What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I was elected on the back of three clear pledges, one of which was to work to create jobs and prosperity in some of our strongest growing industries. One of those is renewables, which is growing at 20% or so a year—much faster than the wider economy. In Cornwall, we are doing a great job at renewables. What steps is the Minister taking to help us to create those great jobs in Cornwall?
I have been contacted in recent weeks by many constituents who are desperately worried for their loved ones in Kashmir, and who are struggling to reach them because of the communications blockade. Does the Minister agree that such communication shutdowns, which have also been used by Indian-occupied Kashmir, are often an attempt by authorities to hide and cover up the crimes and human rights abuses they are committing? What assurances can she give us that the Government will put pressure on the Pakistani Government to stop any blockade?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the 150th anniversary of the Carlisle-Settle Railway. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, as we celebrate a remarkable milestone in the history of one of Britain’s great railways. This year marks 150 years since passenger services first ran along the Carlisle-Settle railway, linking Carlisle with communities across Cumbria, the Yorkshire dales and beyond. A hundred and fifty years on, it remains a railway of national significance, renowned for its engineering, celebrated for its scenery and cherished by the communities it serves. For Carlisle, this railway is far more than a transport link. It is part of our city’s history and identity. It has helped to connect our city to the wider north for generations, bringing people, ideas, commerce and opportunity. Today, it is fitting that we come together to celebrate not only its past, but the people who ensured that it would have a future. The story of the Carlisle-Settle railway began in the great age of Victorian railway building. It was one of the last great railways constructed in Britain and was undoubtedly one of the most ambitious. Building it required extraordinary determination. More than 6,000 navvies worked along the route, enduring isolation, appalling weather and dangerous working conditions to carve a railway through some of the most challenging terrain in England.
It is always a pleasure to be intervened on by the hon. Member. As I will go on to say, there are many lessons from the history of the railway line that we can apply to the challenges that community groups across the country raise when they are campaigning for their local railways. We can learn a lot from the Carlisle-Settle railway. Entire settlements were established to house the workforce, who founded many of the villages along the line today. Their story is an important part of the railway’s heritage and deserves to be remembered alongside the engineering achievements for which the line is famous. The engineer responsible for the project was John Crossley. As Cumbrian ramblers will testify, the terrain over which he engineered the line is not forgiving. Construction was frequently halted by snow, flooding and frozen ground. One contractor withdrew altogether after underestimating the severity of the landscape and weather conditions. Despite those challenges, the line was completed and open for passenger services in 1876, just 11 years after Parliament had passed the enabling Act. I am sure the Minister wishes he had a few John Crossleys on hand for some of our rail projects today. The railway required the construction of 14 tunnels and 22 viaducts. The most famous, the Ribblehead viaduct, stands 104 feet high and comprises 24 magnificent arches stretching across the north-west landscape. Soon after crossing Ribblehead, trains enter Blea Moor tunnel, which is driven deep beneath the moors for more than a mile and a half. The line also travels to Ais Gill summit, the highest point reached by any mainline railway in England. There are fascinating stories along the route. In Lazonby, local legend tells us that the tunnel was constructed at the request of a local vicar who did not wish the railway to pass directly in front of his vicarage. One hundred and fifty years later, the structures remain, as a testament to Victorian ingenuity, determination and ambition. Despite its engineering significance and strategic importance, the future of the Carlisle-Settle railway became increasingly uncertain during the second half of the 20th century. In 1963, the Beeching report recommended the withdrawal of passenger services from the line. Although those proposals were not immediately implemented, station closures and service reductions followed. By 1970, all stations apart from Settle and Appleby had been closed and passenger services had been reduced to just two trains a day in each direction. In the 1970s, the railway suffered years of under-investment. Freight traffic was diverted on to the electrified west coast main line, ageing infrastructure deteriorated and viaducts and tunnels were allowed to fall into disrepair. By the early 1980s, British Rail was arguing that the cost of maintaining the railway could no longer be justified, and proposals were made to close it entirely. What followed was one of the most inspiring grassroots campaigns in British railway history. In June 1981, before closure had even been formally announced, the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line held their inaugural meeting in Settle town hall. They recognised the threat and they acted. Soon, they were joined by local authorities, rail users, railway development groups, environmental campaigners and communities along the route. When closure notices appeared in 1984, the campaign intensified. Campaigners challenged BR’s assumptions and highlighted the railway’s wider value. They argued that its tourism potential had been overlooked. They argued that its role as a strategic diversionary route had been underestimated. They argued that closure would damage the communities who depended on the railway. They were right. The campaign also exposed what many regarded as a policy of closure by stealth: reduced services, diverted traffic and inflated repair estimates, all to justify closure. The publicity surrounding the campaign encouraged people to start using the railway in unprecedented numbers. The number of passenger journeys rose dramatically, from 93,000 in 1983 to 450,000 by 1989. In 2025, almost 1 million journeys were made along the Carlisle-Settle railway.
I completely agree with the right hon. Member, who is my constituency neighbour and friend. The spirit that we see today in the Borders rail campaign is exactly that which we saw in the Carlisle-Settle line campaign. He is absolutely right about the economic benefits, which have already been demonstrated between Edinburgh and Tweedbank and could also be realised in the Carlisle-Tweedbank extension. I am grateful that this Government, alongside the Scottish Government, have ensured that funding is now in place for the viability work on the remaining leg between Tweedbank and Carlisle. On 11 April 1989, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Paul Channon, announced that consent for closure would be refused, as repair costs were found to be lower than was originally claimed, and passenger growth had demonstrated the continuing viability of the line. That remains one of the most significant victories for community transport campaigning anywhere in the United Kingdom. Today, as we celebrate the anniversary, we should acknowledge every person who played a role in that achievement: the volunteers, campaigners, railway staff, local councillors, passengers and community leaders who fought for the railway’s future. They ensured that future generations would continue to benefit from this remarkable line. There is perhaps no more touching symbol of the campaign than Ruswarp the border collie, whose owner Graham Nuttall served as the first secretary of the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line. Ruswarp famously signed, with his paw print, the petition to save the railway. After Graham Nuttall tragically lost his life while walking in Wales in 1990, Ruswarp remained at his side for 11 weeks before they were found. Today, a bronze statue stands at Garsdale station, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), commemorating Ruswarp’s loyalty and courage. It has become one of the most beloved landmarks on the railway and a reminder of the devotion that people have shown to protecting the line. The story of the Carlisle-Settle railway did not end with its reprieve. In many ways, a new chapter had begun. Today, the line is operated by Northern Trains and supported by an outstanding partnership of organisations. The Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line continue their invaluable advocacy and volunteering work, the Settle and Carlisle Railway Trust helps to preserve and promote its heritage, and the Settle-Carlisle Railway Development Company serves as an accredited community rail partnership, working to encourage tourism, education and community engagement. Their efforts have transformed the railway into one of Britain’s great rail success stories. The line continues to bring thousands of visitors into Cumbria, Westmorland and Yorkshire every year. It supports our local economies, connects our rural communities and introduces new generations to our railway heritage. This anniversary year demonstrates that spirit perfectly. Schools, volunteers, artists and community groups are all helping to tell the railway story through events and exhibitions. I was particularly pleased to see the commissioning of a new play, “Lives Along the Line”, by Yorkshire playwright Joan Barnard, which the Vagabond theatre group will perform this summer at Appleby public hall and the Victoria Hall in Settle. The play will bring to life the stories of the people whose lives have been shaped by the railway over the past century and a half. What makes the Carlisle-Settle railway so special? It is one of the most beautiful railway journeys in the world. Few railways can rival its combination of dramatic landscapes, historic stations and iconic engineering. From my home of Carlisle, through the Eden valley and to Yorkshire’s three peaks, it offers views that attract visitors from across Britain and beyond. However, its importance extends far beyond tourism. For many communities, it remains a vital transport link, providing access to employment, education, healthcare and leisure opportunities. For rural communities along the route, it remains every bit as important as those who campaigned to save it understood it would be. The railway also continues to play an important strategic role in the rail network. When the west coast main line is closed because of engineering works, weather events, which are sadly all too familiar in my part of the country, or any other disruption, the Carlisle-Settle railway provides an invaluable diversionary route. In an age in which resilience and redundancy within critical infrastructure are increasingly important, the line’s value stretches far beyond the communities it serves. The railway’s resilience was demonstrated once again following Storm Desmond and the major landslip at Eden Brows in 2015 and 2016. The subsequent repairs demonstrated the continued commitment to preserving this vital railway for future generations. As we look ahead to what I hope will be another 150 years of the Carlisle-Settle line, we should remember the lesson at the heart of its story, which is that infrastructure should never be judged purely through the lens of short-term accounting; we must also recognise the social value, strategic importance, connectivity, resilience and heritage. Had closure gone ahead in 1989, Britain would have lost one of its greatest railways. Instead, thanks to the determination of campaigners and communities, we are celebrating its 150th anniversary. I ask the Minister, my friend and fellow rail enthusiast, for reassurance that the long-term future of the Carlisle-Settle railway remains secure, that the Government recognise its ongoing strategic value to our national rail network, and that the community organisations and volunteers who do so much to support the line will continue to receive the backing that they deserve. I also ask him to join me in paying tribute to the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line, the Settle and Carlisle Railway Trust, the Settle-Carlisle Railway Development Company and all those whose dedication continues to sustain this remarkable railway. Most importantly, I ask the Minister to join me in thanking the visionaries who refused to accept that this railway’s story was over. Because of them, trains still run between Carlisle and Settle; because of them, communities remain connected; because of them, future generations will continue to enjoy one of the finest railway journeys anywhere in the world. Long may that continue.
Last night, Members of this House passed regulations to crack down on rogue landfill operators. Does the Minister agree that no public payments should be made to a landfill gas energy provider when that provider is linked to rogue landfill operations?
My right hon. Friend took office shortly after the fiasco of the contracts for difference auction under the previous Government, which did not get a single megawatt of new energy proposed. Since then, we have had tremendous success in boosting the amount of renewable energy, and this country is making tremendous progress. We are moving forward, but what does my right hon. Friend say to people like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who is constantly attempting to undermine the moves this Government are making to decarbonise the grid? Should we not all be celebrating the fact that the industry supports the steps that the Government are taking?
Many of my constituents are deeply concerned about the safety and wellbeing of their loved ones in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, as tensions continue to rise and communications blackouts and obstructions persist. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that peace negotiations take place between the relevant parties, so that we can ensure an end to the violence and see sustained stability in the region?
T4. The £15 billion warm homes plan is brilliant, because it will lift 1 million people out of fuel poverty and, as we are seeing in this heatwave, keep households cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. While that is being set up, what are the Government doing in the short term to bring down energy bills?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. Thank you, Mr Wishart. Not willing to be half jacket on, half jacket off during my speech, I will continue as I am at the moment, but it is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time. The contracts for difference scheme is the Government’s primary way to incentivise low-carbon capacity in the electricity system. The draft regulations change the scheme’s eligibility criteria to include the lifetime extension of nuclear plants. Nuclear power is expected to play a key role in the UK’s future energy system. By generating baseload power in the UK, nuclear energy can complement renewable sources, helping to maintain price stability for consumers and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It also lessens our reliance on imports from overseas, strengthening our energy security. However, the UK’s present operational nuclear fleet, including the four advanced gas cooled reactors and Sizewell B, the UK’s only pressurised water reactor, are due to begin decommissioning in the coming decades; this means that around 15% of our current electricity generating capacity could be lost by 2035. While the Government continue to take forward the wider nuclear programme through Sizewell C and through the Great British Energy nuclear small modular reactor programme, we should also make sure that suitable mechanisms are available to support continued generation at existing nuclear stations, where financial support is necessary and likely to represent value for money. In the absence of that support, nuclear power plant operators may choose not to make the investment necessary to extend the operational lifetime of the stations. Before speaking to the provisions in more detail, I will set out some background to the contracts for difference scheme. As I said, that is the Government’s main mechanism for supporting low-carbon electricity generation across Great Britain. Under a CfD, the generator is paid a fixed price for electricity generated across the lifetime of the contract. It sells the electricity it produces into the wholesale market, and when the wholesale price falls below the strike price the difference is received in payments from the Low Carbon Contracts Company. Where wholesale prices rise above the strike price, the generator is required to make up the difference in payments to LCCC. Where the LCCC makes difference payments to the generator, these are funded through a statutory levy on licensed electricity suppliers, and are therefore passed on to households and businesses through electricity bills. The CfD mechanism is central to delivering the Government’s objective of a fully decarbonised power system while securing value for money. It protects consumers when electricity prices are high and gives generators income stability over the duration of the contract. For example, had Hinkley Point C been operational during the last energy crisis, consumers would have saved around £5 billion. The draft instrument before us today amends the Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) Regulations 2014 so that the Government have the option to use the CfD mechanism to support the continued generation of electricity at existing nuclear power stations. Nuclear energy is already eligible for CfD support for new-build capacity, with a CfD having been taken forward for the construction of Hinkley Point C, but nuclear stations seeking to undertake refurbishment in order to extend their operational lifetime are not currently eligible. Broadening the eligibility criteria in this way allows existing nuclear capacity to continue to generate low-carbon electricity over extended operating lifetimes, with support under the CfD where it is judged safe and economical to do so. The Government’s assessment is that nuclear lifetime extensions can provide value for money for consumers, given that lifetime extensions will be considerably cheaper than building new generation. Modelling indicates that extending nuclear plants lowers overall electricity system costs compared with other low-carbon routes to net zero. It is important to state that the draft instrument does not in itself commit any support; nor does it guarantee a CfD for any particular project. Its purpose is instead to allow the Government to consider CfD support for lifetime extension projects for nuclear. Any decision to award a CfD will be subject to all relevant approvals, including value for money tests, and will be announced in due course. The draft regulations widen the eligibility criteria for contracts for difference, so that existing nuclear plants can qualify for support for lifetime extensions. It strengthens our security of supply by enabling access to financial support where needed to sustain electricity generation from existing nuclear infrastructure. That means low-carbon baseloads can remain on the grid without the higher costs and longer delivery times associated with new build. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
I repeat these points regularly, but the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, often talks about his party’s “intention to do”, “ambition to do”, “we aimed to do”, but in 14 years the Conservatives did nothing to build any new nuclear, and that is the record he has to defend. Intention is all well and good, but delivery is what this Government are focused on. We have not ruled out new gigawatt-scale nuclear, but we want to look at it in the context of the future system. That is partly about what the strategic spatial energy plan looks like, but it is also about learning from the deployment of small modular and advanced modular reactors, which we will roll out in due course, and things like the measures we have taken to produce a new regulatory framework, so that we get private sector interest in building nuclear—the Centrica X-energy project in Hartlepool being a good example. It is possible we will have a much more developed approach and innovation in shaping the future nuclear fleet; it might not require a gigawatt-scale project, but we have not ruled it out and it continues to be something we will consider. The hon. Gentleman asked about the CfD itself. As I said, this set of regulations before us today does not agree to any particular CfD, but he is right to point out the value for money point. Any specific contract we looked at would be subject to subsidy control regulations, assessing first of all whether that support is absolutely necessary for the lifetime extension to continue, whether it is proportionate, and the value for money for consumers point which is really important. We will look at that very closely, but as he rightly says there are examples around the world of really significant lifetime extensions to fleets which could give us decades’ more nuclear power at much lower cost than the cost of rebuilding. To the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I will just say that I agree completely that the future of our energy system in terms of security and value for money is a mix of nuclear and renewables, as well as everything else we are doing around storage and investing in the grid. This instrument is a hugely important step in maintaining the fleet we have at the moment for a bit longer while we build the generation that comes next, and I commend it to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.
Great Britain’s energy system is robust and reliable, and delivers 24/7 for households and businesses across the county. However, in an era of geopolitical uncertainty, we need to do all that we can to strengthen our energy security here at home. The answer is for us to move away from fossil fuels, which we cannot control, to deliver renewables and nuclear here at home, which we do control.
A shout-out to the energy and environment parliamentary knowledge scheme—there are some Members of this House who would really benefit from gaining some of that knowledge, I think. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue—I heard a lot of cheers from the Labour Benches. Geothermal has an important part to play and we have to accelerate the potential of all low-carbon energy sources, including geothermal. We will continue to look into the issues around planning, but we are also trying to build out heat network infrastructure that can be used to supply affordable low-carbon heat with a range of technologies, including geothermal, so that we can utilise that to deliver heat to consumers across the country. We will continue to look at what more we can do.
The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot comment on two specific projects that are under a process at the moment, but on his general point, let me say that oil and gas continues to come out of the North sea—24/7, right now. It is playing a part in our energy security, but we have also been a net importer for decades, so it can never be the only answer. This is about how we deliver oil and gas from the North sea for many decades to come, and build up what comes next. There is huge potential for his constituents in offshore wind in particular, which his Front Benchers refuse to back. He should tell his constituents why he supports a party that is against the new jobs of the future, which would help his constituents and those right across the north-east of Scotland.
The shadow Secretary of State has made some very serious claims. If she has that information, she should share it with the Department. [Interruption.] Well, she has shared it in the House of Commons. She should also share the detail with us. No, I do not take back—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not take back—the idea that the shadow Secretary of State has been scaremongering, because she has continued to do so; even though the National Energy System Operator has continued to meet the demand that is necessary for all consumers in the country, she continues to peddle nonsense on social media. I think she should look at some of the facts before she does that. The heatwave saw no impacts on consumers, and demand was met at all times. We have a robust and resilient energy system; if she looks at the data, she will see that that is being delivered day after day.
Ministers commissioned Great British Energy Nuclear’s study of Scotland’s potential for new nuclear last autumn. That study indicates that Scotland has land areas with high potential for future development. We remain open to discussions with the Scottish Government on opportunities for new nuclear in Scotland, and I welcome the conversations I have with the new Scottish Energy Minister on a range of topics.
First, the hon. Gentleman knows that in every single opinion poll a majority of Scots show that they support nuclear energy. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman knows that every single day nuclear baseload is powering Scotland, and that the last nuclear power station, Torness, is about to close with no replacement in place. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman knows that hundreds of people—skilled workers—power those nuclear power stations, and, indeed, thousands of Scots are working in nuclear power stations in England because of his party’s opposition to nuclear. This is not a choice between nuclear and renewables; it is about both energy security and good jobs for everyone in Scotland.
My hon. Friend is right. The industry estimates that more than 5,000 Scots are currently working in the nuclear industry, but not in Scotland. There is a huge potential for the expertise and experience of oil and gas workers to build the new nuclear power stations of the future, and to work in them as well. We need to capture those skills and keep them in Scotland, but because of the out-of-touch ideological approach of the SNP we will not have the opportunity to build those power stations in Scotland and those workers will have to go elsewhere, which is a great shame.
I echo the shadow Minister’s words about those who lost their lives on Piper Alpha 38 years ago. That event was a wake-up call in respect of safety in the industry, but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is also a reminder that there are men and women working in extremely dangerous circumstances right now in order to keep the country going. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the Government, which is actually not a first. Until he ended up on the Opposition Benches, he regularly agreed with what the Government are now doing. [Hon. Members: “He still does.”] He still does—I am convinced of it—and he is welcome any time. We will do everything we can to move forward with possible sites for new nuclear in Scotland, but the fact is that we cannot make as much progress with those sites as we would like because of the Scottish Government’s opposition through their planning regulations. I will continue to do what I can to persuade them to change their mind. There are hundreds of possible jobs, along with continued energy security in Scotland, and this is an opportunity that we should not miss.
What I love about the shadow Minister is how every single time his face gives away the fact that he does not believe a word he is saying. However, I welcome the former Minister for consultation and his view of his nuclear ambition, which, of course, never came to fruition in the 14 years for which the Conservatives were in government. Meanwhile, the delivery to which he referred is exactly what we are getting on with in this Government. We are delivering on the Hinkley and Sizewell C nuclear reactors, delivering on a small modular reactor programme that already has an international reputation—countries around the world are interested in that technology—and building the nuclear that he only talked about.
The Government closely follow developments in the agrivoltaics sector and support innovative technologies, for instance through initiatives funded by UK Research and Innovation. In the solar road map that we have published, the Government and industry have committed themselves to exploring future research and demonstration opportunities for agrivoltaic systems.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we are in favour of innovation wherever we can deploy solar. He talks about solar on reservoirs, which is absolutely an opportunity that we want to explore, but we also want to look at how agrivoltaic technologies can be deployed, and we are supporting the University of Lancaster to work out what that model would look like. I have visited a number of solar farms where farming and solar generation go hand in hand, and we want to see much more of that. Planning policy supports that, but we want to go further.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have always enjoyed my conversations with the right hon. Gentleman, even if we disagree on many things. First of all, it is possible for farming practices to go hand in hand with solar generation. Secondly, even if we hit our most ambitious targets, less than 0.6% of farmland will be taken up with solar. Thirdly, he is right to say that we want to see solar on as many rooftops as possible—car parks, offices and schools—and on reservoirs, but the challenge that we face as a country is such that we need both ground-mounted solar and rooftop generation. I know that we can work together on the rooftop point, and I hope I will convince him of the other.
We love community energy and we are determined to see much more of it all across the country. Through the local power plan, which we published recently, we are rolling out the biggest expansion of community energy in British history. By 2030, Great British Energy, which is delivering for the people of this country, will support over 1,000 local and community energy projects, with £1 billion of investment. Ownership matters to this Government, and we are determined to deliver it for communities across Britain.
That sounds like a great project, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, as I would anyone across the House who has exciting community energy projects in their area. The local power plan partly deals with investment, but it also deals with those questions of how we get regulation right so that communities can sell power locally and make a return that they can keep in their community.
I love all the work that the hon. Member has been doing on community energy; I am tempted to say that we were going to do it anyway, but it was great to have the report on my bedside cabinet to read as well. Giving guidance and making reforms are exactly what we need to do; it is about making it much easier for communities to sell power to the market and hold on to the profits that they make from that. We will legislate to take that forward in the energy independence Bill. There are a number of other things that we are taking forward, but investment in those community energy projects is critical. I would encourage her to speak to the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and make clear that £1 billion through GB Energy to make it happen does matter.
I love Bellshill, and it was a pleasure to visit the other day to see this fantastic facility opening just across my constituency boundary. More than 300 wind turbines are being maintained and operated from the facility. That is a good example showing that the clean energy mission is about not just the renewables being deployed, but the jobs that go with it in communities like my hon. Friend’s.
The hon. Lady could go on all day reading out the things that this Government are already going to do. We want to see much more community ownership, because it matters to us that communities own their future energy, and that people keep the wealth in their communities to invest it in the things that they think are important, because they know their community best. There is a whole series of actions that previous Governments have not taken that would have made that possible. We are going to clear that away and make it possible for communities to own their energy, and we have put £1 billion into that. I always welcome the Lib Dems’ support for what we are doing.
First, just to be clear, we are not abandoning at all the idea that we should put solar on as many car parks as possible and encourage the creation of car ports, so that there can be solar panels on the roof. That is brilliant, and we should see much more of that. We consulted on whether there should be one mandatory solution for the whole country, and the consultation responses, which we take heed of, suggested that was not the right way to go. That does not mean at all that we are not hugely ambitious about solar on car parks.
Yes, I completely agree. I am sure that if my hon. Friend’s local authority is listening, it will hurry up and make those decisions. We also want the process to be more standardised across the country, so that community projects like hers can learn from others who have done the same, and so that we can speed up the whole process.
I suspect that in the coming days England fans will learn a lot from Norway in something else. On the serious point that the hon. Member raises, we should first recognise that Norway took a different approach to extraction from the North sea 60 years ago, and it has continued to do that over its 60 years of extraction from the North sea. Secondly, we are not turning off the taps in the North sea. We have said that we will introduce transitional energy certificates to allow new production tied back to existing fields.
First, we are delighted to be building the first long-duration energy storage in Britain in 40 years, including pumped hydro storage projects that will help us store renewable energy for when we need it. Secondly, there will be local benefits from that and I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about jobs. These are big construction projects and there will be jobs relating to running them afterwards. However, I will look further at his point on community benefits, because the community should benefit from such projects being built.
We take those issues seriously across the energy resilience and security piece. It is for individual developers to look at their individual sites and ensure that they comply with the regulations that are in place. We are also looking at what more needs to be done, because the security and resilience of all our energy infrastructure has never been more important.
I am very happy to answer, because I responded to all the right hon. Lady’s written parliamentary questions, as I always do. In my answers, I set out very clearly that this is not a Government project so the Government do not have all the details. It is a private project, and as with any other private development going on around the country, we would not expect the Government to have an insight into all that data. The Government have not backed that project, so the answers to her questions were as I accurately gave them, and that is the case for all my written parliamentary questions.
The Minister is talking about the importance of long-term partnership. Last week, I was proud to lead the first British parliamentary delegation to Syria since the fall of the Assad regime. I had a number of conversations with Ministers, who asked for technical support from our Government, particularly on special educational needs and disabilities. Some 27% of Syrian children are disabled, following the war. They also asked for us to reopen the embassy in Syria, for business support and a lot of other things. Does the Minister agree that now is the right time for a new development partnership with the Syrian Government, as that nation hopefully builds from the ashes?
I am proud to present this petition on behalf of residents in Longridge in my constituency of Ribble Valley regarding the future of Longridge community hospital, which serves patients across a large semi-rural area, many of whom need health services within easy reach of their homes and families. The petitioners, and those who signed two similar petitions—combined they have over 3,000 signatures—are calling on Lancashire and South Cumbria integrated care board to improve the consistency of its communications and protect the long-term provision of services at Longridge community hospital. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to direct NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board to commit to a full reopening of the hospital to provide health services to benefit the community, and to promptly address fire safety concerns, providing a timeline to reassure residents of when to expect a resolution to their concerns.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Ribble Valley, Declares that Longridge Community Hospital serves patients in a wide geographical rural and semi-rural area, many of whom need health services within easy reach of their homes, but its inpatient services were temporarily closed in November 2025, with beds relocated to Chorley Hospital in December; and further declares that this temporary relocation has placed strain on many residents and left people fearful of the future of health services in the Longridge area. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to direct NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board to commit to a full reopening of the hospital to provide health services to benefit the community, and to promptly address fire safety concerns, providing a timeline to reassure residents of when to expect a resolution to their concerns. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003217]
I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the House’s attention to a hugely concerning issue that has recently unfolded in my constituency: the sudden closure of Durham high school. The lack of communication and clarity from its owners, Galaxy Global Education, up until the very final moments of the school year left staff and families heartbroken and in shock. Founded in 1884, the local institution spent 142 years providing an outstanding educational environment rooted in our local community. Indeed, in 2024 it was named independent secondary school of the year for the north-east by The Sunday Times. In early 2026, the school was still issuing marketing material and advertising pupil enrolment opportunities. Pupil enrolment was still being offered as recently as the beginning of June. Parents had parted with significant sums of money to secure places at the school, yet only a few weeks later what seemed to be an assured future in new hands has fallen apart. Members may ask what went wrong. In 2024, the school was acquired by GGE as part of its proposed expansion into the UK independent school sector. The stated mission of the company was to operate independent schools and promote international education opportunities. As Durham high school has found out to its cost, however, the reality has been different. Following the acquisition of the school, which formerly operated as Durham high school for girls, the parent company incorporated a new UK company, Durham Education Ltd, to run the school under the umbrella of GGE. At a meeting on 27 June 2025 designed to allow parents to understand more about GGE, attendees were told that there would be investment in the school for at least five years to help make it financially viable. One of the parent company’s first acts was to mandate a shift to co-education from September 2025, claiming that it would increase the student roll and secure the school’s future. That was resisted by some families as there was no consultation, and GGE actively silenced parent feedback. The school became Durham high school. But, having demanded that shift, the promised investment to fully install male changing facilities at the school did not materialise. GGE also seemingly blocked the senior leadership team’s efforts to make it work. In one specific instance, the school’s leadership proposed a co-educational integration plan requiring only £3,000 of investment from the parent company, but GGE flatly refused. That starved the school of minimal resources while setting a benchmark designed for failure. This is not an isolated incident; there is a clear pattern across the country. We saw warning signs when GGE acquired and closed Malvern St James, but in that case there was at least some notice. Durham and another GGE-owned school in Wales, Ruthin school, have been afforded no such courtesy.
I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. I completely agree. The way in which the company has acted towards pupils, parents and staff is outrageous. The least it could do is to provide some clarity and support going forward. Later in my speech, I will ask the Minister about some lessons that can be learned.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It seems that this overseas company had no intention of educating our children in the UK, and legislation should be strengthened or put in place to stop this happening again. It is as though GGE saw the fallout of their decision to inform Malvern in advance and attempted to hide from any further scrutiny by giving the other schools zero notice. It is abhorrent. When I contacted GGE’s directors to demand answers, they were at pains to point out to me that they have done all they can to support staff and families. They even alluded to the Government’s introduction of VAT on independent school fees. That is nonsense. Since the VAT changes were announced, Durham high school’s roll only dipped from 288 to 281—a net loss of just seven pupils. The school has a physical capacity for 650 pupils, and a financial break-even point of roughly 350. A senior staff member said in their parting message: “Whatever you read, this isn’t a VAT story. It isn’t a falling rolls or unstoppable decline story. The truth is deeper, and more complex, and eventually truth will out.” It seems clear that there was never any genuine effort by GGE to make this school a success. Speaking to union representatives at the school, I am told that repeated requests to see even a basic plan for how the company would secure the school’s future were rebuffed. What do we know about GGE? Very little seems to be the answer. It was only incorporated in the UK in April 2025, and I understand that it has not yet been possible to assess its level of available cash, debt levels, profitability or inter-company lending. The structure of the company seems equally opaque, spread across several companies, school-operating companies and overseas interests. One of those beneficial owners ultimately traces back to the Cayman Islands, with no transparency at that point. What is clear is that one person holds a significant amount of power, and they were the person with overall control of the school until its closure. Shangqin Gao, a Chinese national, holds roughly 75% of GGE’s shares. As I understand it, the school has had no contact with this person. The House may note that this individual is also linked to two other businesses: Shine Space Management Ltd and Galaxy Capital Real Estate. The latter was incorporated only two years before the purchase of Durham high school. All this background leads us to the crux of the situation: more than 280 children have been left stranded without a school, staff have been left without jobs and young women who sat their public exams this summer may not even be able to collect their results in the school where they studied. Local suppliers have been left facing significant losses due to unpaid invoices. Crucially, children with additional needs who thrived in this intimate environment have been thrown into limbo. They must now search for alternative specialist provision potentially miles away from home, or face being absorbed into mainstream settings. Our local secondary state schools that provide top-class education and often win prestigious awards—such as St Leonard’s, Durham Johnston and Belmont—are all just about full. There is not enough capacity to easily absorb these pupils. As well as throwing these families into crisis, GGE has also heaped pressure on the local authority. Will the Minister liaise with Durham county council to ensure that the admissions team is appropriately supported? The conduct of GGE in the final days, weeks and months of the school’s operation reveals the true nature of this business. As the company ran down the school, the financial team carefully managed the remaining funds to ensure they could pay staff salaries for June, despite GGE blocking the school from paying suppliers. Yet days before payroll was due, an unexpected invoice was received from GGE that would have wiped out those payments entirely, and GGE required the massive bill to be paid that same day. Thankfully, the school business manager prioritised the livelihoods of the hard-working staff, paid the wages and ignored the demand. However, in a final blow to devastated staff, I heard just yesterday that the administrators have informed them they cannot claim unpaid salaries for July and August, despite already carrying out their work for the academic year. A cynical mind would look at how Durham Education Limited was put into administration and conclude that it benefits a parent company to position itself as a major debtor upon any future sale, especially when the ultimate ownership of the land is in doubt. Despite assurances from GGE, the entire debacle bears the hallmarks of a land grab. In Durham, the prime real estate on which Farewell Hall sits is estimated to be worth around £10 million. That brings me to the core question: what can the Government do to stop predatory overseas companies asset-stripping our educational institutions and treating our children’s futures as real estate speculation? Schools such as Durham high served as a safety valve for the local authority's overstretched school place allocations. Despite that, entire families have been thrown to the wolves so that an overseas corporate entity can access prime land on the edge of a historic city centre. Section 128 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 rightly gives the Secretary of State for Education the power to bar unsuitable individuals from managing independent schools. Yet with the opaque structure of the business and the fact GGE has been able to rapidly churn through directors at Companies House, shuffling responsibilities and moving its statutory administrative offices to anonymous London addresses, it seems that oversight on such businesses is patchy. How can we ensure in the future that what has happened in Durham, Malvern and Ruthin does not happen elsewhere? To be clear, my key asks of the Minister are as follows. Will the Minister help families in Durham, Ruthin and Malvern get clarity on what steps were taken by the Department for Education, Estyn and Ofsted to ensure the suitability of GGE? Will the Minister commit to reviewing the governance structure of all the affected schools? Will she advise me whether an independent investigation could be called into GGE’s management of Durham, Malvern and Ruthin to establish exactly what happened? Will she advise me on efforts that the Government, the local authority or the school community can take to preserve the Durham high school site for educational use, rather than allow a historical education asset to disappear? Finally, will the Minister take steps to close corporate loopholes and ensure proper regulation is in place for foreign investors in UK schools? We need robust legal mechanisms within the DFE to prevent foreign capital from severing historical school properties from their educational purposes. We need statutory protections that stop predatory owners transferring freeholds out of educational charities into private, for-profit shell companies. What happened at Durham high school will not simply go away. My constituents may be down but they are certainly not out, and they are driven by a desire for justice. Though they understand it may be too late for their beloved school, they wish no other family or hard-working member of school staff to have to go through the pain and uncertainty that they have felt. Last Friday, my team joined families, pupils, staff and trade unionists outside the school gates for a final act of solidarity. The compassion, mutual respect and dignity that was on display is something that GGE would do well to learn from. I am sure that all of us across the House might agree that no matter the nature of the establishment, the education of our children is a public good, not a real estate portfolio. What happened to Durham, Ruthin and Malvern cannot be allowed to happen again. I will close with the words of Mrs Middleton, the acting head for the school’s final weeks, who has been highly commended for the compassion and dedication that she has shown to the entire school community during the most horrendous circumstances: “On the final day we came together. Of course, there was sadness. There were tears. But there was also laughter, celebration, joy, and a deep sense of knowing one another. The hardest words I have had to say over these past few weeks were: “It’s time to go.” No one moved. So I left the stage, and Mrs Rochester and I walked the children out. Senior Leaders had planned to stand outside, greet parents and clap the children out. All the staff joined us. And for over an hour we clapped, talked, cried, hugged and clapped again. In that hour there was no complaining. No anger. Just togetherness. A community to the very end.”
The hon. Gentleman will know that tackling the cost of living is this Government’s priority. We have already taken action at the Budget, and we have also expanded the warm home discount to nearly 6 million households. We are working closely with other Departments on our kickstarter programme to test how public sector data could be better joined up to target support at those who need it most.