never had such a big cheer. First of all, I want to thank the government for bringing forward within this some sensible reforms which would increase the regulatory burden and provide more flexibility to category B licence holders. Many of those are sensible steps that were widely supported in response to the consultation during the last Parliament. However, it is unfortunate that the government's so-called Plan for Change did not involve scrapping limitations featured in this Statutory Instrument. Whilst unsurprising, limiting the scope of eligible vehicles from alternatively fuelled vehicles to simply zero emission is a mistake that cannot be ignored.

As we transition to new technologies, we as a country must be less prescriptive. Too often, governments want to tell industry and innovators what to do. I'm afraid that the restrictive nature of this measure will risk only hampering our attempts to reduce emissions as a country. Let me be clear, my concerns today are not a judgement on whether the government is right or wrong in its suggestion that which type of vehicle will be most affected. Rather, limiting the scope to a smaller subset of non-petrol

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and diesel fuels is far too narrow. I am very grateful. Does he share my concern that this could prove a serious detriment to the U.K.'s synthetic biology research unit, synthetic biology research unit, where there is a significant effort going into the creation effectively going into the creation effectively of engineered bugs that can turn renewable such as sugarcane into renewable such as sugarcane into combustible fuel for internal- combustion engines? It would therefore represent a completely therefore represent a completely renewable source of energy within a circular, that would be carbon circular, that would be carbon

**** Possible New Speaker ****

neutral it for its entire lifespan. This is the point I have been making for many years, certainly on my time at the Transport Select Committee in the previous parliament and outside of this place as I have engaged with the classic car sector. As I have engaged with all parts of industry. My right honourable friend industry. My right honourable friend is right that there is a good is right that there is a good innovative drive for renewables, for sustainable fuels if I call it such, some of which derive from some of which derive from feedstocks, others derive from waste matter which to work in the internal-combustion engines that we already have, jet engines as well as motor vehicle engines.

And there is also entirely man-made synthetic fuels that require no such food stocks that do not require food to be grown in order to be burnt. There are innovators in this country as well on that, it is all over the world. Zero petroleum just next door to my constituency just over the Oxfordshire border, they have developed fuel that works in every jet engine, every internal- combustion engines that we enjoy today. That is entirely man-made. Literally air and water, a mixture of green hydrogen with atmospheric carbon capture.

But of course the approach the government is taking in this Statutory Instrument we debate this afternoon rules that technology out of order because of course there is still carbon at tailpipe. The regulations ignore that the carbon tailpipe is the same volume of carbon that is recaptured out of the atmosphere in order to make the next lot of fuel. So a whole system analysis in fact shows that technology to be carbon neutral. One volume of carbon in a perpetual circle.

But the government throughout every step it is taking the matter how much ministers and government as a whole claim to be technologically neutral, the test at tailpipe and in this Statutory Instrument referring to zero emission rather than alternatively fuelled vehicles does in fact pick a technological window rather than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

letting innovators innovate. Quite interesting hearing about his knowledge and experience alternative fuels. I understood this instrument was about the weight of instrument was about the weight of vehicles, and alternative fuels going to the combustion engine does not really result in additional not really result in additional weight. Are any of the technologies being described going to fall foul

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being described going to fall foul of what has been proposed? I am grateful to the Dutchman. He is right that this is fundamentally is right that this is fundamentally about weight. And certainly on the points that my right honourable friend Jimmy on a moment ago. I really need asking twice the number of years I have spent talking about that. Some alternative fuels systems, hydrogen for example, where the fuel tanks themselves have to be so much more robust, the hydrogen certainly in a hydrogen combustion vehicle which they are currently very few.

It is only as far as I know JCB you have developed that technology that could have an application in the future. The hydrogen runs at something like 700 bar in the fuel tank. So you would not put it in a fuel tank in an existing car that simply could not take that pressure. There would be weight implications to a system such as that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is interesting sitting here to hear the expertise of colleagues in hear the expertise of colleagues in areas you did not know they had. I areas you did not know they had. I wish to draw him to a slightly different subject, the money was beginning to touch on and it is beginning to touch on and it is this, electric vehicles of course with batteries tend to be far with batteries tend to be far heavier on an equivalent vehicle to an internal can vehicle.

So in some of the vehicle compilations he was talking about not exceeding seven tons, it would be different if the car or van was an electric vehicle and would therefore perhaps mitigate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

someone wishing to change from an internal can vehicle to an electric vehicle. My right honourable friend makes a very accurate point in his a very accurate point in his contribution. In some ways this SI contribution. In some ways this SI is seeking to address that actual point. Whether he is right that when real people out there the country real people out there the country are making choices over their vehicles, they will make very practical decisions such as that which my right honourable friend has which my right honourable friend has just outlined rather than looking at some of the other things the government from time to time wishes they were thinking about.

So to make they were thinking about. So to make 25% of response, which is only 1/4, but they favoured retaining alternatively fuelled vehicles on the basis of the extra flexibility offered by the current alternative fuels definition, particularly for hard to transition use faces. While this is a small subset, we risk the capability of technologies to close down the possibility of innovation. There may be occasions where the list would be beneficial to those alternative fuels, however, without flexibility, we will not know the answer.

Those 25% will have to maintain the status quo. However, we believe we must at the technology to decide to make sure those hard to use cases are not abandoned. For those who may not be aware, the government has already withdrawn this to correct a drafting error. All we are asking the opposition is for them to do exactly the same, amends the error and allow the reductions in regulation without the restrictions of alternative fuels. That is not only the right approach but a fair one.
16:46
16:47
16:49
Mike Kane Portrait Mike Kane MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
-
-
I would like to thank honourable members for consideration of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order. I am sure the Minister to say the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leader of. To forgive me. I would like to thank honourable members for their consideration of this and I will respond briefly to the points respond briefly to the points raised. The honourable member said he got a cheer, and then he went on he got a cheer, and then he went on to his favourite subject of synthetically fuelled cars. We know synthetically fuelled cars. We know he has one. I think Churchill famously said from this despatch boxes a fanatic is someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject.

I will say that gently. In answer to his question, I really am being gentle. The support of the transition is designed to account for additional weight of heavy batteries presented in fully electric vehicles, and some implementations of hydrogen fuel technologies. These are done by natural gas and I get what he is saying about the life cycle of the car, but not subjected to the standard Category B licence requirements, meaning that they can be driven up to 3.5 tons.

There are currently fewer than 30 of these vehicles on the road. Each synthetic fuel, which I know is his area of expertise and interest are not disadvantaged by the standard Category B requirements which apply to petrol and diesel vehicles, and therefore not included in this essay. On the point of other fuel types, synthetic fuels, they are already treated no differently in the driving licence regulation to petrol or decent diesel counterparts, and they do not require the additional weight to achieve payload parity.

This instrument seeks only to bring zero emissions to the same parity, and that is what this does. To the member of Raleigh and which fit, I am not sure about the issue of the driving licence. But I undertake to write to him to do that, some enclosing this instrument, while technical in nature, it represents a commonsense step to support industry to make the switch to 0 emissions to decarbonise our road transport as we make progress to net zero.

Transport costs for business reduces greenhouse gas emissions and further accelerates progress to clean energy superpowers that we hope to be. I trust that this house has found this debate informative and will join me in supporting this legislation, and I commend this order to the house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me. The question is is on the Order Paper. As many of that opinion, say Paper. As many of that opinion, say I of the contrary know. Division!
16:52
17:05
Nicholas Dakin Portrait Motion: Motion to approve the Draft Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025 Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
-
Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the committee has considered the draft Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025. This draft instrument amend the fixed tariff for whiplash compensation sent by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 by applying an inflationary uplift. This gives effect to recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor on 21 November 2024 following the completion of her statutory review of the 2021 regulations. By adjusting the whiplash tariff values to account for inflation, the government will make sure that claimants can continue to receive a portion at compensation until the next review in 2027.

The whiplash reform program change the way claimants are awarded damages for low damage whiplash injuries following a road traffic accident. The aim of the reforms was to ensure an efficient proportionate reliable system for both claimants reliable system for both claimants and defendants and claims. They caught the measures aim to reduce the cost of whiplash injuries and deliver savings to consumers via savings on insurance premiums. Elements of the reform program were delivered via the civil liability act 2018 which introduced several important changes to the civil claims process.

Alongside measures that introduced a legal definition of what constitutes a whiplash into and settling claims without medical evidence, the 2018 act empowers the Lord Chancellor to set a fixed tariff for damages for injuries lasting up to two years. 2018 act measures was supported by additional secondary legislative changes to increase the small claims track for road traffic -related personal injury claims from £1000 up to £5000. And the introduction of new pre-action protocol for personal injury claims below the small claims limit in road traffic accident.

At the same time the insurance industry developed an interim portal launched to help claimants affected by the reforms. It was first set by the whiplash relations 2021 came into force on 31 May came into force on 31 May 2021. The 2018 act requires Lord Chancellor to review the 2021 regulations and thereby the tariff within its regulations. And thereafter. In forethought of the statutory obligation, the first view of the whiplash tariff was completed on 22nd of May whiplash tariff was completed on 22nd of May 2024.

The Lord Chancellor published a report of the statutory review of 21 November of the statutory review of 21 November 2024. Upon reviewing that 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor concluded that structure and component part of the whiplash tariff were effective. However, she recommended that the tariff amounts to be operated to account for CPR and inflation between 2021 and 2024. To incorporate a three-year buffer to account for expected inflation until 2027. She did not consider that any other changes to the 2031 regulations were necessary.

In reaching her conclusions, the Lord Chancellor took into consideration relevant industry and courts data as well as information from the Ministry of Justice calls for evident which ran from 6 February until 2 April 2024. In accordance with the review the Statutory Instrument increases the whiplash tariff damage values and, subject to approval by both houses, the new tariff will apply to all road traffic accident related personal injury claims in England and Wales from 31st of May from 31st of May 2025.

I believe the house would find it helpful if I provided some initial explanation of the increase that will be applied to the whiplash tariff. By way of background I can say that whiplash tariff operates via a rising scale of fixed compensation payments determined by injury, duration, up to a maximum of two years. Payments the original whiplash tariff set in 2031 ranged from £240 for whiplash injuries lasting three months or less to £4215 for whiplash injuries lasting between 18 months and 24 months.

There is a separate higher tariff for cases where any minor psychological injury such as low- level travel anxiety is incurred at the same time as the whiplash and. Claims for whiplash injuries which lasts longer than two is fall outside the fixed tariff. The tariff was first implement in 2021, the amounts were set to include a three-year buffer. The buffer was designed to account for expected inflation according to the available forecasts at that time. To ensure claimants were not under compensated in the years between the tariff implementation and the first statutory review.

In reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor recognise the impact of inflation on the whiplash tariff amounts, noting that inflation over the first three year period ran at a higher than expected rates. As most respondents to the 2024 Call for Evidence have noted, the real value of the tariff had fallen. In light of this, she concluded tariff should be operated by actual inflation between 2021 and 2024. And should again include a buffer to account for the expected inflation until the next review in 2027.

Therefore the whiplash tariff will be increased by around 15% for claims arising from road traffic accident occurring on or after 31 May 31 May 2025. As I have already mentioned this increase has been calculate it using the consumer price index, inflationary measure. After careful consideration of the available data in evidence, Lord Chancellor determines that CPI remains the most appropriate measure for operating the tariff amounts by inflation. In contrast you considered that the alternative retail prices index measure, if applied, would likely overstate inflation.

It is worth noting that the use of CPI is in line with common practice across government as recommended by the Office for National Statistics. Accounting for inflation, the Lord Chancellor also decided the whiplash tariff should continue to be future proofed by applying a CPI rounding over three years from 2024 until 2027. This approach is consistent with the methods used to protect claimants from additional inflationary impacts when the first whiplash tariff set in 2021. While this three-year buffer could lead to some overcompensation in the short-term, not implement it would allow the real value of claimants damages to decrease and risk significant under compensation in the long term.

Therefore this buffer protects access to justice and minimise the risk of claimants were under compensated in the years leading up to 2027. I would like to acknowledge that some respondents to the Call for Evidence to express concerns that the buffer would artificially increase the amount of compensation available, and potentially undermine cost savings. The difference in the tariff levels when using the buffer is not substantial enough to significantly impact on the savings. The tariff amounts are only being adjusted to account for inflation, and as such, it is our view that this does not represent a real terms increase in claim values.

Conversely I'm also aware that other stakeholders suggested that the whiplash tariff should either be subject to manual review or index linked to inflation, to ensure annual increases. As the Lord Chancellor made it clear in her report, these arguments are not compelling. The three-year review period is anticipated by the 2018 act strikes the right balance between adequately compensating claimants while maintaining a stable system that is simple to understand and administer. It is also worth noting that the recent high inflationary cycle was driven by a unique set of circumstances and is not a regularly occurring event.

Therefore while it is appropriate that the whiplash tariff is regularly reviewed against inflation, three years is the appropriate length of time to hold such views. Other than up-rating the whiplash tariff to account for actual or expected inflation as I have explained, no other amendments to that 2021 regulations are made by this instrument. In accordance with her statutory obligation, Lord Chancellor has consulted with the lady Chief Justice before making this instrument. The Master of the Rolls, behalf of the lady Chief Justice, expressed his endorsement of the proposal to up-rate the whiplash tariff.

He also noted that the judiciary would not welcome any further the rogue Asian from the principles being assessed and awarded by the courts. As we have seen in accordance with the powers and referred by the 2018 act, this instrument only adjusts the level of damages for whiplash injuries lasting up to two it. I believe the amendments this instrument will make to the 2021 regulations represent a balanced proportionate, practical approach to up-rating whiplash tariff ahead of the next review.
17:15
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the Minister has explained, the government has conducted its review and determined that whilst review and determined that whilst existing tariff structure remains appropriate, uplift is required. Proposed amendments will include Proposed amendments will include whiplash injuries by 14 to 15% whiplash injuries by 14 to 15% across all tariff bands. This accounts for inflation since 2021 accounts for inflation since 2021 and provides an additional buffer of inflation to the next action to review in 2027. The framework of the traffic remains unchanged for whiplash and whiplash with minor psych logical injury.

The medical support a claim for discretion uplift was exceptional cases. It highlighted challenges in looking at prognosis of medical reporting inconsistencies. The government is can knitted to working with improving the quality of reports and we welcome this commitment. I also understand that the Treasury is due to report this month on whether insurers have in fact passed savings from these reforms onto policyholders which is an important aim of the policies intention. It is important that motorists receive the lower premiums and I look forward to the findings of this review.

It will be helpful if the Minister could confirm that this is on track. While this is limited to amending tariff amounts, it causes part of reforms that will be reviewed. A post in fermentation review of the programme is one that we welcome effectiveness to fair compensation and maintaining access to justice. We support these regulations and recognise that claimants continue to receive fair and proportionate condensation. Continued monitoring of the system ensures that we have effective and extensive reviews of regulation provided by the Minister, but I don't seek to comment any further.
17:17
Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The changes today are simple. The compensation tariffs for pain and loss of amenity have been uplifted by approximately 15% reflecting inflation since the original figures the buffer to account for future inflation. These updates are welcome, but they also present us with an opportunity to reflect on the broad balance that we strike between tackling fraud and protecting the rights of those injuries. Whiplash has been a contentious area in personal injury law and we have one of the highest rates of whiplash claims in the world which is undoubtedly contributing to insurance costs, and claims have historically added billions of pounds to insurance costs.

In my own constituency of Chichester, the picture is particularly concerning. According to a study by the driving instructor agency, Chichester is now the most accident-prone city in the UK reporting 232 accidents per hundred thousand residents which is 54% higher than the national average and even more alarmingly, Chichester had the highest fatality rate of any city at 5.6 fatal accidents for 100,000 citizens, and these are lives lost and families changed forever. It underlines the real- world impact of road safety and wide fair compensation for those injured on our roads is vital.

The reforms Have had an impact on a number of whiplash claims which have declined, but whiplash still accounts for a large share of personal injury claims and the need to ensure fairness and the system remains. We must remember that behind every claim as a person often in pain, unable to work, potentially scared to go back out on the roads, navigating an unfamiliar legal system, so for them, the process must be simple fair and accessible. Victim should never be discouraged from seeking rightful compensation because of bureaucracy or overly rigid procedures.

This is why the Lib Dems have abdicated for a balanced approach during the original 2018 debates on the civil liability act, my colleagues in the other place worked hard to push for stronger safeguards. They argue that the definition of whiplash injury should be written into primary legislation to allow parliamentary scrutiny, and a post for compensation to be put on college deadlines, not just fixed tariffs to preserve judicial discussion and severity of injuries. They also urge the previous government to ensure that any savings made from reducing fraudulent claims would be passed on to consumers through lower insurance premiums, promised that the industry has been slow to honour and certainly not reflected in consumer experience, so we also look forward to the findings of the review on if the savings have been delivered to customers.

We continue to support a system that is firm on fraud but fair to victims. We need robust safeguards such as mandatory medical assessments and closer coordination between regulators, insurers and law enforcement to root out dishonest claims, but this must not, the expense of those with genuine injuries. It is critical that review mechanisms are in place, not just to track inflation but to assess whether the tariff system continues to serve justice. And we do believe that the government must do more to some for the claims process, particularly for those who don't have or cannot access legal representation.

The updated tariff is a necessary correction for inflation but it must not be seen as the end of the matter, the long-term success of the system depends on three things, fairness for claimants, preserving discretion when needed, and ensuring that promised savings are actually felt by customers and we must remain focused on people and not just policy. Thank you. policy. Thank you.
17:22
Nicholas Dakin Portrait Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
-
Can I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate, and the support of both the Lib Dems and the official opposition to the director of travel here, and I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesman for reminding us that behind every claim, there is a person, and this is about helping real people in their real lives. The spokesman raised the issue of the report on reducing costs for consumers. It is a matter that we share his concern and the LibDem spokesperson has concern which is felt across the whole of this house.

The report has been published and was published in 27 March, and does show the whiplash reforms have reduced insurance costs for customers. It was produced by HM Treasury who worked with the financial committee to fulfil statutory obligation under section 11 seven of the civil liability act 2018 it is a factual reporting of the information from insurers provided the Treasury through the Financial Conduct Authority, so it doesn't represent the government's view, so separate of this report, it is right and proper that the Minister of Justice will be undertaking an implantation review of the whiplash reforms later this year.

I thank honourable members for their contribution.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure I had the Minister at the beginning of these remarks. The the beginning of these remarks. The question is is on the order paper. As many of that opinion say I I As many of that opinion say I I think the eyes have it, the eyes think the eyes have it, the eyes have it. Motion number five on local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. I beg to move. The question is is on the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is is on the order paper. I think the eyes have it. Motion number six on local government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is is on the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is is on the order paper. I think the eyes have it. Motion number seven on local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is as on the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the order paper. I think the eyes have it, the paper. I think the eyes have it, the eyes have it. Petition.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

eyes have it. Petition. Thank you. Rutland is a proud and ancient county record in the
17:25
17:25
17:27
17:28
17:29
David Davis Portrait Adjournment: Impact of Clonoe Inquest findings on Government policy Rt Hon David Davis MP (Goole and Pocklington, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

patent post office. Question is that this house do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. I start by thanking the Secretary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I start by thanking the Secretary of State. It is unusual for the Secretary of State to answer the Secretary of State to answer the adjournment debate, and it demonstrates how important he sees the task. It also brings back fond memories for me. I hope that every Member of Parliament believes that upholding justice should be our first priority to Parliament. And the right to life is a first amongst the rights that can be upheld. That justice and that right should be evenhanded and there should be no exception for agents of the state.

I believe that, and accordingly, I was a critic of the state in the unlawful killing, torture, the failure to protect and provide justice for the Catholics who were murdered in 1994, for example. There is no general exception of this, but justice must by definition be fair and practical and I'm afraid the findings of the Northern Ireland coroner when neither. To understand the significance, we must consider the context. Operation banner was the longest deployment standing from 1969 to 2007.

Over 300,000 soldiers served sequentially in Northern Ireland. Despite the challenges, the British Army performed admirably. They were not beyond reproach but the massive majority, the massive majority of soldiers handle majority of soldiers handle Over 90% of the injuries were caused by the paramilitary, brought about by the paramilitary. The British Army's rules of engagement were clear, governed by the yellow card, which soldiers carried at all times. Soldiers were required to issue a challenge before using force unless doing so put them or others in immediate danger.

I repeat that. Unless doing so put them or others in immediate danger. The attempt was clear, to protect innocent lives whilst allowing the use of lethal force when it was necessary and reasonable to do so. 1,400 members of the security forces died in those troubles. They killed approximately 300 terrorists. Those figures and that ratio revealed the discipline and restraint of our soldiers and a policeman acting under yellow card rules. They also reflect the personal risk to the soldiers and policemen of observing those rules.

Unsurprisingly, the IRA members never carried a yellow card. They targeted civilians and committed murder without warning. Their methods range from torture followed by a bullet in the back of the head, through the mass murder of innocent civilians in atrocities such as the Omagh, Claudia and Bradley Kelly bombings, and utterly called bloody Kingsmill executions. And incidentally, the young IRA was responsible for more catholic direct deaths during the troubles than any other group. The IRA were terrorists, but we should not forget that they were also criminals.

Specialising in organised crime, and they made five or six minute pounds a year for protection rackets, smuggling, extortion, drugs, tax fraud, state benefit fraud, fraudulent front companies, illegal gambling, theft and other crimes throughout the island of Ireland. If colleagues want evidence of criminality, in 99, 1990, I carried out an investigation of those activities which was written on the sick that November of that year of the financial Times. The point is the IRA was both a criminal gang and a terrorist organisation, but now it's trying to rewrite history.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Naked in the honourable gentleman for bringing this forward? He's been a stalwart supporter of the Armed Forces indicated in the time I've Forces indicated in the time I've been in this House. He's been a supporter of rights and justice and I think he sets a standard resort follow and I commend him for that. And I also thank you for working alongside my party leader, the honourable member they spell first and also the shadow deputy secretary on these issues and for helping to move forward for the adjournment move forward for the adjournment debates tonight.

Does the right honourable member not agree that the message sent through this corner support is a massive overstep of power, would have security applications for every branch of policing and Armed Forces and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and must be struck down not only as ultra virus but as factually incorrect. They see carried out the attack on the oil eustachian did so with the intent to take life, and they were rightly assessed as that and dealt with at an appropriate manner.

And this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

republic can rewrite -- rewrite of truth must end now in this chamber. Is exactly right, prefaces it and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is exactly right, prefaces it and of course he repeats the point his own party leader made when he said own party leader made when he said this judgement was all to various, and I will leave that to the lawyers, but answer the rest of his question, really we have to return question, really we have to return to the actual facts of the incident. to the actual facts of the incident. The sale of styled Easter promo -- B grade was one of the most active units in the early 1990s and late 80s, they undertook a surge of activity pursuing a Maoist style murder strategy.

I think it was called the liner strategy at the time. In August 1998, eight soldiers were killed by a Pyro bomb. On 7 March 89, three Protestants were shot dead at a garage in Coke. -- Court. Derek Ferguson was murdered in 1991, also in Coke. An attack against Glenn army barracks on 31 May 1991 left three soldiers dead. It's also thought that some of their members revolved in a Derry attack in 1989, notably using a heavy machine-gun, probing the disco we see later in this story.

To kill two British soldiers. Now in February 1992, the RUC special Branch found out that the IRA was planning a number of attacks on the 15th and 16th of February. That information they had that and I are a team armed with a 12.7 mm saviour heavy machine-gun and three Kalashnikov rifles would attack the call island police station. The intelligence indicated the attack was to be mounted from the chapel car park. So the SES commanders plan was to arrest the terrorists as they formed up the car park, preventing the attack on the police station altogether and seizing the heavy machine-gun.

The commander didn't know how many terrorists, vehicles and weapons would be involved, but it was thought that as many as 20 IRA members could be involved. The troop sergeant assessed the rather strangely car park only suitable position where a partial consumer was possible. It notably did not provide cover from gunfire. The SAS team carried the standard G3 K rifle and one should soldier had a general purpose machine gun. Perhaps more notably in this context, some had shot guns loaded with alternate rounds designed to smash windscreen and delivered tear gas to stop the vehicles.

They also carried tools to break the ties of vehicles attempting to escape. Simile armour piercing rounds the judge referred to which were of course penetrating body armour, but its primary purpose in this context was to penetrate the engine blocks of the vehicles and stop them. This equipment was all designed to stop escape and allow arrest. That's the key point in this. Stop escape and allow arrest. The plan was to close in on the IRA operatives and arrest them as they assembled and matted heavy machine- gun onto the vehicle in chapel car park.

An so 7 PM, dark November night, 12 numbers of the SES were positioned on the boundary of the chapel car park behind the hedgerow. The soldiers observed the movements of five cars in and out of the car park. They were assumed to be reconnaissance vehicles scouting out the car park for the lorry to which the gun was going to be attached. But the intelligence briefing was wrong. An error which ended up creating chaos and extreme danger. Instead at around 240 hours, the gun was used to attack the police station, 60 rounds fired in close range.

The attackers intent was clear. As my honourable friend said, to kill police officers. They were all would-be murderers. That can be in no doubt. Gunfire could clearly be heard and the traceable bullets were observed by the SES patrol in the car park. A minute or two later they had another burst of gunfire and the soldiers of course did not know this was simply bravado for all of they and their commander new, highly behind the hedge, the murder gang were engaging other soldiers or other policemen.

Within a minute the lorry appeared at the dark, driven at breakneck speed, lurching around corners, engine screeching into a lower gear. And as they drove into the car park, the IRA truck's headlights illuminated the SES position behind the hedgerow. The soldiers at this point did not know whether they had been spotted. So the soldiers then stood up and advanced on the occupants of the lorry and three other vehicles in the car park with the lorry and open fired. For IRA members were shot dead, four wounded, one of whom was arrested and notably given first aid by the soldiers.

And others fled in cars. Now we come forward to February 2025 when Mr Justice Michael Humphrey ruled the use of lethal force by the SES in this incident was unlawful. The ruling is demonstrably wrong and ignores the plain facts of the case. The SES soldiers operated under the control of the police force. And the operation was carried out with police officers in close proximity. They face heavily armed terrorists who had just carried out an attack on a police station.

For all they knew, legally. They did not know how he terrorists, but they could assume there could be up to 20. Did not know how many vehicles or how many weapons were in those other cars. This creates a number of challenges, a number of problems for issuing a challenge. The first option under the yellow card system. Whilst it may be reasonable to stand up and issue a challenge to either one or a small number of terrorists who would be seen and covered, the circumstances were completely different when it's an unknown number of antagonists in an unknown number of cars with an unknown number of weapons.

The probability of one of let's say 20 decided to fire on the soldiers is much higher, particularly when the individual may be out of sight of the patrol. This is doubly so. When one remembers that this band of killers had just attempted to murder many policemen and toads returned their high state of excitement pumped up with adrenaline, firing their weapons in the air. Secondly, the fact he did not know where they all were men the SES commander issuing a challenge could expose his entire troop to illegal crossfire.

Remember this is happening on a dark February night about 10: 45. Issuing a challenge under the circumstances could have amounted to collective suicide. Circumstances like this have precisely why -- are precisely why the yellow card rules allow the soldier to fire without challenge when the danger is too great. Indeed I find it hard to imagine a more clear-cut case which allows firing without challenge than the one we see here. But the judge in his ruling ignored several significant facts and appears to have been naive in his view of others.

And his selection of fax appears to be extremely partial. For example, the judge made much of the SES's use of armour piercing bullets and make no mention of the fact the anti- aircraft gun of the IRA was using fired armour piercing in central rounds, five times the size of any rifle bullet or that they can be fired at a rate of 600 to 1,200 rounds a minute. These billets can pierce concrete walls or shoot down aircrafts at mild range. The machine-gun had only been, just been deployed and could have eliminated the entire SAS patrol in a matter of seconds.

It was a terrible weapon, the capture of which before it can be used to kill more people was an important part of the SES tasking. The judge accepted assertions that the IRA weapons all had their safety catches engaged. Well frankly, if that's make if that were true, there was no way for the commanders to know this at the beginning of the fight. No way at all. But in fact how likely was it? Take the machine-gun which the forensic examiner had said it had its working parts with no bullet in the chamber.

It had just driven back at breakneck speed, during a few misses that journey back, to get the gun to the state described requires nine actions. Some of which require two hands, while hanging onto the side of a lurching truck. I'm afraid it all sounds just a bit improbable. And the forensics specialist did not actually arrive until two hours 45 minutes after the action at the scene contaminated by firemen, police, soldiers and other staff. Indeed she complained about that very contamination. Against the forensics specialist, must take the observations of soldiers on the ground and other evidence.

For soldiers reported seeing flashes from the back of the lorry, which they interpreted as muzzle flashes -- and these were not inexperienced soldiers we are talking about. They know what they are looking at. Two soldiers heard Brown striking the ground to their right where the hedgerow is where the SES work. The forensics examiner document it bullet strike marks on the hedgerow. And one soldier received a bullet wound to the face which knocked him to the ground. Without any forensics evidence, this was attributed to a ricochet which would have implausibly required the round to go through a 180degree change of direction.

Soldier G had the exchange of gunfire and saw a soldier go down which, " Confirms my belief that terrorists were shooting at us". There was also an interview taken by the Garda, in the Republic of Ireland by the Garda from one of the IRA drivers he said he could not understand why his colleagues had open fired. It been in a position where he was able to judge whether fire was coming from and obviously believed it was from his own side. He refused to sign the interview notes, presumably when he considered the consequences from back home when he gave such critical data away.

All this was countered by the claim that no casings were found, no bullet casings were found on the ground in the car park. Welcome a number were found in the lorry and in one of the cars present that appeared to have a GPM G and AK on board. If those weapons were fired from inside a car, they would of course have been no casings on the ground in the car park. Instead, there were GPM live ammunition and disintegrating links found in the car as well as an AK MK from a rival other than those recovered.

In private, 1/4 AK had been fired from that car. The car itself had all its seats other than the drivers laid flat, which was a standard practice in the IRA when using a hatchback as a weapons The fire services were kept away from the car while it burnt out. Another standard IRA tactic to destroy forensic evidence. I am afraid this ruling exposes the double standards that plagued the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legacy of the Troubles. My right honourable friend is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable friend is giving a very important and telling speech on this topic. As he rightly says, the soldiers were subject to well-defined rules of engagement but well-defined rules of engagement but what he is not saying in terms of the IRA as a terrorist organisation the IRA as a terrorist organisation is it was the most sophisticated in the world at the time, operating through a chain of command on the Queens business. Does he not think that there is a grotesque double standard in play and that this is potentially deeply corrosive of morale as well as deeply unjust to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those veterans themselves? He makes a very good point and is of course the Member for Hereford. Many of these people who have retired will be his constituents. retired will be his constituents. Something else I will say, the honourable gentleman and I are both long-standing supporters of human long-standing supporters of human rights in this country and both defended article 2, for example. This is a misuse of article 2. The people who wrote the European people who wrote the European Convention were recently out of world War two and did not rate it to be understood in this way so I do not think it is a double point.

Coming back to the point about the IRA, since this has happened, the Good Friday Agreement has allowed for the release of convicted terrorists to achieve an end to the bloodshed and I guess we agree with this but yet we continue to prosecute those who fight against them and these prosecutions are conducted decades after the fact that new evidence to substantiate we were pulling the cases. After the action, everybody was questioned thoroughly to establish the facts of the evidence, the arrest plans, what happened.

On the basis of that, on October 15, 1992, with the evidence close to hand and with it fresh in the minds of witnesses and everyone capable of investigation, the police and the director of public prosecutions concluded no prosecution should take place because there was no case to answer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. I am grateful to my honourable friend for bringing this forward than for the quality with which he is proposing this. Does he not agree that this highlights the single that this highlights the single biggest problem that we face that the IRA had kept no records at all the IRA had kept no records at all and if they did have any, they destroyed them and many who got destroyed them and many who got letters of comfort went about it quietly and secretly, killing any quietly and secretly, killing any chance of prosecution.

The soldiers have none of that and they went to serve and are left in the open to be prosecuted file many IRA disappeared and can live life without further charge.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right honourable and gallant friend makes the central point of friend makes the central point of the argument perfectly. Here we are, the argument perfectly. Here we are, 33 years later, with a Northern 33 years later, with a Northern Ireland Coroner, judging events in retrospect, but no new evidence, finding soldiers acted unlawfully. I finding soldiers acted unlawfully. I believe in the process of peace and reconciliation which will allow closure for all the relatives of the dead.

He makes a good point. There are no records for the vast majority of people who died in the Troubles and that makes this process not of peace and reconciliation but vindictiveness and vengeance and it is an attempt to rewrite history, not to find the truth. There have been countless attempts to take British soldiers to court for actions during the Troubles. I many ex-IRA confidants have faced the same? Not one single one has been pursued over the 2000 deaths, or murders, that they are responsible for.

Our veterans are being punished in retirement decisions they made serving the country at the psychological impact on them and psychological impact on them and It undermines the integrity of current and future operations. We cannot send soldiers into high-risk environments, ask them to undertake brittle training, and ask them to act with confidence if they fear repercussions decades later. -- brital. The government must ensure that those who throughout the country are protected from partisan issues like this and with the clonal -- Clonoe ruling, it is historic and the law must be applied fairly and we must not undermine the legacy of those who fail to protect us.

The government gave notice at the election that they intended to remove the element of the Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy Act to protect soldiers and police who served. The judgement from the Northern Ireland Coroner in the Clonoe event no risk prosecution of a number of officials. Even if they win, we must put in place statutory protections for soldiers in the future to protect them from this persecution. These are men who throughout the country with honour and skill and sometimes in the face of the most incredible danger and they are no doubt hoping for a well earned and peaceful retirement, not the future of stress and psychological torture.

If the government leave them be prosecuted, it will be shameful and only serve to further the attempt of the IRA to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland. Any of you have received letters from retired SES orders about this issue and most of them actually say that they support human rights. Actually, it is more than that. They guarantee those rights for the rest of us. I finish by quoting the words of Charles province who said, "It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of press.

It is given us the freedom of press. It is the soldier, not the poet who gives us freedom of speech. If the soldier not the activist who gives us the right to protest. It is the soldier who allow the protester to burn the flag. It is the soldier, not the politician, who has given those freedoms." These are soldiers who are guarantors of freedom and justice and surely, Secretary of justice and surely, Secretary of return.

ALL: Hear, hear. ALL: Hear, hear.
17:54
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
I want to say a few words in support of my honourable friend. We were sent to Northern Ireland during the Troubles and Were Given Restrictions and All the Soldiers That I Served with More Fearful of listening rifles at any stage than the area that would have brought them into danger because of being so certain that they did not want to make a mistake. I did not want a single soldier that I did not need to thought this was a game to be.

It was life and death and all of those who he describes were fully aware of requirements under the yellow card promotions and would not have used their weapons if they had not genuinely feared for their lives because of the cases that had gone before and the deaths that had before and the deaths that had happened because the IRA did not give any warnings when they fired. Those issues are critical in all of this and when we sit in judgement of what happened then, all these years after, it does not become justice, it becomes a pursuit in the terms of those who want to change the history, as my honourable friend said, about what actually happened.

We will all remember various individuals but we give away a lot in the Good Friday Agreement. Many of those who lost family members had to put up with this requirement to get peace. It takes a lot to get peace and it takes a lot of suffering for failure thereafter to be able to find out what happened. Many of these cases where soldiers served who died briefly, there are cases to be answered about the manner of their death and I think of Robert Knight who was captured, tortured, killed, beaten, all of us.

No one knows where his body lies today. His parents died not knowing what happened to him and we do not know if he had a proper burial. We will never find out what happened to them. And many others like them. They believed in upholding justice and freedom. The key to the debate this evening, and I put this to the secretary of state, we have a duty of protection for those who put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms and our justice, to make sure it is fair and if we forget them for any woman, we are not worthy of being here because they do not have a voice and are unable to say no when they are ordered into situations where they might die.

I think the British Army, no other army could have done what we did. They put up with so much and we restrained ourselves with the Getty and I ask and urge the right honourable gentleman. -- With dignity. Listen carefully to my honourable friend and justice for honourable friend and justice for those who fear pursuit for only one reason, political purposes. It is time to end this. ALL: Hear, hear.
17:57
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much. I welcome the opportunity to right honourable gentleman has provided me and the House to listen to and respond to this debate and I congratulate him on having secured it. I've listened carefully to everything he has said and on Debbie Lee 11, as he will know, he -- and on February 11, he asked me a question about the Clonoe case and in answer to that, I told him and the House that the Ministry of Defence was considering the findings of the coroner carefully before turning to the outcome of those considerations and it is worth reminding the House of the fact of the case.

We've heard a lot about that already with the attack on the that already with the attack on the police station in 1992, February 16, by a unit of the Irish Republican Army, armed with a lot of weaponry including heavy machine-gun, approximately 60 rounds were fired and thankfully no one was injured but following the departure and arrival at the Clonoe church, the car park, they were engaged by members of the specialist military unit, resulting in four people being shot and killed and the inquest into the deaths began in 2023 and on 36 this year, the coroner found the use of lethal force by the soldiers was unjustified and the operation, "Was not planned and controlled in such a way to minimise to the greatest extent possible the need for records to little for." I listened carefully to little for." I listened carefully to what the House said.

The MoD outlined intention to apply for judicial review and the findings of the coroner do not properly reflect the coroner do not properly reflect the context of the incident in its view. I listened carefully to what the right honourable gentleman said about what happened. No, the challenging circumstances and the context in which members of the Armed Forces were serving in Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Defence has confirmed it is finding the veterans in question to seek a judicial review and is continuing to provide them with proper support.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental democratic principle. Crucial to upholding the rule of law in the UK. One important element of that principle is the right to legally challenge the findings of judicial decision makers where it is believed that an error has been made. The government has determined on this occasion that is indeed the most appropriate course of action and it is not important and I think the House will recognise, given confirmation by the MoD, that it intends to seek a review of the findings of the inquest and these proceedings are allowed to run their course.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has a long-standing commitment to repeal and replace the almost universally opposed Troubles Legacy and Reconciliation Act 2023, and I think it is fair to say that they are universally opposed. The act has been found by the domestic courts to be unlawful in the number of respects and we should not forget that the legislation in question made proposing to grant those responsible for terrible terrorist crimes immunity from prosecution. That is what the act did.

As part of the qubit to repeal and replace the the qubit to repeal and replace the act, the government is committed to replace the measures to proceed and I set this out in my statement on July 29 and in my oral statement on December 4, 2024. The government recognises they had caused great concern among many of those who served in that operation. They have given distinguished service to the given distinguished service to the Have also expressed a strong view in the way which we collectively address the troubles has got to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fair and balanced and proportionate. You can't just say simply now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You can't just say simply now into the House that he has a deep understanding and awareness of the trauma that has been caused that he trauma that has been caused that he takes the side not judicially but politically in his own mind as politically in his own mind as matter of human sympathy with the poor people affected by these decisions. They understand that a government minister in a senior position was in his own mind even if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not judicially? I expressed that view to the veterans that I met this afternoon veterans that I met this afternoon when I thanked them for their service in the most difficult and service in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances, and the honourable member advise me to do that this afternoon, and directly do that this afternoon, and directly do it. Because they were seeking to protect the citizens of the United protect the citizens of the United Kingdom, including of Northern Ireland in the face of terrorism and terrorists.

Who, as the right terrorists. Who, as the right honourable gentleman in his speech pointed out were responsible for the vast majority of deaths. I would however just add that many of them were prosecuted and convicted, paramilitaries in the Republic and also the loyalist side who were also guilty of the most appalling crimes, as was pointed out, part of the price in my view rightly paid to enable the Good Friday Agreement to succeed and bring the extraordinary piece and prosperity Northern Ireland has seen in the almost 27 years since was the recent prisoners.

And that was really really difficult for many families to accept, to understand, and to cope with. I would also point out that in recent years, a number of Republicans have indeed been prosecuted, in fact more Republicans. There's been one conviction, I think I'm right in saying in the 12 years, soldier who was given a suspended sentence and in the case of Rob and I wreck, who the right honourable gentleman mentioned as he will be aware, the independent commission on the victims remains, which does such an important job to try and reunite the remains of loved ones who were murdered by the provisional IRA with the families, and although his parents are dead, I think he has other living relatives.

They have made two recent attempts on the basis of the information they have received to find his remains. I'm very sad to say that so far that has not proved possible, but I do hope that those who have information, who have enabled the ICL VR to find the remains of a number of people and return them to their families will continue to provide information to that body so that they are able to recover those remains. Now as the Secretary of State, it's my job to ensure that these concerns and perspectives are heard.

Alongside other views expressed by a range of parties who want to see also in their own way a resolution to the complex troubles that happened and the issues that remain outstanding, and I'm thinking in particular there of the many families that I have met taking up post, since taking up post you have said to me they still do not know decades later what happened to our loved ones who were killed. And they carry the trauma with them to this day.

And therefore, the government is absolutely committed to trying to develop legacy mechanisms that are compliant with human rights. I stand with the right honourable gentleman. In my support, the government support for the European Convention on Human Rights and which can command a degree of public confidence across communities in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. And I would just say this about the approach the last government took, it caused self- evidently, immense difficulties, including numerous findings of human rights incompatibilities, and therefore an erosion of trust in governments ability to address these issues fairly first I will of course give way.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I just remind the Secretary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I just remind the Secretary of State that at a hearing in 2017, the defence Select Committee took evidence from four distinguished evidence from four distinguished professors of law, including Philippe Sands, with whose work he is no doubt very familiar, and they is no doubt very familiar, and they made it very clear to us that in principle there was nothing illegal about having a statute of limitations provided that it was accompanied by a truth recovery process.

That met the requirement of avoiding otherwise the illegal act of giving impunity for crimes committed. Now he says that there were technical problems that with the previous legislation that rendered it in some respects illegal. But will he not accept that this persecution of elderly veterans, which cannot in the end lead to any one spending more than two years in prison anyway, given the 1998 sentences act, this will continue unless and until some form of legislation is put back in place to draw a line under prosecutions and to fulfil the other part of the requirement by a truth recovery process.

Whatever he thinks about the specific legislation that they are repealing, will he not accept the principle that that is the only way to protect people against this way to protect people against this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

form of legalistic persecution? I would say to the right honourable gentleman, first of all, they weren't technical problems with they weren't technical problems with the legacy act. There were many legal problems with the legacy act. And as the governance position, I think it's the right honourable gentleman's who called this debates gentleman's who called this debates position, that we uphold the position, that we uphold the European can on human rights. I've said from the beginning I'm determined to ensure that the legacy mechanisms in the form that they are brought for the House are compliant brought for the House are compliant with European Convention on human rights because there are plenty of examples of other countries and people who don't advise per European can.

It is in my view a very important foundation of our liberties and protection. And there are legal problems, not technicalities if I may say so. Could I also point out that the idea of immunity from prosecution was also posed, I've met one family of a soldier who was murdered by the IRA he was outraged by the idea that his killers should get immunity under the legislation which the last government passed. I will give way once more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is answer did not address the question of principle. -- His answer. The fact is unless his charm answer. The fact is unless his charm Professor Sands and three other equally distinguished professors of law were mistaken, there is no law were mistaken, there is no reason in principle, regardless of how flawed he thinks and the courts how flawed he thinks and the courts even may think that previous legislation was, there is no reason legislation was, there is no reason in principle why we cannot have a in principle why we cannot have a statute of limitation to put an end to these prosecutions, coupled with a truth recovery process.

And of course you will always find someone who wants the other lot prosecuted but not their lot, but it's the job of government to cut through that and do the right thing as Nelson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Africa. I would say to the right honourable gentleman, I'm not honourable gentleman, I'm not familiar with that particular bit of evidence, but he cites one group of lawyers who holds, who hold one lawyers who holds, who hold one view. And it won't surprise the House if I say that you will House if I say that you will probably find another group of lawyers who hold a different view. And the purpose of the courts is to adjudicate between the various adjudicate between the various arguments of the book and reach a decision.

And we respect the decision. And we respect the judgements of the court. And it's not possible to have a legal system and not possible to have a coronial system, not possible to have a coronial system in which we get all the verdicts we like and guarantee we will never get the verdicts we don't like. The fact is we've appealed some aspects of the judgements in respect, but no, the government came into office committee to remove immunity because we thought it was wrong to give terrorists immunity from prosecution for the crimes that they've committed, but I would also say to the right honourable gentleman that the truth is as the years have passed, the prospect of prosecutions is diminishing with each passing year.

And many of the families that I have met have said, look we recognise no one is going to be able to account for what happened to our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

loved ones. Just want to find the answers. I will of course give way. One of the points which he has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the points which he has not come to is that there is an exquisite is the wrong word, an exquisite is the wrong word, an excruciating element of double jeopardy about this. Every single case we are talking about was case we are talking about was investigated carefully by the police at the time. The soldiers and the commanders involved were commanders involved were interrogated as to the intelligence and the plans and the outcome at the time with all of the information available.

And what we're seeing here and being found effectively innocent 33 years ago, and then we come back again and do it all over again to get another answer that we want. So he must understand that the soldiers see this is terrible double jeopardy. But may I bring him to the underlying principle my right honourable friend made, what we are all after is a mechanism, however it is found to the law, which allows us to release these soldiers from a lifetimes sentence of being pursued by the courts under frankly, in my view, a misuse of article 2.

And if it's true, as he says, that people like Philip Sands, hardly a hardline right-winger and I think that we can do this possibly, will he please give the House an undertaking he will leave every effort to deliver on that aim?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I would like to give the right honourable gentleman an right honourable gentleman an assurance that I plan when parliamentary time allows to bring forward legislation to try and find forward legislation to try and find a way forward. Now the House will be a judge of that in the draft legislation. The legislation is published. I'm consulting widely. I will continue to do so, including will continue to do so, including with veterans and others. And I am not naive about the prospect of not naive about the prospect of coming up with proposals that command widespread support.

But I would simply observe that the last set of proposals signally failed to command support amongst the political parties and many many people in Northern Ireland, which is why I'm having to deal with the consequence of repeated findings of incompatibility. Because of the legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights. Now when I last stood at the despatch box to address this question, I said that we owe to date great dative -- we owed eight great dative gratitude to those who served.

I wish to repeat a statement tonight. The legacy of those who served during that awful period, the true legacy of what they did is to be found in the piece that the people of Northern Ireland now enjoy. And if we are being honest, the Armed Forces did their job. We as elected representatives have to recognise that since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, which itself was not able to get to grips with exactly how legacy would be dealt with, it had enough on its plate to secure that extraordinary agreement.

On that miraculous Good Friday. We have not been able to agree measures, and implement them that effectively address the legacy of the past in a way that is balance, proportion, transparent, fair and measurable and which have a chance of commanding public support. And that's the objective of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. I would do my best to achieve it, but the House will be the judge. The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The ayes have it,
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page