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 Minister well knows that Trent Bridge is in my constituency of Rushcliffe. What category would an event such as the Ashes fall into? It is an internationally significant event, but it is a roaming event that goes to different locations. Would it fall into a different category?
I have a small point that I do not think is covered in this clause, but maybe the Minister can confirm that. For people in my constituency, which has three international venues close by, parking and the cost of parking enforcement are very important. Will the Minister consider support for local authorities that take on that extra burden when major events come to town?
During the 2012 games, there were a considerable number of test events, and also dress rehearsals for the opening and closing ceremonies and warm-up events. Would they be covered by the schedule?
The Minister will be acutely aware that for a lot of athletes, sponsorship is a key form of income. How will that type of sponsorship be covered in the regulations?
When one authority consents, but a neighbouring authority does not—I have the River Trent as a genuine administrative boundary between Nottingham city and Nottinghamshire county council—what are the provisions? In that scenario, the county might say yes, but the city no. If that is not clear, will the Minister consider the matter further?
T4. East Suffolk and North Essex NHS foundation trust has made a £98 million application to the estates safety fund for a new maternity building. Our local services support the delivery of around 3,000 babies every year, but the existing building has not been fit for purpose for many years. Will the Secretary of State support our bid for a new maternity wing at Ipswich hospital, to make sure babies and families get the state-of-the-art services that they so desperately need?
My hon. Friend is a tremendous advocate for kinship carers up and down this country. On more than one occasion, she has mentioned the circumstances that ordinary people find themselves in when faced with relations, close friends or potentially their own kids going into care. It is very emotional. Lots of people who accept kinship carers, such as Linda Watson in my constituency, feel the need to ensure that their children are not taken into care. They need to give them the best possible start in life, or the best way in life, at whatever age they are. A lot of kinship carers believe that a pat on the back, a rub on the back of the neck, a pat on the head and a big thank you are not enough. They need financial support so that they can give these kids, who are already in a difficult position with their family life and all the rest of it, a good start in life. In order to do that, kinship carers need the right support; they need adequate financial support.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason the Loughgall inquest began, and was then terminated by the previous Government’s legislation, is that the Attorney General in the last Conservative Government, who is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, decided, having considered all the papers, that it should be held? Is he telling the Committee that he disagrees with the decision of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright)?
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the way in which he has handled these two days of Committee consideration with such skill, grace and understanding. The fact that the temperature and the temper of the debate over the past two days have been markedly different from that which we experienced previously is, as I said at the beginning of my speech yesterday, a sign that the Government have listened, and that point has been recognised. I join the Secretary of State in thanking the civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office and other Government Departments for all the work that they have done on the Bill. They are as fine a group of civil servants as I have had the privilege to work with. I mentioned yesterday my first visit to WAVE, when Sandra Peake, that wonderful human being, sat me down and said, “Hilary, one of the things that you need to understand is how intimate the violence was in Northern Ireland.” The story that we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—indeed, the stories we have heard from so many right hon. and hon. Members over the past two days, and over the past 28 years—is proof of that. But today is a chance to recognise that this issue can now finally move on. I have said to the House many times that if dealing with legacy was easy, we would have done so a long time ago. It isn’t. It is really, really difficult; it is really, really hard. The last group of people I want to thank are all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for the contributions they have made, because responsibility falls on all of us to get this right in the interests of the people who sent us here to represent them.
T7. Many hospital specialisms are increasingly shared between Eastbourne hospital and Hastings Conquest hospital, which is in my constituency. That means that the people I represent who do not drive are required to travel a long way by public transport to get to Eastbourne hospital—between 90 minutes and two hours, and that involves a lot of walking. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) shares my concerns about people travelling in the other direction. With so many services shared between the two hospitals, I am calling on the NHS integrated care board, the trust, and the Reform-run county council to look at providing a shuttle bus that would make it easier for people to travel between the two hospitals. Does the Minister agree that this is something health commissioners should look at when planning services?
Could the shadow Minister set out exactly, in pounds and pence, how much less he thinks apprentices and young people should be paid today than they are under the current minimum wage?
I declare an interest as a governor of City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college. The previous Government decimated the BTEC programme, creating the gap that V-levels are filling, but V-levels are going to be short qualifications as opposed to larger qualifications that mirror BTECs. Given that the Department is looking at the roll-out of future V-levels, will the Minister consider making them a large qualification that could be studied independently—rather than alongside A-levels, or requiring three for a university application—as a way to make the breadth of opportunity mirror BTECs while keeping the values of the V-levels that the Government are going to try to introduce?
What my hon. Friend is pointing out, but has not quite said yet, is that we are also thinking about the long-term costs for society. Families that step forward stop a child going into care, which is much more expensive and much more traumatic for the young person. A phased period of going back to work before going back fully stops a carer having to call on the state for support over their lifetime. The Government ought to think about this not as a potential extra cost burden somewhere, but as an investment and a genuine preventive measure that saves money while improving outcomes. What is not to like?
When I hear talk of an end to a review my heart sinks because, in Government time, these reviews can take forever. Although it may conclude in 2027, can the Minister give the House an indication of how quickly after that point the Department and the Government will feel able to publish the outcomes of the review and the next steps, so that we will not need to wait a year or so to know what its conclusions are.
I should declare an interest: my wife is the Deputy Government Chief Whip in the House of Lords. As the hon. Lady will know, the Taylor report is bringing in mandatory House of Lords retirement at age 80, so things are progressing.
I beg to move, That this House has considered Heathrow airport expansion. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I thank all my constituents in Putney who have written to me, attended public meetings and taken part in the recent consultation on Heathrow expansion. I am really grateful to have secured today’s debate, and for the opportunity to explain why the Mayor of London, so many London MPs and so many Londoners continue to oppose the enormous expansion of Heathrow, the third runway and all that comes with it. I am also grateful to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aviation for engaging with the concerns that I and many others have raised. The proposal on the table would significantly and adversely affect the health and wellbeing of 3 million people living near Heathrow, and there would be a 58% increase in flights. Under the expansion proposal, the number of flights would increase by 276,000 per year— 756 per day. This debate comes at an important moment in the decision-making process. It is only weeks since the Government’s consultation on the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement closed on 1 September, and we are only days before Heathrow launches its own consultation on its expansion plans on 27 October. However, Heathrow is consulting on expansion before the Government have completed the policy framework that would govern it. That is the wrong way round. Before taking a decision of such magnitude, we should ask a simple question: knowing what we know now, would Parliament make the same decision today as it was asked to make when the Airport Commission reported and made the proposal in 2015? I do not believe that it would. In 2015, the Airport Commission’s case rested on assumptions about jobs, growth, aviation demand, sustainable aviation fuel, carbon reduction and regional economic benefits, but many of those assumptions have now been blown apart and look considerably weaker, so I am going to whizz through eight major things that have changed since 2015. I will also talk about three important things that have not changed since then. First, I am going to focus on the major central justification for expansion: the economic case, which I believe has collapsed. The Government’s own figures tell a very different story from the one we were told a decade ago. In 2015, the Airports Commission estimated that expansion could boost GDP by £20 billion to £23 billion. Earlier this year, supporters of expansion were still citing figures of around £13 billion. However, the Department for Transport’s appraisal in the HENPS document estimates a GDP increase of just 0.03% to 0.05% by the 2050s—the equivalent of roughly £900 million to £1.5 billion over decades. The headline economic benefit used to justify Heathrow expansion has therefore fallen from £20 billion to perhaps little more than £1 billion. A project once sold as transformational would now deliver an impact that is barely measurable in the context of a £3 trillion economy. Those figures would raise serious questions for any major infrastructure project. Secondly, I will talk about jobs. In 2015, the Airports Commission argued that a third runway could support about 70,000 new jobs across the UK by 2050, yet the Government’s own analysis suggests that many jobs would be relocated, rather than created. The DFT estimates that Heathrow expansion could draw around 21,400 jobs into the Heathrow area while contributing to the loss of approximately 15,200 jobs elsewhere in the UK. Moving jobs from one region to another is obviously not the same as creating new jobs. Thirdly, the premise of spreading growth across the UK has changed. The Government cannot demonstrate that the growth generated would be genuinely additional. If jobs, passengers and investment are simply drawn from other airports and regions, Britain is not creating growth; it is just relocating it. Analysis by the New Economics Foundation suggests that Birmingham airport alone could lose around 7.5 million passengers annually by 2050, alongside approximately 9,500 jobs across the airport and its supply chains. On devolution, No.10 North is going in one direction, but Heathrow expansion—being so concentrated on London and the south-east—would take us in another direction. At a time when Ministers rightly want to spread opportunity more evenly across the country, Heathrow expansion risks doing precisely the opposite.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The context of this debate has changed, which is my point; things have changed since 2015. We are looking again at devolution and growth across the country, and that changed context means that Heathrow expansion really needs to be looked at again, especially when the Mayor of London opposes it so strongly. Fourthly, business travel has changed; the world that originally produced the case for the third runway no longer exists. Much of the demand modelling that was made then assumed ever-increasing business travel, but the pandemic accelerated a shift towards remote working and video conferencing, which has become permanent. Research highlighted by the New Economics Foundation shows that over the two decades before the pandemic, UK GDP grew by around 25% while business passenger numbers through UK airports showed virtually no growth at all. Today, business travel remains at a level that is about 20% below pre-pandemic levels, so the fundamental assumption about business travel no longer applies. Fifthly, assumptions about sustainable aviation fuel have also changed. Sustainable aviation fuel was meant to be the great white charger that would come galloping over the hills, and that we would all be using it, and it would be the answer to all our climate problems. However, use of it is far less than predicted and is growing more slowly than predicted. It still accounts for far less than 1% of global aviation fuel use, and even under the Government’s own plans, around 90% of aviation fuel being used in 2030 would still be conventional fuel. In effect, Parliament is being asked to approve additional emissions now on the basis that future technology might solve the problem some time later, but that hope is really not being borne out. Sixthly, the climate challenge has become far more acute. The Climate Change Committee’s conclusion in its report last month was clear—the UK does not currently have a credible pathway to reduce aviation emissions in line with net zero while accommodating Heathrow expansion. The Committee estimates that expansion would add an additional 2.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year by 2050. That is roughly the equivalent of putting around half a million additional petrol-fuelled cars on Britain’s roads, all the emissions of Denmark, and greater than all the emissions of New Zealand.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for that intervention, which speaks for the views of so many people, who are saying similar things. Indeed, a long time ago they were saying, “Look at the assumptions”, but now we have even more facts about those assumptions. We know what has actually come to pass and it is not all that was promised. At a time when households, motorists and businesses are being asked to reduce emissions, and after the summer of extreme weather that we have just had, why would we seek permission to increase emissions by so much? Seventhly, our understanding of the health impact of noise has changed. Noise is not just an inconvenience; it is not something for people to get used to. We now know the impact of noise on many health conditions, including heart conditions and mental health conditions. This new knowledge about the impact of noise and what that impact will be on so many millions more people really should give the Government pause for thought. At the very least, the Government should commit to a full seven-hour night-flight ban between 11 pm and 6 am, with a pathway towards an eight-hour ban in the future. That respite would be so important for my constituents. Eighthly, our expectations on air quality have changed. London is now the world’s largest clean-air zone. Putney’s high street used to be one of the most polluted in the country, but is now just the same as other high streets. That has been through a lot of hard policy and hard work. The ultra low emission zone covers every London borough and has reduced harmful nitrogen dioxide concentrations in central London by more than 50%. There has been heavy investment around improving our air quality, but this pollution from Heathrow airport would take us in the other direction. Those are eight things that have changed since 2015, and I am sure that the Minister has listened very carefully to them all, but there are three things that have not changed. First, there is no funding plan for the surface transport to go along with the airport. I have been asking this question of Treasury Ministers ever since the proposals came out: “Will the Government fund the ground transport?” No. I have been asking Heathrow, “Will Heathrow fund the ground transport?” No, it will not. We have a massive gap here given the number of people who will travel to Heathrow airport. What will they travel on? I think that that will be a real millstone around the Government’s neck in future. The second thing that has not changed is that Heathrow is the wrong location for a hub airport of this scale, for areas such as Northern Ireland—I know that we have a Member from Northern Ireland here—Liverpool, Manchester or Scotland. If anyone looked at the UK to decide where to put a hub airport, would they really put it next to one of the most densely populated parts of the whole country, or would they put it in the middle of the country? Would they locate it at an airport that already had two runways, such as Manchester’s? The third thing that has not changed is that we do not have a national aviation strategy. Why are these decisions being made piecemeal? We have Gatwick, Luton and now Heathrow; where is the overall strategy for this? What is the decision-making behind it? Why do we not step back, look at what kind of aviation growth we want and need and where we want that to be, and then put this decision within that? When the Airports Commission recommended Heathrow’s expansion in 2015, it asked the public and Parliament to accept a trade-off: to accept the noise, the environmental impacts and the disruption, because the rewards would be worth it. We were promised transformational economic growth across the United Kingdom, but, more than a decade later, we find a very different situation. Those foundations and assumptions are very weak. The projected economic gains are smaller than promised.
I absolutely have all those communities in my mind. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I am sure that we will hear more about that from other Members in this Chamber today who represent those communities that will be so directly affected. That is what I mean about the national strategy; that would be a very big factor. How many communities will be affected? What is the trade-off here? Why—again—would anyone choose to put this hub airport next to London? It affects more people than all the other major hub airports across Europe. Five hub airports there have fewer people affected than this one, because it is so close to London. It is not in the place we would put it if we started from scratch. As I was saying, Parliament was asked to accept a trade-off between the negative effects and the economic gains, but that whole equation has now crumbled. This is no longer the proposition that Parliament was presented with in 2015; it asks communities to accept many more dangers and harms, but for less-certain benefits. Every day, my constituents live with the consequences of Heathrow. Asking them to accept more flights, more noise and more disruption requires a compelling national case, and we just do not have it here. If the growth is smaller, the jobs are less certain and the benefits are less widely shared than promised, the responsible thing to do is not to simply press ahead regardless; it is to stop and look again. I therefore hope that, when the time for a conclusion comes, the Minister will conclude that a third runway at Heathrow is not right for the country.
I thank the Minister for stepping in. I recognise that he is a very responsible Minister in answering the local transport questions that have been raised time and again in this debate. I look forward to hearing answers about what the strategy will be. There is a huge hole in this project, although that is not the only thing to be concerned about. I say to all those listening and to those who will be responding to the consultation, which will start on 27 October and continue until 22 December, that there are some concerns for those of us who live in London; we have heard the concerns about the noise and air pollution, and the very serious concerns about health. I welcome the respite information given by the Minister and the commitment to listen carefully to my constituents in Putney and others about the impact that any change to night flights would have, as well as the impact of all the proposed changes throughout the day. Although we do not yet know where the flightpaths will be, we know that far more people across London will be affected, so everyone who lives in London should respond to the consultation. Those people who do not live in London should also respond and should look at the promises that are being made but not delivered—promises for economic growth across the country. There will not be “hope in every heart” or increased “growth in every postcode” from this development, although there will be a huge number of promises being made by Heathrow. Heathrow asked the Government whether it could increase its funding from airlines by £340 million to fund the promotion of this project, so people across the country should expect to be lobbied very hard about it. They should also expect huge figures to be discussed, but they should look into the assumptions behind them. To passengers, I say that there will be increased fares from this highly indebted company, because it will not be footing the bill. I thank the Minister for looking into this—
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that this debate has lifted the lid on some aspects of Heathrow as a company and that it is a highly indebted company and a very thin company with not a lot of financial backing to it. That puts at risk this whole project, which would come to the Government’s door if it fails, but it also puts jobs at risk, in addition to all the fear and worry of our constituents about the project going ahead. Will it just run into the sand and be a millstone around the Government’s neck? This debate has also lifted the lid on the four tests. Can they really be met? That is a question that, as MPs concerned about the issue, we have asked many times. Unless the goalposts are being moved through the Heathrow expansion national policy statement so that they are so wide that anyone could meet the requirements, then, if the four tests are really going to be strong and serious tests, I cannot see how they can be met and how this project can go ahead. But I welcome the consultation that is coming up, and I encourage as many people as possible to get involved. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Heathrow airport expansion.
I am concerned about NHS England’s GP list cleaning programme and its impact on London specifically. Putney GPs have told me that in the last six months, 344,000 patients have been taken off GP lists, 44% of whom are in London. Some are taken off after not responding to a single letter. That means that they do not get cancer check-ups, vaccines or GP care. Something is going on with the London part of the GP lists. Will the Minister pause, review the programme, look into it and meet me and other London MPs to talk about it?
In 2022 in Oslo, a monument was unveiled to Cecilie Flatval, a woman with incurable breast cancer. This weekend, I met my constituent Sylvia, who survived breast cancer and has fundraised extensively through Race for Life. Will the Minister meet me and Sylvia to discuss how we can support a similar monument in the United Kingdom?
Today, I think of the service personnel in Falkirk and the veterans who served in Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. Whenever I have had the chance to speak to them about this issue, or more broadly about the issues affecting veterans, the armed forces and defence spending in my constituency, I am reminded of the depth of their character, the depth of their service and their overwhelming sense of duty. They are representative of the more than 300,000 veterans of Operation Banner. I believe that it is a duty not just to think about this matter from a constituency standpoint but to think of the people of Northern Ireland. It is especially incumbent on Back Benchers from other parts of the United Kingdom to remind ourselves that they must be treated as full and equal citizens of our United Kingdom, entitled to rely on the rule of law, our shared democratic institutions and access to justice. Of the Government’s amendments, those closest to my mind are those that strengthen the protection of Operation Banner veterans in our constituencies. We should never forget, as I think a few Members have rightly commented, that those veterans and their families are victims of the troubles as well. We should avoid drawing a false distinction between service families and an associated other of victims. That is important principally because, if we do not, it reduces the status of those murdered in Northern Ireland from the community and from our armed forces, and impedes those victims’ right to access justice. Though I am aware that this is not being considered today, I want to rebut the point that operational context is not touched upon in the Bill. New clause 32 tabled by the Government, as the Secretary of State referred to, requires the legacy commission to recognise the circumstances in which the armed forces and police served and the split-second decisions they took. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on how that will take into consideration the chain of command? That question has come up among veterans in my constituency and from Members across the Committee. To allow us to get to the summing-up speeches, I will speak briefly on new clauses 51 and 50, which address some of the concerns that I have heard from veterans groups in my constituency. New clause 51 makes clear that no one can rely on an on-the-run letter in criminal proceedings against them. Of the issues that veterans brought up—I want to touch on every single group but especially the excellent and fantastic Veterans Together (Forth Valley)—that was one that evoked the strongest anger among people. The mere ambiguity surrounding the letters and the idea that a scrap of paper could leave those suspected of a terrorist offence being comforted back to the United Kingdom, thinking that they were immune from prosecution, elicited anger. I am glad that it is this Labour Government who are decisively ending the ambiguity around those letters. As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I support new clause 50 in principle—that the Attorney General must consent to any prosecution for any serious troubles-related offence. I hear from veterans that trust in the process is at such a low ebb among their community, and so I believe that placing the decision in the hands of a senior, democratically accountable law officer in this country provides Government accountability and the right degree of independence and accountability generally, enabling us to build confidence that any prosecutions are in the public interest. On summing up, will the Secretary of State set out how that safeguard will support the Government’s commitment to protecting the public interest where there may be a dispute about the high evidential bar and whether it has been met, especially considering the historical and complex nature of evidence that remains? Will he also assure the House that the Attorney General’s role is designed to prevent any political interference, so that no Government, now or in future, may use it to politicise decisions about the evidence and public interest, which must be taken with the utmost seriousness? The Bill provides the last chance for many in our community, including service families, to access the truth about what happened to their loved ones in Northern Ireland. Most importantly, I believe it enables us to implement real and tangible protections for veterans that the ineffective and unlawful immunity scheme, which the previous Government failed to deliver, utterly did not implement. As it represents a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, as it represents a strengthening of the position of veterans and as, more than anything, it allows us to progress, I will vote for the Bill this evening.
I beg to move, That this House has considered House of Lords reform. It is a pleasure to bring this debate to Parliament as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on House of Lords reform. A few weeks ago, I showed a group of United States doctors around Parliament, which involved sitting in the Public Gallery of the House of Lords, looking at the King Charles throne, the Woolsack and a scattering of some quite elderly peers. One doctor said, “How do these guys get in here?”. When I answered that they were appointed by their mates, they all laughed—surely I was joking. Sadly, I was not joking. Reform of the House of Lords has been on the cards for centuries. The House was actually abolished in 1649, but was reinstated a few years later, and it has been the subject of intense debate ever since. The idea of unelected peers having inherited access to Parliament alongside crony appointees controlling the laws that Parliament produces is clearly ridiculous. It is no wonder that the crisis of confidence in our political system is at an all-time high. This Government have actually taken quite big strides—probably more than others—on the long overdue removal of hereditary peers. I also welcome proposals to impose a retirement age and a minimum participation requirement, but we cannot afford to push this constitutional necessity further down the road. I will take this opportunity to set out the case for reform of the House of Lords and how we can go about implementing it. The function of our second Chamber is to scrutinise and amend legislation passed by the elected Commons. There are many exceptional Lords who do a really good job at that, but their contribution is undermined by their complete lack of legitimacy. It is simply not right that our Parliament has more unelected lawmakers than lawmakers with a mandate from the people. During the Makerfield by-election, the Prime Minister called it “scandalous” and expressed support for an early change to the Lords. One of the things that has most surprised me is learning that the House of Lords remains a self-governing institution. In the last session, we saw a handful of unelected peers, many of whom were rejected by the voters at the last election, abuse that fact to stall the progression of legislation passed by the elected Commons. The other place is also deeply unrepresentative of our country. Over 55% of peers live in London and the south-east. I know that our Prime Minister is very concerned with that, and that he has called for a senate of nations and regions to replace the Lords, so that every corner of our country is properly represented in both of our Chambers. The public also want change. Only 16% support the current status quo; 70% have little or no confidence in the institution, and a majority want an entirely elected upper Chamber. The voters gave a very clear mandate for a Labour manifesto that included a commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber, more representative of the regions and nations. What could a second Chamber look like? That is a complex issue; we should convene a commission of citizens and experts to decide on its role and make-up. It should still absolutely be possible to retain the expertise that we have there, and that is exactly what our manifesto has committed us to.
I would say that we need experts to look at how our democracy works and to devise a better way of doing it.
I have been working with Baroness Smith on her Bill. We need to get the great minds of this country to devise a good political system, one that reflects our country and gives us our best government. I suggest that we need a commission to look into the matter. That commission could take many experts. How it is actually constituted remains something we can debate. The Government have announced a commission on electoral reform; maybe that could be extended to examine the composition of the second Chamber, because that would be a holistic approach to the system. I see some hon. Members shaking their heads. I will briefly touch on an issue that many hon. Members care about: the lack of transparency in the other place. According to research by Transparency International UK, 128 peers hold paid political advisory roles that risk breaching parliamentary rules. We must strengthen the House of Lords code of conduct to put beyond doubt that legislators who serve in the House of Lords should not be lobbyists. Since 2013, almost a quarter of all nominations from political parties have been political donors—that is the ultimate cronyism. I know many hon. Members wish to speak, so in conclusion I ask the Minister to meet with the APPG on House of Lords reform to discuss how the Government intend to fulfil their manifesto commitment to consult the public on an alternative second Chamber. Will the Minister consider expanding the remit of the commission on electoral reform to cover the role and composition of the other place? It is time—to quote someone who I do not normally agree with— to “take back control.”
I thought that, in Reform’s manifesto, it was going to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a much smaller, more democratic second Chamber.
5. What steps she is taking to help improve the health of young people.
As the Minister knows, over 1 million young people are currently on the mental health waiting list. In Stroud, and in the South Bank centre, I am working with clinical teams and creative teams to offer early intervention to these young people, with social prescriptions for music, art, access to nature and exercise, and indeed stand-up comedy. Following the Fonagy review, which recommends support in the community with lower-level clinical services and on an earlier basis, does she support those initiatives, and may I meet her to discuss them?
The right hon. Gentleman cites the CEO of Heathrow airport, but he will be aware that none of the airlines back his plan to expand the airport. Can he explain that, and what do he and the CEO know about this plan that the airlines do not?
7. What steps her Department is taking to increase the use of community hospitals and beds for step-down intermediate care.
Ward 7 at Bishop Auckland hospital is an example of the NHS working—physios, nurses, healthcare workers and some excellent facilities—so we were shocked to hear that our local NHS trust plans to close the ward, move it to Darlington and break up that team. Will the Minister meet me so I can represent my constituents and the workers at that hospital, and raise those concerns with her face to face?
My hon. Friend is making a really powerful point. When he was the Mayor of Manchester, the Prime Minister warned many times that Heathrow expansion would suck the life out of regional airports. Does she agree that that is now more true than ever? The Prime Minister is also really into devolution. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is also against Heathrow expansion, so the Prime Minister should listen to our Mayor, too.
The hon. Member has come out with some statistics, and I just want to give him one. We have the largest clean air zone on Earth in London. Nitrous oxide emissions have been cut by 54%. Would that not be put at risk by Heathrow expansion?
Constituents in Stocksbridge, Deepcar, Wharncliffe Side and Oughtibridge regularly tell me how important it is for them to have access closer to home to routine blood tests, X-rays, special educational needs and disability support, mental health support, NHS dentistry and mammograms, because of the poor transport links and delays in accessing NHS diagnostic services in Sheffield. Therefore, I was delighted to welcome Stocksbridge towns fund board members, local health leaders and experts to visit the 519 community hub site in our town. Will the Minister meet me to discuss our proposal for a community diagnostic centre in the new 519 building, to maximise its benefit to our community—mirroring the excellent Glass Works and Alhambra centre facilities in Barnsley—and to bring health to our high streets locally?
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing the debate. I am incredibly proud to represent Stoke-on-Trent South, which includes part of the city of Stoke-on-Trent—a city with a proud heritage in craftship and industry. Stoke is the birthplace of the Lunar Society, a group of amazing, innovative thinkers, including the great innovator, Josiah Wedgwood. The Lunar Society helped fuel the industrial revolution, and manufacturing is embedded within Stoke-on-Trent and its people. With the Government’s reindustrialisation agenda, now is the time to invest in creative and advanced manufacturing skills so that our young people can secure highly paid specialist jobs. That is why I want first to mention the excellent myFuture initiative, which was raised with me by Stoke-on-Trent sixth form and the Potteries Educational Trust, and is delivered in partnership with Keele University, the University of Staffordshire, the Careers & Enterprise Company and local SMEs. The initiative is delivering an employer-led skills framework for ages 10 to 19—indeed, up to 25—to over 63,000 students. It delivers a co-designed curriculum experience for 14 to 19-year-olds, with employer-linked career gateways helping teachers to embed employer engagement activities into study and address local skills gaps. MyFuture is seeking support from the Department for Education to become a funded pathfinder project. Will the Minister work with DFE colleagues to support the proposal where gateways align with manufacturing? Of course, I could not speak in a debate on manufacturing without mentioning ceramics. From iconic tableware manufacturers such as 1882 and Duchess China in my constituency, to advanced ceramics firms such as Mantec, ceramics have shaped our local identity. While ceramics are best known for the products we all love, such as mugs and tableware, advanced ceramics are the hidden backbone of modern manufacturing. They are essential components in the supply chain for high-tech industries, including defence, electronics, nuclear energy, construction and aerospace engineering. Across the UK, the sector contributes more than £2 billion annually, employs approximately 20,000 people and supports thousands more jobs through the related supply chains. We are incredibly lucky that north Staffordshire is the hotbed of this activity. However, businesses repeatedly tell me that skills shortages are having a significant impact. Experienced workers are retiring, taking decades of specialist knowledge with them, and too few young people are entering the industry. Valuable heritage skills are being lost entirely as employers struggle to attract and retain trainees. Recently, I spoke to an amazing entrepreneur whose business using our creamware is going from strength to strength, but she is concerned for the future, as the person she depends on will soon be retiring. She risks losing his skills and we risk losing her business overseas if we do not fix our skills pipeline. This is an increasing problem, and it is time we truly focused on backing British products. There is a need to train an estimated 200 to 400 operatives per year in Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle in traditional ceramics alone. In advanced ceramics, emerging technologies such as ceramic matrix composites do not yet have recognised apprenticeship or qualification routes. Specialist technical manufacturing knowledge is being lost, with no national masterplan to replace the capability. I was delighted to see the launch of the craft technician apprenticeship earlier this year, led by Emma Bridgewater in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and supported by Ceramics UK, Skills England and Creative Alliance. Such initiatives are exactly what the sector needs to help the next generation of skilled workers. I also welcome the Government’s £120 million investment to support energy efficiency and decarbonisation in the ceramics industry. Although that funding is important, I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that future funding will consider skills. At the heart of our reindustrialisation plans sits manufacturing in all its forms. It is the bedrock of our national economy, growth and resilience. We must invest in our future, our people and our skills.
From pelvic mesh to diethylstilbestrol, women have been harmed by a health system that has not and still does not listen to them, as starkly illustrated in Mumsnet’s recent report, “Medical Misogyny: A Lifetime of Failure”. Does the Minister agree that tackling medical misogyny must be at the heart of how we rebuild the NHS?
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his limited time. Many of my constituents in Ealing Southall have responded to the consultation. Noise has been a particular concern, so I hope that he will manage to make some remarks on how realistic steeper landing approaches and new aircraft technology might be in addressing noise. I also want to talk about jobs. The Minister talks about growth. Many of my constituents work at the airport, and their worry is that if the expansion does not go ahead, we will lose our status as a hub airport and their jobs might be at risk in the future. Is the Minister able to say anything to reassure the many workers from my constituency in good-quality jobs at Heathrow airport?
I was going to make the same point that the Minister has just made to some degree. It seems to me that the key terminology in the clause is “no weight”. Can she say more about what that will mean in practise?