Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The hundreds of workers at Lindsey oil refinery will have noted that in response to an earlier question, the Minister did not attempt to respond on the future of the refinery. At least two investors are looking to take over the whole site. If they prove satisfactory, can the Minister assure me that the Government will back the project?
When areas go through this process—and they are being made to go through it—will the Minister consider making it easier for areas that are unparished to create town and parish councils? Otherwise she will create large unitary authorities and some areas will have town and parish councils and others will not. Will she make it easier to set up town and parish councils where there are not any?
The Minister mentions that 6,000 people replied to the consultation on Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, but that only a small number of respondents actually mentioned the name. How many people from the Isle of Wight responded to that consultation, and how many of them mentioned the name?
The Minister talks about our scrutiny committees being able to recommend the termination of commissioners. Has she given any thought to their involvement in the appointment of commissioners? For example, currently, those appointed as deputy police and crime commissioners have to appear before the police and crime panel, which makes a recommendation to the police and crime commissioner about their suitability for the role. Has the Minister given any thought to how scrutiny committees can get involved before someone takes on the commissioner role, rather than waiting to see if they are good or not and then making a recommendation to the mayor?
Will the Minister give way?
Setting aside the fact that we find ourselves in a situation where conditions have been placed upon the cessation of the annihilation of an entire people and the strange delineation between hostages on one side and prisoners held in administrative detention on the other, we should all of course, as the Prime Minister said, express profound relief at the end of the killing, not least of one child every 45 minutes for two years. Is not the lesson of the last two years that when the UK finally moves on from empty rhetoric to take concrete action, there is movement in the parties to a conflict like this, and that therefore we should be thinking about what more concrete action we can take, in particular in three areas? First, can we please have concrete steps to deter Israeli territorial ambition in the west bank, including a ban on settlement goods, now that we have officially recognised that territory? Secondly, could we have a reassertion of UK support for international law and the institutions that support it? In particular, could the Prime Minister use his relationship with President Trump to have the sanctions on individuals at the UN and the International Criminal Court lifted? Finally, if we are to support or participate in an international stabilisation force, could we insist that it also covers areas B and C of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, where the Israel Defence Forces too often act as cover for incidents of Israeli terrorism?
We all welcome the peace in the middle east and I do not think there is a Member here who does not welcome a two-state solution, but there are concerns across this House about Hamas leading one of those states, when their fundamental goal is to drive the other state into the sea and have a total eradication of that race. That hatred has been translated to the streets of London and the UK. It is affecting our British Jews every single day, and they are afraid. What will the Prime Minister do to alleviate the level of antisemitism that is transferring to the streets of London and Manchester, and across the UK, because of a war that has happened in the middle east? Can we rise above this, and will the Prime Minister rise above this and find a way forward for British Jews here in the UK?
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Constituents have come to me about patients with schizophrenia, for example, who had been released before their psychosis had fully passed, with one such instance tragically ending in the death of another resident. All of these situations could have been prevented if the patient had been kept safely in a bed until they were at a proper level of medication and the psychosis had passed. Does the shadow Minister agree that that is something we need to take forward in this Bill? It is a win-win for all parties.
That is another reason why I am shocked that the mental health budget is decreasing. I am seeing an increase across my constituency—and I am sure it is the same in many others—of girls in secondary school presenting with severe mental health issues, suicidal tendencies and eating disorders, and they are desperately crying out for additional mental health support.
I rise to support new clauses 29, 28 and 39. First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), who mentioned my constituents and the tragic case of the loss of their daughter, Ruth. My experience of listening to her story has made me support the new clauses. I want to finish my remarks with what Kate asked me to say in this House. Kate Szymankiewicz is a GP in Salisbury and her husband is a surgeon. Their daughter, Ruth, took her own life aged 14. She was unlawfully killed while in a child mental health facility—that is what actually happened. That is what was exposed in the court case this summer. What happened to Ruth was a tragedy. The system did not work as it was supposed to work. I am anxious today that the Minister should not rely on the advice and understandings of officials, or on the guidance that is in place. I ask that he is really assured in his own mind that the legislation he is going to take forward will mean that this will not happen again. I will not go into the whole story but, essentially, Ruth was placed in a facility that was a two-hour drive from her home. She was not technically placed out of area, but the family would spend more time driving to see her than they would be allowed to actually spend with her. These are wonderful, loving parents who did everything they could—everything in their power—to support their daughter through a condition that she could and should have recovered from. But because she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act to allow her to be force fed, her parents technically lost many of their rights to involvement in their daughter’s care. They had a wonderful, loving relationship with their daughter. She was a happy child who was determined to get better, and her family were keen to see that that happened. She was sectioned only to allow her to be fed, but the knock-on consequence was that the dynamic between the parents and their daughter, who was a patient, changed as adult protocols were put in place. When Kate visited Parliament yesterday, I asked her, “What would you like me to say on your behalf?” And she said this: “If your child is unwell and must go into hospital, whether that is because of a physical illness such as cancer, or a mental health illness like an eating disorder, they need to know that their mum, or dad, or caregiver, can be there with them, whenever they need, to help them through a scary and vulnerable time. Children cannot be treated in isolation. They need the support of those who love and know them best—their family. Families need to be at the heart of our health system in order for children to heal and for their families to heal with them. When the next child is in crisis, which is right now, I ask you all not to turn away, but to grasp this opportunity to make the Mental Health Act a champion for their wellbeing. Please include all these…amendments to safeguard this generation of young people”.
Will the Minister give way?
I am grateful to the Minister, and I am also grateful to him for what he said about my constituent. There are so many codes of best practice, and so many guidelines. Can he say a little more about what force the code would have, so that we can have some reassurance that the risks that were so tragic in the case of my constituent will be eliminated?
I am from the south-west of Scotland, which is as far from the north-east as one can get in Scotland. None the less, this is a huge issue for the whole country. My hon. Friend is making a point about the North sea basin being mature. We always hear that—it is mature, it is declining—but the Norwegian investment is exploiting areas of gas and oil that previously would not have been accessible. New techniques such as horizontal drilling are delivering huge benefits for the Norwegian economy; we are denying ourselves those benefits. Is that not the case?
Will the Minister give way on that point?
rose—
I thank the Minister for giving way on that point: this is about balance. We need to find a balance in the transition of people coming out of oil and gas and moving into renewables. The difficulty is that we cannot say to these highly-skilled people that there is a great job for them in renewables but it is going to be 10 years down the line. That is no use to them at all: they have bills to pay and families to feed. The balance is out of kilter, and I am afraid that the Government are getting this wrong.
Thank you very much, Sir Desmond, for chairing us today; you are the serial winner of the best dressed Chair competition. As a Kentish man—I was brought up as a Kentish man—I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. I am glad that I was not part of the negotiations with the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), who probably put forward serial applications for a similar debate. It is important to have this debate, building on the legacy of the former Member of Parliament for Ashford, Damian Green. My former colleague understood the significance of the impact on international services at Ashford and Ebbsfleet. He had an Adjournment debate back in October 2023, and, having read that debate in Hansard, it is remarkable how many of the arguments have been rehearsed in this very Chamber before. I suspect the speech of the then Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, will have more than a passing resemblance to that of the current occupant. It is clear from the contributions that we heard way back in 2023 and today from all Members that reintroducing services at Ashford International would be welcomed by residents across Kent and the whole south-east—and it turns out, also those in Strangford and York Outer. The economic case has been set out most recently by the Good Growth Foundation, which has argued that reintroducing services would deliver significant benefits to the region. I intended to go through all the various data it put forward to support its case in its report, but various Members have already done that job for me, so I will avoid the temptation to repeat all those numbers. It is so far, so good, as we are all furiously agreeing with each other. We agree, as did the last Government, that Eurostar—with a private business and ambitions to grow from 19 million passengers to 30 million passengers across Europe—should reopen its services to Ashford International and/or to Ebbsfleet. If it is looking to grow, why ignore a profitable potential market? Its business plan is obviously up to it as a private business, but it currently appears that Eurostar is content to focus on a more profitable route direct to London. It can do that because, without any direct rail competition, some have suggested that it has become complacent. That is what happens in the absence of competition: the same is good enough, there is no incentive for dynamic development, nor the creation of new products, the defence of one’s markets or the pushing of the boundaries. There is no drive either to cut costs to maximise efficiency. I speak with personal experience of this; before coming into Parliament, I was the managing director of a decent-sized business. I hated competition, because competition in a market forced us to sharpen our pencil, both financially and in the services that we provided. I recognised that it was good for our business in the abstract, but in the day-to-day, people want to avoid it. I am therefore pleased that four challenger brands have seen additional opportunities for the tunnel and HS1, which we should now call—I learned to call it—London St Pancras Highspeed, since February this year. Eurostar uses just 50% of its capacity of the tunnel, and the ORR is currently considering the availability of depot space at Temple Mills. Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, appears to agree. In his letter to the ORR, he argues that “the arrival of competition will benefit users of international rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.” How right he is. Competition leads to improved services, increased efficiency and the development of new markets, so why will the Government not apply the same logic when it comes to domestic rail? If Lord Hendy believes what he said to the ORR, why are his Government doggedly pursing their nationalisation agenda, designing competition out of the UK railways? This is important, and it was referred to positively by Labour Members: why is he planning to remove the crucial role of the independent economic regulator from the ORR, making Great British Railways both the player and the referee in the new version of the railways? Surely, that is like giving Eurostar the job of deciding if there is room for more competition on HS1.
The hon. Lady and I come from different perspectives. I think competition drives good economic behaviour, not the state directing individual companies on what they can do, whether profitable or unprofitable. That is a genuine difference of approach. In this instance, I agree with Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, that it is competition in this market that will drive benefits to consumers and the taxpayer. We have to remember that Labour left office in 2010 when there was “no money left” and Governments have to take difficult decisions, as the current Government are learning to their cost.
The hon. and learned Member will be aware that the ORR is looking at Temple Mills because applications have been received under open access agreements. That is not a response to the Government; it is a response to applications from the private sector. We can already see the direction of travel with domestic railways. The Government have argued against every single new open access application since coming to power. It seems they can support competition only when the competition is not against them. Who loses out? Just as at Ashford International, it is the passengers, with fewer routes, fewer services and fewer efficiencies leading to higher costs. The Conservatives support any approach that encourages competition and grows the rail sector, whether domestically or internationally. We welcome the four applications requesting access to Temple Mills, at least one of which anticipates the use of Ebbsfleet and Ashford International. We welcome the Government’s conversion to the benefits of competition, at least on High Speed 1. We look forward to seeing that new-found belief in the private sector in their approach to rail nationalisation more widely. If not, I fear it will be passengers who pay the price.
Kentish.
A good Conservative approach.
I am very grateful and encouraged to hear that point made from the Dispatch Box. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why the Government have written to the ORR advocating against every single open access application since coming into power? After all, open access is bringing additional competition to the wider network.
Proposals for 90 miles of pylons from Grimsby to Walpole in my constituency would have a major detrimental impact on rural areas due to the scale of the infrastructure, the loss of high-quality farmland and the proximity of the infrastructure to homes. Does the Minister understand—I do not think he does—why local people say no to pylons? Will he get National Grid to look properly at undergrounding or offshoring, to reduce the impact on these communities and ensure that if the proposals do go ahead, communities are properly compensated?
I congratulate the hon, Lady on bringing forward this important debate and on speaking powerfully on behalf of her constituents. My heart goes out to Gemma, Rachael and the entire family. My constituent, 11-year-old Tony Hudgell, was just 41 days old when his birth parents abused him so badly that he had both of his legs amputated. Tony will have to live with the consequences of that abuse for the rest of his life. His birth parents have served eight years of a 10-year sentence and have now been released. They will be managed and monitored by police and probation for the remaining two years of their sentence, but after that there will be absolutely nothing—no supervision, monitoring, managing, or reporting of changes in circumstances. The case details will be archived. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is another terrible gap in the system, and that we urgently need a child cruelty register, so that those who remain a risk to children—vulnerable little innocent children and babies—will continue to be monitored and managed?
Energy companies of any kind, whether oil and gas or renewables, need certainty to plan to invest, whether it is onshore or offshore. The Government’s consultation on the North sea’s energy future closed on 30 April, almost six months ago, and the industry is still awaiting an outcome. The only guidance on timing on the Government’s website is to “Visit this page again soon to download the outcome to this public feedback.” The ongoing delay is causing huge uncertainty for sectors of all types of energy investment. Can the Minister confirm when the outcome of the consultation will be published with a date or a week, not a vague timescale?
I secured this debate because what is happening in north-east Scotland simply cannot go on. Hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs are being lost on a regular basis across our region from the world-class energy sector that we are so proud of, not least because of the energy profits levy. These are geologists, engineers, technicians and project managers—highly skilled workers who are nothing but of value to the UK—but they are also people with mortgages, people with families and people who have given decades to an industry that this Government are now destroying through deliberately punitive policies. Offshore Energies UK warns that, largely because of the EPL and other Government policies on the North sea, almost 1,000 direct and indirect jobs will be lost every month. That is 1,000 livelihoods, 1,000 mortgages and 1,000 families facing uncertainty every single month. OEUK also projects that 42,000 jobs are at risk between now and 2030. Energy workers in north-east Scotland feel like they are on borrowed time. No one really celebrates when they manage to survive a round of job cuts, because they know it is likely just to be short-term relief, with more cuts coming soon. The energy profits levy was introduced in 2022, at a time when oil and gas prices were spiking after Russia invaded Ukraine. At that time, Brent crude peaked at over $130 a barrel and averaged $99 a barrel in 2022. Similarly, in 2022, gas peaked at 640p a therm and averaged 165p a therm that year. Let us compare that with this year. In August 2025, Brent averaged $71 a barrel and gas 81p a therm. That is a 28% and a 51% drop on the 2022 averages, and oil this week is at a six-month low. The energy profits levy has ceased to be a windfall tax. The windfall has gone, and the prices have returned to normal levels. The Competition and Markets Authority found that in 2025, oil markets are now relatively stable, and exceptional circumstances seem to have receded.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to talk about the drain of investment and other things from north-east Scotland because of the levy. It feels as if it is a particularly punitive tax on north-east Scotland, given that our region is the energy hub of the UK. Even though the windfall no longer exists, at the Budget last year the Chancellor still decided that she would increase the EPL from 35% to 38%, giving a headline tax of 78%.
The Chancellor also extended the levy until March 2030. Just to ensure that the industry was hit from all angles, she abolished the investment allowance, removing the very mechanism that keeps companies investing.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. At no point have I ever said that we should be persisting with oil and gas at the expense of renewables. We 100% need both, but both means both sides: we do not need to tax the oil and gas industry out of existence in the North sea in order to scale up renewables, because that will do the exact opposite, as he knows. I appreciate his point that jobs have been lost in the past—I know that because I live in the north-east of Scotland—but what happened to oil and gas prices during that time? Were they at a peak or in a trough? They were in a trough but they are now not, yet we are still seeing jobs cut and production decreasing faster than it needs to because of decisions made by this Government.
I agree that we want to keep the workers that we have, and the skills and expertise that they have developed, in north-east Scotland because they are of huge value to north-east Scotland. They will not stay in north-east Scotland out of virtue but only if the jobs are there for them and it makes economic sense for the companies to keep them there. That is not what is happening at the moment, and we are losing a crucial asset to our energy transition at an extraordinary rate.
Exactly—I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. On that point, I will skip forward a little bit to my first question to the Minister, which is when the Treasury will publish its consultation outcome on the future fiscal regime for the North sea, and whether the Government will wait until 2030 to implement that new regime, or whether they will implement it straightaway. Investment decisions worth billions are being put on hold waiting for that answer. They need to know a month, or ideally a week—not just a vague “in due course”. Capital investment forecasts for the North sea have fallen by 84%, from over £14 billion to £2.3 billion for the period 2025 to 2029, and Offshore Energies UK calculates that £26 billion of economic value will be lost under Labour’s EPL extension. Some 90% of OEUK’s member companies are now seeking opportunities overseas, and Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce agrees, warning that the EPL is “eroding investor confidence and driving capital to rival overseas regions.” Shell’s finance chief has called for certainty and a “stable environment”, noting that the UK’s 78% tax rate is “larger than most” other countries and makes it difficult to have confidence in long-term investments. Although Norway, which the Government love to use as a comparison, has a similar tax rate, the Government know that this is a false comparison, because Norway also offers full capital cost deductions. It refunds almost 72% of losses to companies and gives a 24% uplift on investment over four years. The result is that Norway attracts 3.8 times more investment than the UK into the same mature North sea basin. Norway’s North sea will see around £35 billion in exploration and production investment through to 2030; ours will see just £10 billion.
It is absolutely the case—my hon. Friend is completely correct. We are forgoing so many opportunities in the North sea to secure energy for our country and safeguard the skills and jobs that we will need for the transition. There are endless opportunities that, for some reason, we are willing to leave under the North sea. That brings me to my second question for the Minister. Does the Treasury recognise the damage that the EPL is doing to the North sea? We know that the decline in the North sea did not start with the EPL—it is a mature basin—but the EPL is accelerating that decline. Its ripple effects go far beyond the energy producers themselves. The supply chain is haemorrhaging jobs. Hunting in Aberdeenshire laid off 143 employees; Wood Group cut 200 jobs last year; Belmar Engineering entered liquidation this year, with 48 redundancies; Beam in Westhill collapsed, with 100 jobs lost; Well-Safe Solutions cut about 45 jobs; and Harbour Energy has cut 250 jobs, which is 25% of its onshore workforce. I keep coming back to the words that the Chancellor said when Harbour Energy announced its job cuts earlier this year and cited the EPL as a principal factor. She said that this was just “a commercial decision by one company”, but the list I have given—which is not exhaustive—is evidence that that is not the case. It shows that the Chancellor either does not understand, or does not want to understand, the impact the EPL is having. As I am sure other Members do, I regularly visit companies in the north-east of Scotland whose order books for offshore work have completely dried up, forcing them to adapt their business models to other sectors just to keep afloat. Many of those companies do not know whether they will be here in 12 months’ time. They are not hiring, they are struggling to justify investments, and in many cases, they can do nothing more than hope for a change in Government policy. These companies are owned, grown and run by some of the most innovative and entrepreneurial people I have ever met. They are not afraid of branching out or trying new things—they have done so for their whole business careers—but they are being backed into a corner and are running out of options. The irony is that this policy is failing on its own terms, in shrinking the very economic activity that it seeks to tax. The Office for Budget Responsibility originally forecast that the energy profits levy would raise more than £65 billion between 2023 and 2028, but the revised forecast is £21.1 billion. We are on track to miss the target by £44 billion, and revenue from the EPL fell from £4.2 billion to £2.7 billion between 2022-23 and 2024-25. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures show that revenues from oil and gas production were down 27% last year. When did the Treasury last carry out an impact assessment of the EPL’s impacts on production, jobs, economic activity and tax receipts? Have those assessments been revisited following those recent HMRC figures showing the downgraded forecast? Forecasts show that the policy could ultimately cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue by 2050. We have reached the point where the level of taxation means less money. The Government are taxing the North sea so heavily that tax revenues are being lost. We cannot tax jobs that no longer exist, we cannot tax production that no longer exists and we cannot tax businesses that no longer operate in the UK. There is something else that the Government are ignoring. From the early 2030s, the Treasury will face a £2 billion to £3 billion cost each year in decommissioning rebates, a decade earlier than expected. The premature shutdown of fields, driven by the EPL making them too unviable to continue, makes that liability ever more imminent. The policy is also undermining our energy security at a time of global instability, suppressing domestic oil and gas production and increasing our dependence on foreign imports. We are now 42% dependent on energy imports. By 2030, it is projected that our reliance on imported gas will increase to 80%, and our liquefied natural gas imports have increased by 40% in the past year alone. Those changes are partly down to geology, but the decline is accentuated by the punitive tax regime for companies operating out of the North sea. Estimates suggest that there could be 7.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent remaining in the North sea that could be recovered with the right investment. We could cover half our energy needs to 2050 with North sea reserves. If we drive investment away, we will leave that resource untapped, only for imports from elsewhere to cover them. That is a huge loss of economic opportunity for the north-east of Scotland and the UK as a whole. That brings me to my final question, and I will soon conclude. Will the Treasury please commit to de-linking oil and gas pricing in the energy security investment mechanism so that both commodities are assessed on their individual market conditions? Time is running out, and that is not an exaggeration. Every month of inaction means another thousand jobs gone. Every delayed investment decision means less energy security for Britain. Every skilled worker who leaves to go overseas is one we will struggle to get back when we need them for the energy transition. I and, more importantly, the oil and gas sector have four questions for the Minister. First, when will the consultation outcome be published? Secondly, does the Treasury recognise the damage it is inflicting? Thirdly, when was the last impact assessment carried out by the Government? Fourthly, will the Government de-link oil and gas in the energy security investment mechanism? The north-east of Scotland has powered Britain for 50 years. We have contributed hundreds of billions in tax revenues. We developed expertise that is renowned around the world. We have so much more to offer to meet the UK’s current and future energy needs, but only if we are given the chance. Scrapping the EPL is a vital part of that chance.
What lower revenues from the EPL mean is that oil and gas companies are not investing in the North sea, that production is falling in the North sea, and that, for example, revenues from income tax—which the Scottish Government might quite like—are falling as well. There is nothing welcome about the Government not meeting their forecast. It is complete madness even to believe that.
I associate myself with comments on the warm and welcome news of the ceasefire, and I hope it leads to a lasting peace. What assurances has the Prime Minister received from neighbouring partners, particularly Egypt, and what specific actions will he take, first to ensure that humanitarian aid can reach Gaza and, secondly, that it is only humanitarian that reaches Gaza, and that weapons, personnel and matériel that could aid terrorists do not enter Gaza?
As a member of the Bill Committee, I had the opportunity to closely examine the development and scrutiny of this Bill alongside my Opposition colleagues. We sought to strengthen the legislation, particularly in relation to safeguarding children and ensuring robust protections for those admitted under the Mental Health Act framework. Given the shortness of time, I will speak only about amendments 41 and 42. They make the vital clarification that the nominated person for any patient under the age of 16 must have parental or guardian responsibility unless there are clear and established safeguarding concerns. In essence, that would ensure that the parents remain the lawful decision-makers and the first and most natural safeguards for their child’s welfare. Let us consider, for a moment, what is at stake. Imagine a vulnerable 14-year-old girl, frightened and confused during a psychiatric admission. In that moment of distress, a well-meaning adult—or, worse, someone with a hidden agenda—could persuade the child to nominate them as their representative. That individual would then gain legal powers to object to treatment or discharge decisions, while the parents—the very people who know the child best and have both a moral and legal duty to protect them—could be sidelined. Once such a nomination is witnessed, it carries legal force. The rights and responsibilities of parents could, in effect, be overridden. Although that may sound hypothetical, it is not. Family courts have seen precisely how manipulative individuals exploit vulnerable young people. Groomers, traffickers and abusers thrive in the legal grey zones. If we are not crystal clear that only a court may displace parental responsibility, we risk leaving the door ajar for such exploitation. I ask the Minister to assure the House in winding up that no child under 16 will be permitted to override parental authority simply by nominating someone else, without a full and proper judicial process. The Bill does have fallback provisions, which are of course welcome, but they are not watertight unless the law explicitly confirms that only a court can transfer or restrict parental rights.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both he and I made those points in Committee. I am surprised that the Minister does not see the risks here. The safeguard that my hon. Friend talks about must be beyond any doubt. The amendment in his name provides exactly that clarity. It would prevent unrelated or loosely connected individuals from stepping into a role that rightfully belongs to those with both a legal duty and an emotional bond—the parents or guardians—and it would preserve the fundamental principle that parents should not find their role diminished by accident or administrative oversight. As I was saying, this is not an abstract risk; it is a very real and foreseeable consequence of the unclear drafting. These amendments do not weaken the rights of patients. They strengthen the protections around them. They ensure that in modernising this law, quite rightly, we do not inadvertently undermine the oldest and most important protection of all: a parent’s duty to safeguard their child. We must ensure that the state can only curtail that right under the strictest judicial scrutiny, with evidence tested and the child’s welfare paramount. In doing so, we will make this legislation not only legally sound but, in my view, morally right. New clause 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), would require local authorities and ICBs to supply a fully costed plan to ensure they are able to provide adequate community services for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. I support that entirely. As vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and from speaking to groups in my constituency such as Last Wednesday and Growing Hope, I know that the process around SEND is complicated and not fit for purpose. Fortunately, we have a chance to help it slightly with this Bill, so I ask the Minister to support new clause 31.
On grid infrastructure, the Chinese wind turbine manufacturer Ming Yang has said that it is looking to set up a wind turbine factory in Scotland. Our security services have warned us about the risks of Chinese state-sponsored hackers trying to infiltrate and destroy energy systems in the west, and hidden kill switches have been found in Chinese solar installation technology in the United States. Can the Minister provide the House with a very clear assurance that neither Ming Yang nor the Chinese state will be able to remotely control our energy infrastructure—yes or no?
There is a widely held belief that the catalyst for the pure evil that happened on 7 October was the fear among Iran and its terrorist proxies that Saudi Arabia was close to signing the Abraham accords. The good news is that the Abraham accords peace agreement, between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco, has endured over the past difficult two years and is a model for regional economic co-operation and peaceful co-existence in the region. On the back of yesterday’s agreement, what concrete steps will the Prime Minister take to encourage and extend the Abraham accords as a key part of the emerging picture in the middle east, with particular reference to getting Saudi Arabia back to the table?
I will be brief. I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks to you and your constituents with respect to recent events. It is a pleasure to make a brief speech in a Delegated Legislation Committee opposite the Minister. When he shadowed me, and sat on this side of the Committee Room, we spent many a happy hour on the Committee Corridor. However, he should rest assured that I do not intend to use this opportunity to get my own back on him for what he did back then, because I regard him not only as a friend, but as an extremely diligent Minister. In that vein, regarding the largely technical measure before us, I seek only one real assurance from him. It reflects the penultimate two paragraphs of the letter sent yesterday by the Security Minister to members of the Committee. He has reassured the Committee that he has put in place ongoing co-ordination processes to ensure that, on an ongoing basis, any issues that arise are dealt with in a timely fashion. I seek the Minister’s reassurance that he and his officials are now confident that they have taken this opportunity—with this piece of delegated legislation—to remedy any other errors that might have been identified, or at least checked that there were no other anomalies in the existing legislation.
Charnwood.