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 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The Government remain committed to longer-term reform of the dental contract. We have to look much more at the outcomes that we are commissioning, and not simply concentrate on units of activity, which have not aged well and are part of the problem that we are trying to address.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for securing the debate. He and I have talked about this issue many times, but I never tire of it. As he rightly said in his speech, it is an incredibly exciting opportunity for the highlands and an important opportunity for the country. I always know that winter is coming when the hon. Gentleman’s jumpers make a reappearance. I am a big fan of them, and it is great to see him here today. He is a great champion of his constituency, which covers an enormous part of Scotland. However, having run the Arisaig to Mallaig half-marathon, I would say that he has a significant amount of very beautiful sand in his constituency. This has been an interesting debate. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s points about long duration energy storage, but we have also heard about its cousins, such as pumped hydro and sand batteries, which is about storing energy through heat rather than in more conventional ways. It is important to be agnostic about the new technologies that are coming forward all the time and becoming ever more developed. We need a significant amount of flexibility in our system to be able to store and utilise the clean power that we are generating when we need it most. We should be open to a whole range of technologies, so I am very happy to have more conversations about all of them. The hon. Gentleman made a strong case for the importance of long duration electricity storage. Over decades we have built a significant amount of renewable energy generation across the UK, both offshore and onshore, but we have not kept pace with being able to store that electricity for when we need it most, which has meant that our electricity system cannot get the full benefit of the clean, cheap, secure power that is being generated every single day. In fact, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have to spend considerable amounts of money on constraining that renewable capacity, because we did not build the grid. We have not built the necessary storage, so our transition to being able to deploy clean power when we need it requires much more flexibility, which comes from long duration energy storage. I recently visited the pumped hydro project in Cruachan, which follows a well-trodden path of technology that we have deployed for a very long time. Pumped hydro lasts for a long time, is an important part of how we deliver long duration energy storage and will play a critical role in balancing supply and demand. In June, Ofgem published its minded-to list for window 1 of the cap and floor scheme. That was a significant milestone for the sector. I agree with the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter)—there is a double act of Members with long constituency names——about the ambition on long duration energy storage, but I would also say that this is the first long duration energy storage we have built in Britain in 40 years, and it is a significant amount: 7.5 gigawatts of capacity is not nothing. We remain really ambitious. He is right to say that future scenarios require even more long duration energy storage, but this is a remarkable turnaround from a 40-year gap in building any of these projects anywhere in the country. Ofgem has provisionally selected 16 projects. It has made minded-to decisions, but a consultation process is running. Three projects are pumped storage hydropower in Scotland, representing over half the LDES capacity. Ofgem will announce its final decision on those projects by the end of the year. When they are delivered, they will reduce costs for consumers by maximising our renewable energy generation to make it available when we need it at peak times and reducing our reliance on natural gas, which is the part of the constraints that is often misunderstood in the press. The cost does not come from turning off wind; it comes from turning up gas somewhere else in the country. If we deploy LDES in the way we intend to, we will be able to reduce that dependency on costly gas generation. I understand that the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire agrees with me on the need for long duration energy storage—we have had this conversation many times—but he also rightly wants to make sure that his community benefits from these projects. Their construction in itself creates a significant number of jobs over several years. That is expected to begin by next year and continue into the early 2030s. One project that he mentioned, Loch Earba, will create approximately 600 jobs over its five-year construction period, including at least 30 new apprenticeships. It is estimated that another project, Loch Kemp, will create 370 jobs in the highlands at peak construction. It has committed £7.5 million to a community fund, and to investing in projects such as the Caledonian canal and local roads. The hon. Gentleman also rightly made the point about local supply chains and making sure we are delivering as much of the economic benefit of those projects in local communities. The single most important thing my Department has been driving in two and a half years in relation to the construction of these projects is no longer to be agnostic about where we build things as a country, because we actually care about industrial strategy. I have been very clear with all developers that expect to receive public money that they should look at every single part of their procurement to ensure, even down to the smallest contracts, that they procure locally as much as possible. I recognise that that is a shift from where we have been for a long time as a country, but it is critical because that is where we get supply chain jobs right across the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Let me come to that point, because we have discussed that before. My starting point is that communities who host infrastructure should feel the benefits of it, and they should be meaningful benefits. We consulted on how we will deliver both community benefits and shared-ownership opportunities for communities. We have put £1 billion pounds into Great British Energy to make sure that there is the financial capacity for communities to take up that shared-ownership offer. We will continue to push that. I have spoken before about the need for us to balance that though; ultimately, all the costs of building these projects is borne by consumers across the country. The hon. Gentleman and I share the objective of bringing down bills as much as possible. There is a balance to be struck and I do not pretend that is easy because his community—he is right to champion them—will rightly want more and more community benefits. My job is to balance that against the cost of these projects. I need first to ensure that they are economical and will be built, because that is important for the national interest, and secondly that they are built as affordably as possible so that we can bring down bills for everyone. There is a balance to be struck, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before. I know that the hon. Gentleman will always want us to go further, but I would just say that the cap and floor scheme is designed to provide not huge public subsidy to make these projects happen, but just the right amount to make them viable. That is the key thing; the cap and floor scheme is designed to be a viability mechanism, so there is a risk that we end up using consumer bills to subsidise projects if we go too far. That does not mean that I do not share his ambition, and I have been very clear with developers that we should see genuine community benefits coming forward and that those should be meaningful for communities.
I thought the hon. Member was going to conclude by asking whether I would commit to putting some pressure on the Scottish Government, which would be unlike him. But I agree with him, actually. I have had a number of really productive conversations with Stephen Gethins, Scotland’s Energy Minister, on exactly that topic of how we can make these projects work for local communities. If we can bring that local investment into roads and other infrastructure, it leaves that legacy that I think we all want to see in communities. It is also of benefit to the projects, which will need some investment in road infrastructure anyway. In summing up, I want to pick out two issues. First, I really welcome the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire’s recognition of the importance of long duration energy storage for our system. The truth of the past few years has been a recognition that, for decades, we had a consensus on building renewables across Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, but we did not make the investment that we should have in building the grid to connect them. We are now paying the price for that. Equally, storage is absolutely central to how renewables can work in the system, giving us the flexibility to deploy that energy when we need it most and making sure that we are genuinely bringing cleaner, cheaper power to homes and businesses when we need it, which is how we bring down bills. It also has to be the foundation of delivering economic growth. The hon. Gentleman rightly recognised the Prime Minister’s commitment to growth in every postcode. Energy policy does not exist in a vacuum; it is part of our industrial strategy. We are building these extraordinarily important projects that will last for more than a century. There has to be some legacy for communities from those projects, and we have to bring people with us on this journey. I frequently say in this place in particular, but in the main Chamber as well, that we do need to build infrastructure as a country—that is important—but we should try to bring communities with us wherever we possibly can. Community benefits and real investment are a critical part of that. The Scottish Government are clearly a key partner in this, given that planning decisions in Scotland are not for me but for the Scottish Government. I know that they share my ambition about the importance of both deploying long duration energy storage and community benefits. They have guidance on this matter, and we are working together on it. Whether it is through community benefit funds, the bill discounts that we have announced in terms of electricity infrastructure, or our ongoing work to make sure that there is an industrial benefit from these projects, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, while we might not get everything quite to the extent that he would like, these projects are an opportunity for communities to benefit from construction, from community benefits and from—I hope—a genuine lasting legacy. Importantly for us as a country, this is how we deliver the secure, home-grown clean power that we need in the system, bring down bills for people and continue the transition to net zero, which is so important. I commend the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire again, and I look forward to what I am certain will be further conversations on this in due course. Question put and agreed to.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am really pleased to have secured this debate, and I am grateful to the colleagues who have come to participate in it. Statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers is an important and pressing matter, not only to those in the Chamber but to thousands of households, and it goes to the heart of the Government’s aim to support families and ensure that no child is left behind. When a child can no longer live with their parents, it is often grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or close family friends who step forward to offer them a loving home. Across the UK, more than 150,000 children are growing up in kinship care, and many have experienced trauma, loss or significant upheaval. At precisely the moment they need stability and reassurance, the people offering them that security can find themselves facing an impossible choice between caring for a child they love and keeping their job. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care, I have heard numerous accounts from young people and carers of just how much of a difference a family safety net can make to a child’s life outcomes.
The hon. Member makes an incredibly important point on behalf of his constituents. Over 40% of those foster care placements are kinship arrangements. That is a significant number of families, and they should not be forced to decide between continuing to work or looking after a child. The decision is not a difficult one—their decision will always be to look after a child who comes to them in traumatic circumstances. We should not rely on kinship carers taking unpaid leave, which can put in jeopardy their career, their household finances and the security with which the child moves into their home. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
We are very popular! I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the Lady.
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The concern for kinship carers is that they either have to give up work voluntarily or fall foul of their employer’s terms and conditions merely by taking on the moral duty of caring for a child. Introducing statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers would send a signal in society that we recognise the importance of family arrangements and that those family arrangements extend not just to birth parents, adoptive parents or foster parents, but to kinship families as well.
The hon. Member makes a powerful point. She is right—as she so often is—that we should not expect these carers to rely on the good will of their employers. The Government have made good strides in having the term “kinship” recognised across Government. We now have the ambassador and pilots across the country, which I will come to later. Strides have been made, but to have this codified and recognised legislatively would spread the word. There have been good examples of private sector employers offering paid leave for kinship carers, which is incredibly welcome, but they need to be as aware as they can be. It is much easier to notify the public sector of changes through Government, but the private sector might not always be so aware. There is a big opportunity if the Government are prepared to consider this closely and bring forward the outcome of the review that they are undertaking. We celebrated Kinship Care Week earlier this month. I was pleased to welcome the Minister for children and families—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister)—to Blundell Park in Cleethorpes to meet some of our remarkable and dedicated local kinship carers and impressive council staff from the children’s services team. I am proud to have secured north-east Lincolnshire as one of the seven areas selected for the Government’s new kinship zones programme. We have already seen more than 450 children in north-east Lincolnshire benefit from a pilot of wraparound, integrated social services support and a financial package on a par with foster carers. The conversations I had that day remind us how much more there is to do. Kinship care arrangements often happen with little or no warning. Families can be given as little as an hour to decide whether they can take in a child—or several children—with whom they may not have the closest of relationships. They may have children of their own or other family responsibilities in the home. There is enormous emotional pressure and often a sense of guilt when the alternative may be sending a child formally to enter the care system.
My hon. Friend is right that this is a real opportunity—a pivotal moment, really—for the Government to put right a long-standing inequity in provision for different family arrangements. I look forward to the Minister setting out in more detail how far the Government have got with looking at that review, and when we can hope to see an outcome. Once a decision is made by the carer, children can arrive with little more than the clothes they are wearing. Carers may have no knowledge of their medical or dietary needs. Suddenly, they find themselves navigating school arrangements. It could be a grandmother navigating school arrangements, when the difference in systems is vast, and coping with new appointments and the needs of a traumatised child, often with little practical support.
I was not aware that the Education Committee did that inquiry. It goes very well with an inquiry that the APPG on kinship care did recently on the SEND needs of children in kinship care. Across Parliament, Members who have connections with kinship care communities recognise that children often arrive with additional needs, and that families often have no experience of managing or dealing with that. If a person in work, regardless of what their job is, is suddenly expected to provide for the needs of a child—it could be a physical need, or a mental, emotional or cognitive need—they have to figure it out, and in this day and age we should not expect them to take unpaid leave to navigate their way through that. They are stepping forward to provide safety and stability—the same level of care that we expect foster carers to provide. If the state provides foster care for a child in need, we make available all the necessary support, including the right to paid leave, but kinship carers are not currently entitled to that.
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful contribution. To build on that, eight in 10 kinship carers who leave their work never return to paid employment. This is not just a short-term problem; it can lead to lifelong issues. The Government have pledged to ensure that people are in work for the long term, and they are setting an example of what work means, but providing sufficient flexibility in our employment law is the right way to go to ensure that these families can be self-sufficient while providing support and love for the child. They should be able to earn a living without being penalised. My constituent Lucy was in the same position as the constituent of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson): she had to take a mix of sick leave and compassionate leave, which her employer very kindly jumbled together. She said, “Why should my kids be disadvantaged because the system doesn’t recognise them and doesn’t really work for them?”
I could not agree more. Independent analysis commissioned by the Family Rights Group says that paid kinship leave could return over £2 into the economy for every £1 invested, so double the support provided to these families goes back into the local economy.
I do. We should hold that in our minds as we go forward and look into the review in more detail. We are looking at the issue of equal treatment for all families and making sure that some are not treated differently to others. I am aware of my time coming to a close; the Minister will want to respond to the many points that have been made. There have been some good examples of private companies, including Tesco and B&Q, two really big retail employers, that have already recognised the need for change ahead of the curve and offer paid kinship leave. Around 76%—three quarters—of employers support a Government-funded statutory entitlement. It is clear that there is more to be done to help kinship families to contribute economically and realise financial security. There are some practical questions about how a statutory entitlement would work, particularly when caring arrangements happen suddenly. There are credible proposals and we have a real opportunity to make meaningful progress. We can give kinship carers a statutory right to paid employment leave akin to that of adoptive and other working parents. That would keep thousands of carers out of the welfare system, helping to reduce strain on it. It would return economic benefits through carers remaining in employment with higher tax revenue and better outcomes for children. Most importantly, it would give children the protected time they deserve to heal from trauma and settle into their new homes. It is therefore crucial that the Government’s parental leave and pay review finally closes this unfair gap in the law and delivers the first ever statutory right to pay and leave for kinship carers. A great deal has been achieved. The Government deserve recognition for already having taken some important steps, but we can do much more, not least ensuring that carers have the time and financial security to be able to provide kinship care.
Thank you! I think it is favouritism. I thank the charities Kinship and the Family Rights Group for their campaigning on this issue. If the Government want people to remain economically active and financially stable, to provide that stability necessary for the child or children, we have to take this forward. I am grateful to the Minister for her generosity in hearing everybody. We have had lots of contributions from Members today, as well as the dreaded, famous “at pace” comment. We will continue to keep up the pressure from our side. We need to get this right for every child who will go through this process while we are waiting. There will be a huge number of such children between now and next year. We owe them, and they deserve for us to get it right. Question put and agreed to.
I think there is broad agreement on the principle behind the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, but is he seriously suggesting that, for every additional crime that we decide needs to be added to his inexhaustible list, we must come back to the House and somebody has to sign off on it?
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s points, but that is not what the Bill provides for; it certainly does not allow for what he suggests. We have had some silly games with semantics. Does he agree that this is a broad catch-all of very serious crimes, including those he is talking about?
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing the debate. I am particularly fond of this discussion because, in a slightly tenuous link, my late grandad Bill Dibley was born and raised on the Isle of Wight and went on to become an electrical engineer. When I was about five, he made me my first circuit board to play with, which ignited my love of innovation. I am sure he would be delighted that we are here supporting the great legacy of technical skills in the Isle of Wight and the whole UK. I am grateful to private companies in my constituency such as BAE Systems, which, in its Academy for Skills and Knowledge, trains apprentices for both its own organisation and the surrounding supply chain. I want to make two quick key points. Under the EU, areas such as mine in Lancashire were among the biggest beneficiaries of skills support and funding, but now, as schemes such as the apprenticeship brokerage service go only to mayoral areas, which Lancashire is not, we risk losing so much of our progress. I have been encouraged by the Prime Minister’s focus on reindustrialisation and this Government’s commitment to growth in every postcode, but we need to ensure that it means exactly that. I also have a lot of food manufacturing companies in my heavily rural constituency. One of those is Baxi, which typically would look to take on around 30 apprentices each year. However, this year, because of wider financial pressures, it has not been able to take on any. We must address skills shortages, not just by encouraging more young people into manufacturing, but by ensuring that businesses have the means to invest in them. I am grateful that this Government believe deeply in technical education, and we know that the public are with us, because 93% of people believe that manufacturing is important for growing the UK’s economy, but we have to ensure that the cost of doing business is not too high to develop those skills, and that all parts of the UK are supported to contribute to building our skills base here.
Continuity of care in maternity services is based on women building relationships with maternity practitioners who meet them where they are. I would like to echo the comments of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan): many obstetricians and midwives have been truly disappointed at comments from an NHS leader yesterday, who argued that more maternity units should be shut and that only consolidation of services can make births safer. Women in this country will not accept the industrialisation of our bodies. This Labour Government have promised neighbourhood and preventive healthcare, which has to include allowing new mums to feel rooted in the communities where they will go through their biggest physical and psychological change. Can the Minister assure me that our bodies will not be treated like a manufacturing supply chain to be optimised as she develops the asks for maternity services in this country?
Will the Minister outline the type and scale of events that are likely to meet the threshold for implementing a transport plan, or for organisation or local authority applications to apply?
For those considering suicide, the message must be that there is always another way, but with new Office for National Statistics data showing that the rate of suicide in Cumberland has increased yet again, would Ministers meet me and Cumbrian Members to ensure that our health system is providing support to all when they need it?
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument and is a powerful advocate for kinship carers and the children they care for. When the Education Committee took evidence on this issue during our special educational needs and disabilities inquiry, Kinship stated that 47% of all children in kinship care have some sort of special educational need. That underlines that we should be giving kinship carers statutory paid leave so that they can meet the child’s complex needs.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate, and I thank Members for their contributions to what has been, unsurprisingly, an interesting and enlightening discussion. Before I respond to some of the specific questions raised, I will first set out the Government’s approach to reforming the House of Lords. The Government have a number of manifesto commitments in this space and are approaching reform of the second Chamber in stages. The first stage is already complete: in the previous Session, Parliament passed legislation to remove the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This important and historic step means that no peer can now be a Member of the House of Lords solely on the basis of birthright. We are currently in the second stage, and are focused on implementing our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and a participation requirement, which I know Members from all parties are concerned about. For a long time there has been general agreement in both Houses that the second Chamber is too big. However, if we ask more Members of that Chamber to depart by introducing a retirement age, new talent will be required, and new people will need time to learn how to develop expertise and fulfil their duties effectively as Members of the other place.
I know the right hon. Gentleman has strong views on this issue, and I am glad he has had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am sure he will continue to contribute. I take his point, but I do not entirely agree. I think the primacy of the House of Commons and of MPs is incredibly important, and I feel that view will, unsurprisingly, be shared in a room full of Members of the House of Commons. Our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and a participation requirement will have a direct impact on Members of the other place; therefore, during the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, the Leader of the House of Lords proposed to establish a dedicated Select Committee, to provide the opportunity for the second Chamber to shape how further reforms are delivered. The Retirement and Participation Committee published its report in July, and it was debated in the other place in September. The report was genuinely House-led, with over 100 Members submitting evidence to the Committee. The Government are carefully considering the Committee’s recommendations and will respond substantively later this year. I know that if Members are here for this debate, they will look out for that response. The historical context of House of Lords reform tells us that an incremental approach is often quite effective. Throughout the 20th century there were various attempts to fully reform the second Chamber. Some passed, but some failed. Of course, there were the Parliament Acts of 1911 and of 1949, but there were also decades of stagnation and stalled attempts. The previous Labour Government managed to introduce the House of Lords Act 1999, reducing the number of hereditary peers from around 700 to 92. In the 21st century, a royal commission and joint Committee of both Houses were established, alongside the publication of numerous White Papers during the Blair and Brown years. The coalition Government introduced a Bill that was voted down in the House of Commons. None of those attempts were able to bring about lasting reform to the second Chamber. However, during that time it was possible to pass reforms on expulsion, attendance and resignation that held cross-party consensus. That is why the Government are focused on conducting a staged approach to House of Lords reform. We are focused on delivering outcomes and keeping promises. Rather than attempting to reform the whole House in a single go, our strategy is to implement important initial reforms that meet our objective of having a smaller second Chamber that better represents the country it serves. The third stage of reform, which has taken up a large proportion of this debate—I will return to some specific points—focuses on the manifesto commitment to consult on proposals to replace the Lords with an alternative second Chamber. The Government recognise that previous public consultations and attempts to reform that House did not bring about lasting change. Nevertheless, the Government want to see a second Chamber that better represents the nations and regions—something I am personally very interested in—and I know that hon. Members share that vision. There are many ways of achieving that goal, and we owe it to the public to get the consultation right. Let me address some of the specific points made by individual Members. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who referenced the abolition of the House of Lords in 1649. A lot of things happened in 1649, some of which we may not wish to repeat. It was also enjoyable—and entertaining in a different way—to hear from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I was surprised to hear him say that he wants continuity, given that there has not even been continuity in the party he has represented within this Parliament. I think this country needs to change and I believe that, in his own way, he believes the country needs to change, too—otherwise his recent change of party is somewhat surprising. I enjoyed hearing him dabble in unicameralism; I was not necessarily expecting that point, which was often championed in this place by the former Labour Member Mike Gapes, a proud unicameralist. There are not many of them in the House, so it was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Romford make that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made a point, among many others, about the size and composition of the Lords. The Government believe that all peers should make an active contribution to the House of Lords. There is a general, albeit not universal, consensus that the second Chamber is too big. In addressing that, we should recognise that the pace of change in every field is increasing, which means we need new talent with up-to-date experience. The introduction of a participation requirement and a retirement age sit at the heart of this work. As the Leader of the House has said, we believe the second Chamber works best when it is full time with part-time Members. My hon. Friend will get a lot of sympathy on the Government Benches for his point, which I will return to in a moment, about the number of representatives from the nations and regions. HOLAC is independent, and vetting for propriety includes checks with Government Departments, agencies and other organisations, including the Electoral Commission. It plays a vital role in vetting all peers and nominating Cross Benchers to the Lords. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) spoke passionately about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, and I know her frustrations on that matter. It is obviously a sensitive and delicate subject matter that should be dealt with seriously. The Government were and remain neutral on that specific Bill and the issue of assisted dying, and it was up to the other place to determine how that Bill was scrutinised, as with other legislation. I enjoyed the reference to Kellie from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—although I always warn against weighing the mailbag to find out how important an issue is, as I am sure all Members would agree. I was interested to hear the Lib Dem position with regard to the monarch. That said, the loss of trust in politics comes, alas, at least as much from the Commons as from the Lords. It is unacceptable that disgraced peers can retain their peerages regardless of circumstances. Legislation to enable peerages to be removed was included in the King’s Speech. The Government will announce further details in due course. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), talked about care, caution and balance; I am disappointed that was not the position the Conservatives took with regard to the abolition of the hereditary principle. I once again thank right hon. and hon. Members for this thought-provoking debate on the second Chamber. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered House of Lords reform.
The challenge in my region is that foreign direct investment comes in, builds big factories and hoovers up the existing skilled workforce from local small and medium-sized enterprises, and there is not a pipeline to replace them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that regional government works with the further education sector and employers to ensure that there is a proper joined-up skills system so that we do not just bring in new businesses but support our existing SMEs?
Will Ministers meet me to discuss the future of East Cleveland hospital and what other services we can get closer to our community?
Blackpool Victoria hospital desperately needs more money, because the ICB’s funding for hospital trusts does not account for the 20 million tourists or the complexity of care required. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the hospital receives its fair share of extra funding from the ICB?
This month, we heard that Wareham’s chemotherapy clinic will reopen early next year, following two years of campaigning, meaning that patients across Purbeck will no longer have to travel long distances to access cancer care. Building on that success, will the Minister work with me to finally restore the rheumatology clinic at Swanage community hospital, so that many more patients can access care much closer to where they live?
T9. As the Minister knows, I work with a lot of dying people and their families, so good palliative care is important to me, as it is to my constituents. Recently, this House turned down an opportunity to expand end-of-life care, with some opponents citing the state of palliative care as the reason for voting against assisted dying. What is the Minister doing to improve palliative care, particularly in the light of recent announcements about a national care service?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this important debate and making such a strong case for manufacturing skills, both on the Isle of Wight and across the country. As he set out, the Isle of Wight punches above its weight in advanced manufacturing. Businesses including Wight Shipyard, Diverse Marine and GKN Aerospace demonstrate the breadth of modern British manufacturing, from shipbuilding and aerospace to clean energy, defence and precision engineering. My hon. Friend is right that this is not simply about preserving Britain’s industrial heritage; it is about building the industries, supply chains and skilled careers of the future. I particularly welcome my hon. Friend’s focus on the new Large Structures Innovation Centre and Isle of Wight College’s specialist centre for engineering and advanced manufacturing training. Investment in facilities and innovation must go hand in hand with investment in people, so that employers have access to workers with the skills they need, and local people can benefit from the opportunities being created. My hon. Friend was also right to recognise the strengths of Derby, from rail and automotive to aerospace and nuclear power. Alongside the Team Derby initiative, those strengths demonstrate the benefits of bringing together industry, skills and investment to support growth. As we have heard, across the UK manufacturing contributed £229 billion to the economy last year and supported 2.5 million jobs, with advanced manufacturing alone supporting around 770,000 jobs. But we need to prepare for the future: 36% of the manufacturing workforce is aged over 50, and Skills England projects demand for around 148,000 workers in priority occupations in advanced manufacturing by 2035, reflecting both growth and the need to replace those who leave the sector. That is why skills are central to our approach to growth in every postcode. We are investing more than £1 billion in sector skills packages, including £182 million for engineering, to strengthen technical training and build the workforce needed by advanced manufacturing and other growth-driving sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West made an important wider point. As well as creating the skilled workforces that businesses need to grow, we need to ensure that young people have the opportunities they need to start, stay and succeed in high-demand sectors. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), talked about youth unemployment; I remind him that between 2021 and 2024 the number of young people not in employment, education or training rose by a quarter of a million and the Conservatives did nothing. That is why we are reforming vocational routes for young people, including apprenticeships and technical education, and investing in technical excellence colleges, strengthening careers education and expanding work experience to help young people to move from education into skilled employment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) said, we need clear technical pathways that begin before young people make crucial choices and continue into further education, apprenticeships and skilled work. That starts with technical education from age 14, on an equal footing with academic education, to help more young people to access technical qualifications alongside their GCSEs, careers guidance and relevant work experience.
I will not because I am short on time. If I have time later, I will. We have also announced new vocational GCSEs to give young people greater choice and equip them with practical knowledge and skills. After GCSEs, young people need routes that are easy to understand and valued by employers. This week is T-level week; these qualifications in engineering and manufacturing combine specialist classroom learning with a substantial industry placement, giving students experience of the workplace and a route into skilled employment, an apprenticeship or further study. From 2028, V-levels in engineering design and engineering manufacturing will provide a broader applied route, while occupational certificates will offer a two-year route towards skilled roles such as engineering operative, autocare technician and welder. Foundation certificates will help students who need additional preparation before they progress to level 3 study. Together, the reforms will provide greater choice and clearer progression into manufacturing careers.
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The whole point is that we want to offer young people a range of options and choices. Apprenticeships will remain central to our offer because they allow people to earn while they learn, and help employers to develop the skills that they need. I know there are calls for the maximum funding band levels to be reassessed in certain occupational areas, and we are working closely with the sector and Skills England to determine how best to use all available funding sources, based on robust evidence of cost of delivery. Transforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy is giving employers greater flexibility and supporting 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships. New apprenticeship units will also help the system to respond more quickly to changing skills needs. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for recognising that apprenticeship units in battery manufacturing, mechanical fitting and assembly, and mechanised welding were developed by Skills England in just three months, following consultation with employers and sector experts. I am sure the Skills Minister will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the dedicated support that Skills England has established. We are also increasing support for employers. We fully fund apprenticeship training for employers of all sizes for eligible young apprentices under 25, while smaller employers will receive a £2,000 hiring payment when they recruit an apprentice who is under 25. That support matters, particularly to smaller manufacturers, which are vital to local supply chains but can find it harder to meet the initial cost of recruiting and supporting an apprentice. Alongside clearer routes and strong apprenticeships, colleges need the specialist facilities, equipment and teaching expertise required by modern manufacturing. That is why we have established four advanced manufacturing technical excellence colleges, including the one my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) highlighted in her city. They are part of a wider network of 29 technical excellence colleges, representing an investment of £295 million, that is expected to benefit more than 100,000 learners by the end of this Parliament. The colleges will provide advanced facilities, expert teaching and training shaped by employer demand. Through a hub-and-spoke approach, they will share expertise with other providers, thereby strengthening technical education beyond their own campuses.
My hon. Friend pre-empts what I was going to say, which is that a key part of our approach is about shifting power, funding and accountability away from Westminster. We will work with mayoral and strategic authorities to shape their local skills systems and support economic growth in their regions. I assure my hon. Friend that that will apply to Cornwall, just as it will apply to the opportunity to work with our mayors in the west midlands, west Yorkshire and south Yorkshire, as colleagues asked about. We want to design locally tailored, vocationally focused pathways for each region. Strategic authorities are well placed to bring together employers, schools and colleges, to strengthen the links between education and work, and to help to broker relevant work experience. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) highlighted, they can build on existing successful partnerships such as that between Nottingham Trent University and West Notts college. They can connect skills decisions with their understanding of local investment, workforce demand and the needs of employers. That really matters, because the opportunities available on the Isle of Wight are not the same as those in Derby, Stoke-on-Trent, Mansfield, Lichfield, Cornwall, Doncaster, Portsmouth, Wolverhampton, Lancashire, Alloa and Grangemouth, Taunton and Wellington, Glasgow, Cambridgeshire or Meriden and Solihull. Local leaders can shape delivery around the strengths and needs of their economies—I hope the devolved Government in Scotland have listened carefully to hon. Members’ points. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West rightly highlighted the success of manufacturing on the Isle of Wight and the importance of investing in the workforce that will sustain it. The businesses that hon. Members have described demonstrate that world-class advanced manufacturing can thrive and create skilled jobs throughout the country. But that is only half the job; investing in the skills that power them is what turns ambition into long-term economic success. That is already visible on the Isle of Wight, showing what is possible. Our task now is to ensure that more people, particularly young people in all parts of the country, have the skills and opportunities to be part of that success. I have not had a chance to address a number of questions raised by colleagues, but I am sure that my noble friend the Minister for Skills will listen to their representations and perhaps write to them on any specifics.
The peace that Northern Ireland has today rests on the reconciliation process that we have seen in recent decades, civil rights and the rule of law, as well as the recognition that differences must be settled through dialogue and democratic means, and with respect for the rights and perspectives of every community and tradition. The peace in Northern Ireland today was also built on the service and sacrifice of the men and women of Operation Banner, thousands of whom came from Sunderland. They did not go from Sunderland to Northern Ireland to be on either side; they went because they were actively recruited by the British state at a time when there was high unemployment in places like Sunderland. They stood on Northern Ireland’s streets, overwhelmingly as a protective force, on sentry and patrol duty, guarding civilians, on constant alert against those who were trying to kill. Over 38 years of Operation Banner, 1,441 of our British service personnel died; 722 were killed by paramilitaries. I listened carefully to the debate yesterday. As others have said, there were many fantastic and moving contributions. I pay particular tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who is not in his place today. The contribution that moved me most, and most closely reflected the experience of my veterans in Sunderland, came from the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who is not in his place today. He described serving as a young rifleman on the streets of Northern Ireland, and not knowing, when a civilian raised their hand, whether they were making a purely innocuous gesture, or about to throw an incendiary device. That was the experience of the constituents I met at our local Gunners Club in the recess just gone, for a two-hour roundtable to discuss the issue. The reality is that without the Army’s deployment in 1969, Northern Ireland faced the risk of far more bloodshed than it unfortunately experienced. Those who served held the line for decades—long enough for politics to finally take its place—and we must never stop saying thank you to them. As others have said, it is not right to set veterans against victims, and to suggest that veterans were not, in many cases, victims themselves. Serving both, and all, allows us all to move forward to a peaceful future, but that will take changes to the law, through this Bill, and full co-operation and transparency from the British and Irish Governments. I am clear that the previous Government’s legacy Act failed on multiple counts. It commanded the support of no community and no party in Northern Ireland, and it undermined the ongoing process of reconciliation, which recent weeks show is still absolutely essential. It also failed victims of every background, including the families of the British soldiers murdered by the IRA in Guildford and on the M62, whose killers would have been offered immunity. We should never forget that those bereaved military families were among the most vehement critics of the previous Government’s legacy approach; indeed, they were part of the legal action against it. Many who came home still carry the cost. In the conversation I had with veterans recently, they shared their remembrance of what they saw in Northern Ireland, how that affected their life still, and how, when they got home, they had far too little support on discharge from the British state. The reality is that there were 300,000 Operation Banner veterans, and six prosecutions of them. However, too often since the Good Friday agreement, it has felt as if the legal system was built to scrutinise the split-second actions of frontline soldiers—process as punishment. At the same time, comfort letters were given to suspected terrorists, the very people the soldiers were sent to protect civilians from. That system has also felt focused on individual frontline soldiers, not on failings in the chain of command, although in some cases, its decisions profoundly affected civilians. Those who served with honour deserve to live out their life in peace, with our country’s thanks, not fearing a knock at the door. They were offered false and undelivered promises by the previous Government, and they did not feel that the Bill as introduced was appropriate. In that spirit, I have engaged with our Ministers on this, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), over the past year. For a significant time, I was clear, in our private meetings, that I could not support the legislation unamended. I sought many amendments, and some of them were discussed yesterday. New clause 32, which was agreed to, is clear that action taken in the course of duty must never be treated as equivalent to terrorism. New clause 43 sets a tight time limit of 14 days for an application for judicial review; that will give some clarity about whether be lawfare can take place long after legal proceedings seem to have closed. I am pleased that the amendments that we are discussing today go further on the assurances that veterans have asked for and that I have pushed for over the past year. As the Secretary of State said, under new clause 50, no one can be prosecuted for the most serious troubles-related offences without the consent of the Attorney General. That applies to everyone, so it is not an amnesty. The peace that we have in Northern Ireland was built on the rule of law, not sectional favouritism for one group. The new clause offers a senior independent check from outside Northern Ireland’s politics. That will go some way towards winning the trust of veterans who have lost faith in the system. The reality is that following the acquittal of soldier F, no one expects further prosecutions. A second point about the amendments that we are considering today is that they offer no special exit for terrorists. As hon. Members have rightly pointed out, the collapse of the trial on the Hyde Park bombing—an attack that killed four soldiers—was the result of an apparently mistakenly issued letter of comfort. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) rightly said that such terrorist action was always wrong; there should never have been any doubt about this House’s condemnation of that. Veterans saw that old soldiers were questioned decades on, while suspected bombers held letters saying that they were not wanted. That ends today. Thirdly, and for most veterans most importantly, there will be an end to being investigated and questioned again and again. Yesterday’s amendments mean that investigators must go through the state’s own records first, and give particular weight to whether compelling new evidence exists before requiring any veteran to give evidence. Under new clause 84, which we are discussing today, a resumed inquest must not repeat what has already been done, unless that is essential. I welcome the Secretary of State setting out the clear process by which inquests will end altogether. A veteran who has given his account should not be made to relive the same night, and answer the same questions, every few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) underlined, there will be protections for veterans against cold calling and returning to Northern Ireland, which have been welcomed by the Royal British Legion. I will support the Bill, as the amendments are sufficient, in my view, to win the confidence of veterans. However, the Bill cannot be the end of Parliament’s interest in the issue. I had an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South about how the changes will be kept under review. I welcome the fact that under amendment 251, there will be an independent inspection of the legacy commission, and a report to the House on what the UK and Irish Governments are doing to ensure that the promises made in the Bill are kept. Transparency must run both ways across the border, and this House must play its part in holding both Governments to their promises. If this legislation passes, veterans will have significantly more protections than at any time since the Good Friday agreement—protections written into law, and protections that support justice and answers for all, including the families of British soldiers murdered by the IRA. But I know that some veterans feel today that we are not yet there; too many have been told that. My local veterans’ charity receives calls from people who served 30 years ago who have never been subject to any questioning or doubt. They have been picking up the phone and saying, “What’s this I hear about the Government wanting to come after me?” What they have heard is clearly not accurate. Of course, I respect the right of anyone in this House to scrutinise the Government through each of our votes. However, anyone who says that they care about veterans’ welfare is acting absolutely shamefully if they scaremonger, raising fears among 300,000 veterans who have never been subject to any doubt about their conduct, and the honour with which they served. There is a difference between political scrutiny and political point scoring; the latter does no service to our veterans, and I hope that the rest of the debate is the former. Our veterans deserve peace and reconciliation as much as the people of Northern Ireland do. It is through the foundations that they laid, through their service, that the reconciliation that we see across Northern Ireland is partly possible. It is in honour of their service that we must create the conditions for that reconciliation to continue. In honour of those who have served and every victim of the troubles, I will support today’s amendments and the Bill tonight.
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Doncaster has an incredible history of manufacturing, particularly in transport. Everyone will know of the Flying Scotsman and the Mallard, both of which were built in Doncaster, and Nigel Gresley still has a strong legacy in our local culture. However, right now, all eyes in Doncaster are on another form of transport. Yesterday, we received the fantastic news that my long-standing commitment to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport has been supercharged by an agreement to bring the airport back into public ownership. That incredible achievement comes after a huge amount of work from all involved. The DSA project is not just about the airport: the deal also covers the adjacent innovation quarter, which has the potential to become a centre for advanced manufacturing, innovation and, ultimately, re-industrialisation for our area. The Prime Minister has put public control, re-industrialisation and localism at the heart of his mission for this country, and Doncaster could not be a better case study for all three, both for how badly they are needed and for the enormous scope for opportunity. When the pits closed, huge parts of my constituency were left behind. De-industrialisation changed the faces of Rossington, Hatfield, Thorne and Moorends, and nothing has ever filled that gap—that is, until now. All the pieces are in place for Doncaster to become a centre for manufacturing and industry once again. We have excellent logistical connections through road and rail, proximity to the Humber ports, and soon, once it is reopened, the airport. We have major distribution and logistics hubs, including the iPort and the Unity development. Our two Labour mayors and our proactive chamber of commerce work tirelessly to bring jobs and growth to every postcode. We also have educational infrastructure in place, with one existing university technical college and a second one having been approved, as well as other wonderful FE colleges including John Leggott, New College and North Lindsey, to name but a few. All we need to do now is make sure we develop the skills and the workforce to match the opportunities that lie ahead. We cannot wait until factories are built and businesses recruiting before we begin training the people they will need. I welcome the Government’s commitment to advanced manufacturing through our industrial strategy and the reforms to the growth and skills levy, including new foundation apprenticeships in engineering and manufacturing, but we need to make sure that the skills we teach match the skills and needs of the industries we are trying to attract, and that we provide opportunities for existing workers to retrain and develop new skills as well. That means bringing together Government, local authorities, businesses and education providers to plan for the industries and jobs of the future. Will the Minister outline how the Government are working to ensure that investment in manufacturing skills is aligned with major regional development projects, such as South Yorkshire airport city? In Doncaster, we have seen what happens when industry disappears and nothing comes along to replace it. We know all too well the impact on our economy, on the community and on people and their families. But we have a chance now to regain lost pride and purpose, a chance for the places blighted by deprivation to flourish and prosper once again, and a chance to rebuild our industrial economy. We must make sure that the people of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme have the skills to take advantage of it.
Yesterday we had the amazing news that agreement had been reached to bring Doncaster Sheffield airport back into local public ownership. That will create jobs and growth and will be amazing for our area, in particular for NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—and their challenges. It will give opportunities for cabin crew, ground staff and, potentially, pilots in the future. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we talk about expansion of Heathrow, we must also consider the importance of the regional hubs and regional airports as we go forward and as part of a strategy?
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate. When I became an MP more than five years ago, I entered this place with a very open mind about most things, which is perhaps just as well, including about to the role of the House of Lords. I did not feel strongly about the other place one way or the other, but since I have been an MP, I have developed not only a greater understanding of what the Lords do and how they do it, but quite a deep respect for the important role that they play in our democracy. I am supportive of a second Chamber. I believe in an upper House. It scrutinises and revises. It brings fresh eyes, new ideas and, if I may be so bold, decades of experience and expertise. It can make our legislation stronger and our democratic process more robust. There have been many examples of that over the years. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was strengthened in the Lords, where an amendment introduced a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, closing a gap that had let abusers escape charges. Similarly, Cross-Bench and Opposition peers spearheaded amendments to create a powerful new corporate criminal offence to prevent fraud in the Economic Crime Act and Corporate Transparency 2023, in a significant moment in the fight against economic crime. That is what good revision looks like. It is responsible lawmaking. However, I come to this debate with direct experience of when the second Chamber has sadly not behaved responsibly or appropriately. As the sponsor of a private Member’s Bill—I think it is fair to say a reasonably well-known piece of legislation, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—I ended up spending a significant amount of time in the Lords. Following months and months of hard work in the Commons, including countless meetings with outstanding civil servants from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice, a comprehensive Bill Committee that heard from nearly 50 witnesses, and powerful and emotional debates on Second and Third Readings, the Bill made its way to the Lords. It had had over 100 hours of scrutiny. It was examined line by line. It was amended and strengthened, and it passed the elected Chamber with a clear majority on both occasions. Yet despite a clear majority of elected MPs, having engaged at length with their constituents and taken the issue extremely seriously, voting to send the Bill to the other place, what happened next was not what most MPs, however they voted—and more importantly, the public—either expected or deserved. I was very grateful to the peers who engaged in meaningful scrutiny and discussion about the Bill, and there were many of those. I was in awe at times of their experience and expertise, and it was a pleasure working with them. In some instances we disagreed, but we did so respectfully. Myself and Lord Falconer, the sponsor of the Bill in the other place, were open to making changes to strengthen the legislation. There were amendments that we were happy to accept, and we engaged with peers in good faith. However, nearly 1,200 amendments were tabled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, around half of them came from just seven peers. Looking at the content of many of those amendments, which were inappropriate and at times cruel, it was clear to many that some peers intentionally used every tool at their disposal to bring the legislative process to a standstill. As we know, the other place, unlike the Commons, is self-regulating. There are no selection of amendments or time limits, so every amendment tabled is likely to be debated. There was seemingly a desire from some peers to slow the process down and disrupt the usual legislative process. In the House of Commons we did our job, but given the shocking example of the amendments tabled in the House of Lords, the same simply cannot be said of the other place. One peer spoke for four hours and 41 minutes. That is longer than “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” extended edition—a great film, but not the most succinct piece of cinema. I say that not to be disrespectful to the other place, but to ask a simple question: was that responsible behaviour and were Members there fairly and professionally carrying out their role as the second Chamber? I think not. Then there is the cost. The Lords debate on the Bill cost the taxpayer over £1.7 million in attendance allowances—public money spent so that a Bill could go nowhere. The public have every right to expect good value from their institutions because we work for them. I do not think that anyone can say with a clear conscience that that was a good use of taxpayers’ money. We also have to look at the make-up of the Chamber: 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords. I have no problem with religion per se, but nobody elected them. They sit solely because of the position they hold. The only other country in the world that gives clerics seats in its legislature in that way is Iran. In a modern, multi-faith, increasingly secular society, is that fit for purpose? We need a second Chamber that supports and challenges.
If I may say so, it is quite a leap of faith to go from the comments I was making about the unelected Chamber to the Church of England, for which I have the utmost respect. I have worked with many people of faith on an agenda around cohesion and the need to bring our communities together—something that I am sure the hon. Member would fully support. In a multi-faith and increasingly secular society, is it right to have unelected faith leaders in our second Chamber? The Prime Minister himself said: “I don’t think we can justify half of our national legislature being unelected. I think this is something that is, in many ways, quite scandalous… If you want to cut the cost of politics, that’s the first place to look.” He has also spoken about his desire to rewire how power works in this country, but we surely cannot do that without looking at the role of the House of Lords. I agree with the Prime Minister and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud: we need a national commission into the future of the House of Lords. I am pleased to speak in support of that today.
I beg to move, That— 1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 20 October) meet— (a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 October; (b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 October. 2. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 5; Schedule 1; Clauses 6 to 9; Schedule 2; Clauses 10 to 13; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 14 to 17; remaining proceedings on the Bill; 3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 22 October. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank all hon. Members who are taking part in the proceedings of this Committee. I have nothing substantive to add to the debate that was had yesterday on this matter. Therefore, I commend the motion to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Keir Mather.)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, to her place. It will be a pleasure to work alongside her as the Bill makes it progress through the House. The hon. Lady’s amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to promoting economic growth when making regulations under the clause. Let me be clear that economic growth remains a crucial priority for this Government. Sustained growth is essential to raising living standards, supporting good jobs and funding our public services. That is why the potential impact on growth is already firmly embedded in policy development. Growth assessments require Departments to consider how proposals can maximise positive impacts and minimise negative ones, and form an essential part of the collective agreement process before new policy is introduced. Growth is therefore considered throughout the development of policy, rather than only at the point when regulations are made. That scrutiny is reinforced through the options and impact assessment process, which requires careful consideration of the effects on business, trade and investment, the ease of doing business in the UK, and wider economic growth. The substance of the amendment is therefore already addressed through established and rigorous processes. Putting a further duty in primary legislation would not strengthen that consideration; it would duplicate obligations and processes that already apply. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it. Amendment 6, also tabled by the shadow Minister, returns to the question of how the Government should account for regulatory burdens when exercising the powers under the clause. The Government’s position remains clear: reducing the cost of regulation to business is a firm, cross-Government commitment. That work is already being pursued in a co-ordinated and systematic way, including through regular reporting on changes to administrative burdens, collated and published across Government. The issue is therefore not whether those costs should be controlled, but whether the amendment would add anything useful to the framework already in place. The evidence for this Bill is also important. As the published impact assessment makes clear, its measures are expected to reduce costs to business over time. In particular, improvements to the safety rule-making framework will provide greater clarity, consistency and efficiency. The Bill therefore advances, rather than cuts across, the objective that amendment 6 seeks to promote. Nor would it be appropriate to place the Government’s 25% target in primary legislation. Doing so could bind Secretaries of State in future Parliaments to a target set for the present circumstances, even when subsequent policy or economic developments warrant a different approach. The Government are already acting on the amendment’s underlying objective, and the Bill itself is expected to deliver efficiencies for business. The proposed statutory provision would add rigidity, not stronger protection. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the hon. Lady not to press it to a Division. Finally in this group, new clause 2 was also tabled by the shadow Minister. It would insert a purpose clause requiring the Secretary of State, when acting under the Bill, to have regard to competitiveness, growth and consumer protection. The Committee will be familiar with the Government’s position on Second Reading and in the Bill’s consideration in the other place. I will therefore focus briefly on why we remain unable to support the new clause. The Government share the objective of supporting a competitive and growing aviation sector. Those aims already inform wider Government policy and decision making, and the Secretary of State sets out strategic priorities to the Civil Aviation Authority each year, including on the importance of supporting economic growth. The question is whether a purpose clause is the right way to secure those aims. We do not believe it is. New clause 2 would give particular prominence to a fixed and incomplete list of considerations governing every exercise of the Bill’s powers. Notably, that list does not include safety, despite its fundamental importance to aviation and the Bill. Ministers must retain the flexibility to balance consumer protection, growth, competitiveness, safety and any other relevant factors in the light of the evidence. The explanatory statement for new clause 2 suggests that the duty would extend to the Civil Aviation Authority, but the drafting itself does not do so. In any event, the CAA is already subject to the statutory growth duty, requiring it to have regard to economic growth proportionately, so the new clause is unnecessary to growth and potentially restrictive in wider effect. The Government approach allows decisions to remain evidence-led, proportionate and responsive, without elevating an incomplete set of objectives above other vital considerations. I therefore ask the hon. Lady not to press the new clause to a vote.