partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

   The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Regulatory alignment does not have to catch consumers out, and it can also provide regulatory certainty for business. Of course, the Government keep developments in the European Union under close watch and advisement, and I saw the ones made in relation to both baggage sizes and family seating. The beauty of this legislation is that it allows us, where appropriate, to align with European rules when it is in the best interests of both British business and consumers. He pre-empts a point that I was just about to make on clause 1, which, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage rightly reflected, has done a great deal of the heavy lifting: it allows us to make these changes once we have had time to consider matters carefully. I have absolutely no doubt that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will continue to make a full contribution to those discussions. I do have sympathy with what he says, but I do not believe that now is the right moment to put what is quite a prescriptive regime on the face of this legislation. I thank him for what has been a very thought-provoking debate.

   Hansard source
2. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

   I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 10, which would require a report on this legislation’s impact on passenger protections and standards two years after Royal Assent. I agree that it is important to ensure that legislation and regulation have the intended impact, but it is not necessary to include in primary legislation a requirement for a post-implementation review. In practice, the inclusion of such review requirements must already be considered when developing secondary legislation and included where appropriate. Given that the much talked about clause 1 will give the Secretary of State the power to amend air passenger rights legislation through regulations, that would be the most suitable point at which to decide whether such a review was needed for a specific regulation and to determine its scope. In addition, a Government amendment made in the other place—clause 5(2)—requires the CAA to report annually on its use of the direct enforcement powers introduced by the Bill. Parliament will therefore receive regular, ongoing information on how the new enforcement regime is operating. As such, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw new clause 10. I also thank him for tabling new clause 11, which would require the Government to introduce a statutory passengers’ charter for air travel. I recognise the ambition behind this new clause, but as was made clear when this proposal was considered in the other place, a statutory charter is not the right or most effective mechanism for delivering on that objective. The fundamental difficulty is how such a charter would operate in practice: if drafted broadly, it would create expectations that could not meaningfully be enforced; if drafted prescriptively, it would quickly become inflexible. Where reform is justified, targeted and evidence-based, regulation under clause 1 will offer a clearer and more effective route, allowing requirements to be introduced where there is evidence of consumer detriment, without prescribing broad service standards in primary legislation. The new clause brings together matters that are already addressed through existing legislation and regulatory frameworks, while others are commercial decisions properly left to airlines. Established requirements cover safety, accessibility and passenger rights, and those protections can be strengthened through statutory instruments where the evidence demonstrates that change is needed. In contrast, catering, wi-fi, seat configuration, charging points and baggage allowances are ultimately commercial matters that properly sit with airlines. Different operating models give passengers a choice between price and service. Low-cost carriers, for instance, can offer lower fares because they use higher-density seating and unbundle optional services. Imposing uniform statutory standards in these areas could reduce choice, increase costs and make affordable air travel less widely available. Nor are all the proposed commitments suitable for statutory targets. Concepts such as “value for money” and “adequate seating” are subjective, while punctuality and reliability can be affected by weather, air traffic restrictions and other factors outside an airline’s control. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Department is already developing a non-statutory accessible travel charter. That work will set clear, shared expectations for transport operators and local authorities to improve accessibility for disabled people across all modes. It is a more focused and practical response than the wide-ranging statutory charter proposed here. In short, the new clause would duplicate existing frameworks, constrain legitimate commercial flexibility and create a risk of unintended consequences. For those reasons, I cannot support it and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 11.

   Hansard source
3. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

   I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his new clause, which seeks to prevent the powers in the Bill from being used “in connection with” airport expansion. The reasons I cannot support this new clause are clear and the central point is straightforward: this Bill is about aviation consumer protection and the aviation regulatory framework; it is not a Bill about airport expansion. Its measures are needed irrespective of whether an expansion proposal comes forward and irrespective of the outcome of any such proposal. The Government have been clear that they support airport expansion where it can deliver economic and connectivity benefits and meet the relevant environmental and planning requirements, but such proposals must be considered through the established planning system. They are not authorised, facilitated or decided through this Bill. That distinction is reflected in the scrutiny of the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, including my appearance tomorrow before the Transport Select Committee, which I very much look forward to. Airport expansion is considered through dedicated processes, with their own consultation, scrutiny and Parliamentary oversight. Nothing in this Bill displaces those processes or prejudges their outcomes. The new clause would therefore not provide a meaningful safeguard against airport expansion. Instead, its broad reference to powers used “in connection with” facilitating expansion could create uncertainty well beyond any individual proposal. It could cast doubt on routine regulatory activity that neither approves nor promotes expansion, potentially constraining the effective operation of the aviation framework to no clear benefit. Put simply, in my view this new clause seeks to guard against something the Bill does not do, while risking unintended consequences for what the Bill must do. It is therefore unnecessary and could inhibit legitimate regulatory functions. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

   Hansard source
4. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

   I thank the hon. Gentleman for his new clause, which seeks to ensure that the economic regulatory framework incentivises resilient and reliable air traffic services and efficient and cost-effective operations. Although we fully agree that resilient air navigation services are critical, particularly in the light of recent disruptions, I cannot support the new clause for reasons that I will outline. In the first instance, safety must remain the overriding priority for air traffic controllers. Air traffic control decisions must be taken solely on safety grounds; they should not be based on other considerations, such as financial penalties. The CAA already regulates NATS with an existing regime that provides accountability, with delay-related targets and a penalty mechanism that reduces airline charges. In addition, the new clause risks prejudging the results of ongoing work. The Secretary of State for Transport has commissioned the Civil Aviation Authority to lead an independent investigation into the air traffic control disruptive events in September. It will examine the cause of the incidents and broader questions relating to NATS’s resilience, capital investment and modernisation plans, and will help to identify any lessons needed to strengthen the resilience of the UK air traffic management system. It will also review the findings, recommendations and actions arising from previous significant UK disruption, such as in August 2023. It will assess the extent to which they have been effectively implemented and whether they remain adequate for addressing system resilience, and the consequences of major disruption for airlines and passengers in the wider aviation sector. The new clause assumes that the appropriate response to recent disruptions is to alter the statutory framework for economic regulation. However, it is not yet clear that the underlying issues relate to deficiencies in the CAA’s economic regulatory duties. The CAA’s investigation is intended to establish precisely what caused the incidents and what lessons should be learned. It would be premature to conclude that legislative changes to economic regulation are required before that evidence is available. If the CAA’s investigation identifies a case for changes to the economic regulatory framework, those proposals should be considered through the normal policymaking process so that any reforms are carefully developed, properly tested and coherent, rather than pre-empting the outcome of that work now. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that work is ongoing on this important issue and gives him leave to withdraw the new clause.

   Hansard source
5. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Keir Mather

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

   May I thank the shadow Minister? It has been a pleasure to work with her in the Committee room for the first time, and I look forward to many such interactions in the future. I also thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, and all right hon. and hon. Members who made such fantastic contributions from their lived experience and from their constituency experiences—some more vivid than others, it must be said. Nevertheless, it has been a pleasure; the Bill Committee has been filled with constructive debate and good humour. I also thank the Whips, my fantastic Bill team, all the Clerks and staff who have made today’s proceedings possible, and you, Chair. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

   Hansard source
6. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

   Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

   It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this important debate. Since she was elected to this place, she has done incredible work to champion the voices and issues of kinship carers in every room and at every opportunity. I also thank colleagues across parties for all their work in raising the important issue of kinship carers at every opportunity, with me directly and with colleagues across Government. I begin by recognising that, as we have heard, kinship carers often step forward at extremely short notice and in immensely difficult circumstances. Many of the children involved will be experiencing some of the most turbulent and crucial days or weeks of their lives, and may have experienced bereavement, family breakdown, separation, instability or trauma. At precisely that moment, a grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling, other relative or family friend may be asked to make a lifechanging commitment. I also acknowledge the brilliant work of kinship advocacy organisations, such as Kinship and the Family Rights Group, which continue to campaign and work diligently to raise awareness of the role of kinship carers, many of whom might not even recognise themselves as kinship carers. Those organisations continue to engage constructively with me and the Government to bring forward important evidence and insights into the experience of kinship families. Their work is incredibly appreciated, and helps us to understand not only the scale of kinship care but the practical realities facing carers and children. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes for inviting me to a recent meeting of the APPG that she chairs, where I had the opportunity to hear directly from a kinship carer about their experiences. Their contribution was moving, was instructive to the requirements from Government moving forwards, and underlined the importance of listening to and putting at the forefront the voices of kinship carers. Their real-life experiences are exactly what the Government are considering in our review. Kinship carers provide love, stability and continuity at what can be an incredibly difficult time. Colleagues raised stories that they have heard directly from their constituents; I have heard stories from mine too. Andrea, who is a kinship carer in my constituency, took the time to meet me at my surgery recently. She provides incredible support to kinship carers across my constituency, and talks so openly about her experience. I know that colleagues have also heard from their constituents, and I thank them for raising those experiences today. I want people’s experience in the workplace, and their reflections on when they have unfortunately not experienced that, to shape not only this issue but my wider brief. Of course, taking on the responsibility of being a kinship carer can mean significant emotional, practical and financial pressures, often with very little notice. I recognise not only their importance and contribution, but the challenges they face. At the APPG meeting, we talked a lot about the Family Rights Group data showing that eight in 10 kinship carers who left work have never returned to paid employment. That is a really stark statistic. I cannot even imagine the difficult position that kinship carers will be in of, as my hon. Friend alluded to, having to make the impossible decision between looking after a child who needs them at such an important time in their life, and their job. That insight is particularly valuable as we consider the evidence in the parental leave and pay review, and in wider work to support kinship families.

   Hansard source
7. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

   Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

   On that note, I pay tribute to the brilliant Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for all his incredible work on kinship carers. I absolutely recognise the importance of cross-Government and cross-Department work on the issue, and I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that our intention is to work in a joined-up way to support kinship carers throughout their lives, and to look at where we need to go further and do better. That is why this debate is welcome and important, as we consider the parental leave and pay review. Of course, colleagues will be fully aware of the significance of the work being undertaken in the Department for Education, from the kinship allowance pilot, which will provide kinship carers with a weekly allowance equivalent to the fostering national minimum allowance for each eligible child, to the work being done in the light of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. I thank colleagues for welcoming that work. I also want to use this opportunity to update colleagues on the parental leave and pay review, which sits in my Department and is cross-working with the Department for Work and Pensions. There are, rightly, lots of Departments involved with this, because it is not just one part of life that is impacted for kinship carers—it is across everything. We recognise that support for the carer and support for the child cannot be easily separated. Giving a carer the time and support needed to help a child settle may contribute to the stability of that arrangement. That is why it is right that we are considering the experiences of kinship families across departmental boundaries—social care, employment policy, education and the wider support available to families. We are committed to reviewing the wider system. Colleagues will know that the review was launched in July 2025, and that is why we are considering all the current parental leave and pay entitlements, as well as the experiences and needs of working families who do not qualify for existing leave and pay entitlements, including kinship carers. We are jointly leading the review and engaging with a broad range of stakeholders. Again, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has fed into the review for their patience, as we are taking the time to go through as much evidence as possible, including roundtables and bilateral meetings, as well as meetings with me, other colleagues who are in the Chamber today and parental advocacy groups that represent kinship carers. The review will conclude in early 2027 with a set of findings that outline the next steps for implementing any reforms. I know there is significant interest in what the review will conclude.

   Hansard source
8. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Kate Dearden

   Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

   My hon. Friend is right to push me and my colleagues on this issue. I am unable today to pre-empt recommendations, as he knows. But I know how important this is and will keep him up to date with timelines and progress. He has my firm commitment today that we are moving at pace. We are taking our time to review the evidence, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are considering the issue and how best we can assure kinship carers holistically and across departmental boundaries. I hope that people watching today, including kinship carers, feel my commitment and determination. I know how importance this is; a week and a day can make such a difference to kinship carers’ lives. That is why it has been really important for us to engage with as many people as possible and acknowledge the wider campaigns outside this room from trade unions, business representatives and employers, who are already going above and beyond. I thank them for it, as well as for highlighting the case for the current position and joining the calls that have been made in the Chamber today. To conclude, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes for raising the issue and giving us the opportunity to have this debate today. I also thank everyone for their engagement, here and outside this room, as well as our kinship carers, who are absolutely incredible people. I am so moved and grateful every time I meet with them, and I know other colleagues are too. I hope they hear my commitment and determination to support them today and ensure that future support is practical, sustainable and focused on improving the outcomes for children and families. With that, I conclude my remarks and hand back over to my hon. Friend.

   Hansard source
9. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

   Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust

   I absolutely endorse your comments about our colleague, Mr Speaker. I know that my hon. Friend and many other colleagues are deeply concerned about the issues at Northern Care Alliance. As of June this year, the trust has been placed under the highest level of regional oversight and support from NHS England. It is imperative that rapid movements are made, governance systems are strengthened and that every patient receives the standard of care that they deserve.

   Hansard source
10. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust

    My hon. Friend rightly highlights on behalf of her constituents the number of issues that have led to this significant regulatory intervention and support. If necessary, further action is available to NHS England and the Care Quality Commission. We want to ensure that the focus now is on supporting and challenging the trust to make the rapid and sustained improvements necessary in those key areas. I know that my hon. Friend and our other colleagues will work closely with the trust on this; I always encourage MPs to work closely with their trust to ensure that that happens. If necessary, other measures will also be available.

    Hansard source
11. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Step-down Intermediate Care: Community Hospitals

    My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the importance of intermediate care, which is a key component of supporting patients into discharge to recover outside of hospitals. Community beds play an important role, but we are clear that home-based intermediate care also needs support, particularly for frail people, through neighbourhood health. That should be the default pathway, and we will continue to work with the system to make that happen.

    Hansard source
12. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Step-down Intermediate Care: Community Hospitals

    I am, of course, happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue further. I am clear that all changes to services should be based on clear evidence that they deliver better outcomes for his constituents and people across the country. He is absolutely right that we want to extend care closer to home. As I said, the default is to get more care into people’s homes, and I am happy to discuss that further with him.

    Hansard source
13. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Step-down Intermediate Care: Community Hospitals

    The hon. Lady is right that we absolutely want to get more care closer to people’s homes and into people’s homes. We want to support frail people in their homes before they even get into hospital. I am working with the integrated care board to make sure that all that happens. I am happy to discuss that further with her.

    Hansard source
14. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Step-down Intermediate Care: Community Hospitals

    As the hon. Gentleman knows, the situation deteriorated massively under the 14 years of Conservative government. He is well aware of the fragmentation of all our services. He knows how the system was fragmented and what happened under those reforms. He knows that is why we are trying to change it. He is absolutely right, though, that people being in beds in hospitals or in parts of the system where they should not be is not good for their health or their outcomes. That is why it is part of our three shifts, and that is fundamentally why the Prime Minister is very clear that we will raise social care up the agenda and ensure that people are treated more in their homes and in community services where they live. I welcome his support for our shift to neighbourhood care and to better care closer to home.

    Hansard source
15. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Topical Questions

    I thank Audrina for the great work that she is doing, supported by the campaign. Food in hospitals is really important, and we would be very happy to meet Audrina. Well done to her.

    Hansard source
16. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Topical Questions

    My hon. Friend raises an excellent point about the state that these buildings were left in by the Conservative party, as Lord Darzi’s report made clear. We are investing unprecedented amounts in capital and giving greater certainty, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the proposal from Ipswich. It is up to local systems to come forward with plans, but I would be happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.

    Hansard source
17. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Topical Questions

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is the responsibility of the commissioners to look holistically at the provision of services. We want more services closer to home, using technology, care in people’s homes and so on, but she is quite right to highlight this issue. I know that she will continue campaigning on it, and I hope everyone has listened to her, so that people can come together to help her constituents.

    Hansard source
18. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Topical Questions

    I am glad the hon. Gentleman found that correspondence helpful. As he knows, I am keen to discuss the new hospital programme and its progress with all Members. I am sure that discussions about the renal service at Hinchingbrooke continue to take place locally, and that those involved will continue to work together. I know that the hon. Gentleman will keep in touch about the progress of the discussions on behalf of his constituents, and I am happy to talk to him about the issue.

    Hansard source
19. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Topical Questions

    I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern on behalf of her constituents. We are moving the system governing hospitals such as Blackpool away from deficit funding so that it becomes well governed and managed, in line with fair shares allocation, and I shall be happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.

    Hansard source
20. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Topical Questions

    I have met the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) to discuss this matter. Obviously, money has been allocated. We are well aware of the hospital’s position, and it is also part of the programme. I shall be happy to provide further information if the hon. Lady is not clear about the allocations that have been made.

    Hansard source
21. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Topical Questions

    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) and others for their campaigning in that part of north-west London and elsewhere. The movement of services is now firmly part of the programme, and the people of Watford will have the services that they deserve. Discussions are continuing, and I shall be happy to update the House on the final decision as soon as possible.

    Hansard source
22. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Topical Questions

    I recently met the hon. Member, and as he knows, we are absolutely committed to working with the local system to do that. I absolutely commit to updating him as soon as possible if he is not aware of where we are on that. I will get something back to him very quickly.

    Hansard source
23. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Topical Questions

    I am always keen to discuss and visit places in Dorset with my hon. Friend. I am happy to look, with him, at the integrated care board’s overall plan for the provision of all those services.

    Hansard source
24. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Karin Smyth

    Topical Questions

    I am aware of the issues around the hon. Gentleman’s local hospital; I have worked with him closely as part of the new hospital programme as well. It is up to local systems to decide on the clinical pathways across the whole patch. Those decisions must be clinically led, and there must be consultation with local people. I am very happy to keep an eye on that, and to talk with him in the future.

    Hansard source
25. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Justin Madders

    East West Rail: Bedford to Cambridge

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for securing the debate. I have taken a note of his questions. He will be aware that I am not the Rail Minister. As he gracefully pointed out, I did not get advance notice of his questions —certainly, some of them were of a more rhetorical nature than others—but I will endeavour to ensure that the Rail Minister provides him with a response. I will speak more generally to start with. East West Rail is a priority transport project for the Government. It will significantly improve connectivity for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. It will help to unlock good growth, jobs, new homes and opportunities across the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor. As we know, the corridor boasts a number of strengths. It is home to world-leading employers and universities. It has one of the highest concentrations of high-tech firms in Europe. It is attracting inward investment, as we have heard, from the likes of Universal, for its new theme park at Stewartby, and in science and innovation at sites such as the biomedical campus in Cambridge. However, the corridor’s growth has been constrained with high house prices, pressure on existing infrastructure, including the road network, and a long-standing lack of east-to-west connectivity. Those issues are summed up perfectly for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents by the fact that there are no direct rail routes to Oxford or Cambridge, and that it is easier to travel to London by rail than it is to get across the region. That leaves people reliant on cars, infrequent bus or coach services, or not making journeys across the region at all. The Government are committed to addressing those constraints to growth, and East West Rail is central to our ambition to realise the full potential of that corridor. The remaining stages of the railway involve upgrading the existing Marston Vale line between Bletchley and Bedford and constructing the new section of railway between Bedford and Cambridge, which the hon. Member focused his comments on. Those stages will be delivered from 2030 onwards, and East West Rail completed its final route-wide consultation on them in the spring. It is currently finalising its proposals for a development consent order application, which I understand will be some time next year. The plans for the railway include eight new stations, including at Tempsford in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and up to five passenger services per hour. It is not just local journeys that will be improved; the new line will have interchanges with major rail lines, expanding connectivity with the rest of the country. At Tempsford, the new station will also be served by the east coast main line. The East West Rail line will also be partly electrified to support net zero operations using hybrid battery-electric trains, providing greener and faster journeys for passengers. I hope that in part answers one of the hon. Member’s questions. All those new changes will mean a step change in connectivity across the region and will offer benefits to the hon. Member’s constituents. He has diligently raised—not for the first time—the business case for East West Rail. The BCR is an important measure of value for money, but it is only one part of the overall assessment. Together with the strategic case for East West Rail, that wider evidence informs Government decision making. For East West Rail there is a clear and compelling strategic case for the project in overcoming the constraints in the region, and in particular, providing opportunities for new jobs, and for new sustainable communities to grow. The line will serve potential new town sites that have been identified by the Government in Tempsford and Milton Keynes, as well as supporting the Government’s aims to unlock development in both Oxford and Cambridge. We are already seeing investment being brought forward along the planned route, whether that is in new housing developments or the new Universal theme park at Stewartby. Because of that, the project has backing from major employers and institutions across the region, as evidenced by the support of the Oxford to Cambridge supercluster group. Details on the case for the project were set out in the consultation earlier this year, and the economic and technical report on the project published in 2023 provided a significant amount of detail on the different options that had been considered to improve connectivity, as well as the case for the railway. The hon. Member identified that that was some time ago, and that there have been a number of changes, possibly further strengthening or weakening the case. Further information on the case will be provided as part of the development consent order application and a full business case will be prepared once planning consent has been secured.

    Hansard source
26. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Justin Madders

    East West Rail: Bedford to Cambridge

    The exact sequencing of those things is something that I would defer to the Rail Minister on, and I will get him to write to the hon. Member. It is the case that the economic benefits and the business cases are considered in tandem with those issues. Publication will be issued once the planning consent has been secured, which is typical for those types of projects, as the hon. Member will know. I hear what the hon. Member says about transparency. He is right that it will not be released tomorrow, but it will become a public document, and I can assure him that he will have his opportunity to make further comment on it. It is important to state that the benefits that the line will unlock will come from the railway as a whole, in particular the new section of railway between Bedford and Cambridge. It is also important to say that unlocking the opportunity here is a key part of the strategic and economic cases for the scheme and, in accordance with departmental guidance, additional benefits that are dependent on the scheme will be included in the overall value for money assessment. The latest estimates suggest that the East West Rail line will increase the regional economy by some £6.7 billion GVA per year by 2050 and, obviously, those figures will be updated as we go forward. There will be significant benefits from the development of the East West Rail line. It is important to state that the latest plans will mean delivering services between Oxford and Stewartby, and then between Oxford and Bedford, ahead of the completion of the line in full, which will allow services to run to the new Universal theme park at the earliest opportunity. I heard the hon. Member’s question about the location of the theme park, and I will take that back to the Rail Minister, too. While is important to recognise the benefits that East West Rail will deliver, we also recognise that the construction will have some impact on the communities that the hon. Member represents, and significant work has been done to assess alternative routes through public consultation. That work has concluded that serving Bedford directly and enabling fast, direct journeys from stations on the Marston Vale line to Cambridge are a key part of realising the full benefits of the project, which may be the answer to one of his questions—I will ask the Rail Minister to confirm that in writing. As the hon. Member will be aware, the East West Rail company has worked to reduce the impact of the line on local communities whenever possible, which includes impacts on homes, local businesses and farmland. In its spring consultation, the company set out a range of ways in which it has responded to feedback in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, including moving and lowering the alignment of the railway to reduce visual impacts between Clapham Green and Colesden and working to reduce construction vehicle movements and potential impacts on properties. I recognise that the hon. Member raised an awful lot of other, more detailed matters. As I have already committed to doing, I will ensure that the Rail Minister provides a full written response. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
27. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Josh Fenton-Glynn

    Manufacturing Skills

    It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing the debate—much like in Yorkshire, in the Isle of Wight west is best. Too many people’s vision of manufacturing is the dark satanic mills of the past, but in Calder Valley that is not what it looks like; it is robotics, advanced materials and precision engineering. How can we provide the skilled workers for those industries without the proper training? Too many industrial communities have been told that decline was inevitable—a poverty of ambition since Thatcher—but in Calder Valley, manufacturing employs about 16% of the workforce. Twenty years ago, that figure was 25%, but we can go the other way. When we lose manufacturing jobs, we lose skills, confidence and opportunities in an area, and we lose the sense that a young person can build a good life whatever they choose to do. A manufacturing wage is about 8% above the average wage, and we need a skilled workforce, particularly when one looks at the NEET crisis. About 8.5% of 18 to 24-year-olds in Calder Valley are on unemployment benefits and not in training, but the industrial sector’s workforce has aged faster than the rest of the workforce; the average age is over 50. That is not sustainable. One managing director in my constituency started at 16 on a YTS. He joined me in 11 Downing Street last year. That is the kind of success story that skilled manufacturing jobs can bring, and that is what I want to see more of in Calder Valley, but manufacturing needs to feel like an option. Denford engineering in my constituency makes equipment for schools and runs the international STEM racing competition. Its chief executive asked me, “Why don’t we talk about design and manufacturing rather than design and technology, which is less meaningful to people?” It is that kind of shift that we need in order to get people to think about the future of manufacturing and consider it as an option. In Calder Valley, we have just secured the Yorkshire robotics adoption hub, hosted by the brilliant West Yorkshire Manufacturing Services in Brighouse. It will work with more than 300 manufacturers to get them ready to work with robotics and the skills of the future. It is those kinds of innovations that can give us those skills. I ask the Minister: what more can we do to supply that confidence in business and build skills for the next generation?

    Hansard source
28. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jonathan Davies

    Topical Questions

    T2. My constituent Audrina Hatton-Wright is a 12-year-old cancer survivor. She has spent a huge amount of her childhood in hospital, where she has found that the food is sometimes not of a nutritional quality to support people’s recovery. She is running a high-profile campaign on this issue, which has taken her on to the BBC and ITV’s “This Morning”. Will Ministers meet me and Audrina to see where we can work on this issue together?

    Hansard source
29. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Slinger

    House of Lords Reform

    Thank you, Sir John; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate. I am glad that our new Prime Minister has referred to the importance of rewiring the state. We should absolutely rewire this place, and I offer a solution. I, too, have my doubts about an elected upper Chamber, for reasons that hon. Members have already rehearsed. I think we can preserve the best elements of the other place and also improve on its deficiencies. The best elements are obviously its expertise and its ability to scrutinise and revise—although I must note that the behaviour of a minority of peers during the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was absolutely shameful. The deficiencies are its patchy expertise, an opaque selection process, a lack of legitimacy and democracy, and its unrepresentative nature when it comes to demography, geography and ethnicity. I would rename the other place and call it a senate. Fifty per cent. of its Members would be experts, the other 50% being citizen senators—a point already made by the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). The House of Lords Appointments Commission does a good job in difficult circumstances, but we need a more transparent and open system. I would recommend that experts are appointed from across the range of sectors in our society and given a limited 10-year tenure in office. If the President of the United States can get a lot done in eight years then I am sure that expert senators would be able to do a lot in 10. The more interesting half of the upper Chamber, as I am envisioning it, would be citizen senators. They should be selected by sortition, which is a form of democracy. They would serve under the same principles as juries: they forgo their political and other biases and serve in the national interest to scrutinise legislation that comes to them from the elected Chamber, which must have primacy. Let us rewire this place, starting with the other place. Let us inject more expertise, fairly and transparently appointed, and bring people into the heart of this Parliament through a system of citizen senators to improve, not block, legislation, through the lens of national, not party, interest.

    Hansard source
30. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

    I almost feel like just republishing a Hansard of one of the dozen debates we have already had on this subject over the past number of years. We just need to get real. The reason we are having this debate is that the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), when developing a speech for growth, wanted an example, and she just went for the third runway. At the moment, however, I cannot find anyone in Government who privately thinks, seriously, that it will go ahead. That is where we are at. This is the “Monty Python” dead parrot sketch all over again. Given that we are having this debate, I will remind people, as I always do, what the third runway means in human terms for my constituents, because that is my job. This has been mentioned, but 4,500 homes will be demolished or rendered unliveable by noise and air pollution. We think now that 17,000 people will be displaced to ensure the profits of a company owned by a whole range of foreign multinationals. A number of schools will be closed. I held my first third runway meeting and set up the third runway action group in 1983, in Harlington school. We had to demolish and rebuild that school elsewhere because the noise and air pollution had made it impossible to teach in. This expansion will push the runway near to the school that we built some distance away. We are going to lose our schools. We are going to lose our whole community. Before anyone votes on this issue, come down to Harmondsworth. Come and see the village. Members should not vote on this unless they have been there, because otherwise they will not know how this is devastating beautiful villages. Harmondsworth has just won London in Bloom. We have a church that is 1,000 years old; the barn of the medieval church, which we believe is the biggest in Europe, will be 50 yards from the airport runway. This is absolute devastation. Where are my constituents going to go? Where are school pupils going to be taught? On top of that, we have been breathing this poisoned air for more than a generation now. We have done survey after survey about the scale of respiratory problems and the cardiovascular impacts. Before anyone votes, come down there and talk to some of the people about what it means. People say, “Oh well, people will move.” We have generations of families who have lived there, and young families who have moved in. Why? Because Governments promised us that there will be no third runway. At one point in time, there was cross-party agreement. No wonder we feel betrayed. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) has set out all the arguments. The fact that we are even considering this issue in this debate is a monument to Heathrow’s lobbying capacity and the corporate capture of different political parties over time. I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he is generous with his support on a whole range of issues—but every one of the points that he raised, which are basically from the Heathrow briefing material, has been shot through completely. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney mentioned the economic benefit. In the Government’s own figures in the consultation, that has reduced 10 times, to 0.05% of GDP, and even that is now in doubt. On the number of jobs, when the fifth terminal was developed, we were promised, I think, 50,000 jobs. We did not get anything. What has happened in our area of west London is that as Heathrow has developed, our industrial base has moved out, gone to other, cheaper regions. What have they been replaced by? Warehousing. We have lost skilled jobs and got unskilled work and exploitation. On the wider health implications, I warn hon. Members and the Government about ultrafine particles. When I was a youngster, I left school and went to the shop floor. I worked up north in a place near Hebden Bridge. Hebden Bridge is where they manufactured asbestos. We had suddenly discovered asbestos. At that point, people were campaigning to keep the factory there for the jobs and all the rest of it. The effects of ultrafine particles are the asbestosis of the future. Look at the research. The Government have now set up a committee of experts to look at this issue, and it will report in three months’ time, possibly after we have been asked to make a decision. What we know about ultrafine particles is, first, that they come from aviation fuel in particular and that they spread across not just the surroundings of the airport, but at least 10 km around where there are emissions from aviation in particular. That means that we now have evidence from the working group of ultrafine particles in central London. What do ultrafine particles do? They penetrate our bodies, get into the lungs, the heart and all the rest of it, and we are now discovering the cardiovascular disease and different cancers that are occurring. They also penetrate the brain. We are worried about what they are doing to our children, who are growing up breathing these ultrafine particles. I warn the Government: this is a bit like asbestosis. We have to recognise that once this impact has been pointed out to us, if we continue to inflict it on our population in London, we will be held responsible as a Government for enabling it to happen. We have already raised all the issues that have been brought forward today, including noise. We had a session a month ago with the noise experts, who now tell us that the Government’s level is too high. The threshold of damage to people’s health is so much lower than that, and we are well beyond the European limits. We need to shake people up, because we do not even know the flight paths yet. All we can do is look at what has been said in the past, and we know that at least another 900,000 people—nearly a million—will be affected by the consequences of noise and air pollution. When we debated this issue last time, we were told that there is an urgent need to deliver the project for the good of our economy, even though we now know that it will cost us 15,000 jobs. Where will those jobs be lost? From regional airports. Members should have a look at the New Economics Foundation analysis. On top of that, we are told that there is a sense of urgency, but what did we hear a fortnight ago? Heathrow has delayed expansion by another five years. I come to the cost escalation. Since we have had this debate over the last couple of years, the costs have doubled. It is expected that £15 billion is needed to pay for the transport infrastructure, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, Heathrow is not putting in a penny. Hon. Members know that Heathrow will come to two groups to pay for the infrastructure: taxpayers and passengers. This is such a con and we have to throw it out, once and for all. I do not want to be here in a couple of years’ time. There is now no rationale for proceeding with Heathrow expansion. We need to come back after the consultation, and I hope that the Government will say, “Enough is enough.” We must kill off this project, once and for all. We cannot just keep coming back and wasting resources on all this. I think there is a responsibility on all our shoulders, particularly now, because we know so much more about the detriment not just to our individual constituencies, but to the economy overall and to the health of millions of people. The message to the Government should be to just kill off Heathrow expansion. Let us finish this ritual that we have purely because of the lobbying impact of Heathrow airport. We have to stand up and represent our constituents, not corporations that will rip off us in the future.

    Hansard source
31. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

    I understand the difficulty that the Minister is in, and I have a lot of sympathy for him; I would not want to be associated with this thing either. There is one issue that I would like him to write to us on. The air quality working group will report in three months’ time, which could possibly be after a decision is made by the Government. One of the things that we will be asking for, if any framework is developed, is for the Government to set a limit that we should aim for on ultrafine particles. In Europe, they do that, and it is increasingly becoming a legal requirement to monitor them there. We have no monitoring and no limit. If he could write to me about the Government’s consideration of that, it would be really helpful.

    Hansard source
32. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

    I just want to raise the issue of jobs again. In the Select Committee inquiry, one of the representatives who gave information about jobs said that there was a real concern that if the company flounders on the financing for this project, as it almost certainly will, it will come to Government—and if the Government say no, that will have an impact on the existing operation and will put it in jeopardy. Those Members who have constituents who work at Heathrow, as I do, are worried about the existing operation of the airport being threatened by the overreach with respect to the third runway. That is why we have always argued not for a bigger Heathrow, but for a better Heathrow.

    Hansard source
33. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John McDonnell

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    I apologise to the Committee for having to leave the Chamber earlier to attend a debate in Westminster Hall. It was about Heathrow expansion yet again, and 17,000 of my constituents are threatened with the loss of their homes, so that is why I attended. I have tabled amendments 106 and 107, and they relate to the part of the Bill on interim custody orders. I do not want to get involved in a debate about internment, its implications and the decisions that were taken at that stage. I tabled these amendments because I am anxious about the introduction of forms of retrospective legislation. It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, and it is contrary to article 7 of the European convention on human rights. I want to read the article into the record. It deals with “No punishment without law” and it states: “No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.” I find it difficult to understand how clauses 89 and 90 of the Bill comply with article 7. The reason I say that is that, once we start setting precedents like this, they can be used in other legislation and other matters. I refer Members to subsection (4) in clause 89, which is bizarre, to say the least. It states: “This section is to be treated as always having had effect.” We are inventing a historical precedent; we are creating a truth when there is actually an untruth within the legislation itself. We need to guard against retrospective legislation on all occasions. It flies in the face of the ECHR, and I will be interested to know how the Government square that argument and consider that it will not be open to challenge at a later date.

    Hansard source
34. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·John Grady

    Manufacturing Skills

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this debate. I regularly meet fantastic employers in Glasgow who want to employ young people, but the college places to train them in the skills those businesses need are not available. That is an absolute failure and is making Glasgow poorer, despite the fact that we have fantastic opportunities in manufacturing. Glasgow has a city deal through the Glasgow city region. That is something to build on for regional devolution, because it is local employers, local businesses and local colleges that understand how best to get the skills in place to grow the local and regional economy, but we have an absolutely botched reform of local government being carried out in Scotland in the minute—the SNP is making a complete mess of it. The Prime Minister was right when he spoke in Scotland on Friday about the need to get power out of Edinburgh and into the city regions and the regions of Scotland, so we can help businesses to thrive, give young people the opportunities we want them to have, and seize Scotland’s great future.

    Hansard source
35. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Morris

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

    May I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind and consider the impact on residents near airports in my constituency who are affected by airport drop-off charges? They also have hire vehicles that create a bit of a nuisance to public spaces, green spaces and gardens across my constituency.

    Hansard source
36. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Toale

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

    My constituents have also raised issues around airport drop-off charges at Bournemouth airport, which have gone up to £8 this year. There are no public transport options to get to Bournemouth airport, so I hope that the Minister and the Government will take into account alternative routes to get to airports when looking at this issue in the consultation.

    Hansard source
37. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Toale

    Diethylstibesterol

    6. What steps her Department is taking to support women affected by diethylstilbesterol.

    Hansard source
38. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Toale

    Diethylstibesterol

    I thank the Minister for her answer and the constructive way in which the Department of Health and Social Care has engaged with me and campaigners from DES Justice UK, but I am still meeting women who are being denied breast cancer screening, colposcopies and other things that are essential for their care, despite the letter from the cancer alliance about DES exposure risk. How can we ensure that GPs and other health professionals are truly aware of the risks of DES, and that the women who need the support can get it when they need it?

    Hansard source
39. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

    Topical Questions

    Percy, a five-year-old constituent of mine, wrote to me ask whether gluten-free products would ever be provided on prescription for people with coeliac disease. What steps is the Minister taking to address postcode variations in the provision of gluten-free food by integrated care boards?

    Hansard source
40. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·James Naish

    House of Lords Reform

    Only a couple of individuals are involved, so my hon. Friend might not be aware that there are still Lords who sit on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal and who can be paid up to £40,000 a month for doing so, despite the national security law effectively meaning that the courts in Hong Kong are kangaroo courts. Does he agree that nobody from this place—either from this House or the other place—should be involved in anything to do with implementing the national security law in Hong Kong?

    Hansard source