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
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, because there is just so much to feast upon there in one intervention. Just to draw out an inconsistency in his speech, he likes experts and history—I like them as well—yet he says that we should have an upper Chamber that is based on the votes at the last election. Presumably, those would be appointed by the parties, so how does he intend to balance those two tensions?
The key word here, of course, is “essential” and its definition. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any legal precedent or case law that defines the word?
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace. I have met many stakeholders through the process of the Bill.
It is a pleasure to serve in your presence, Mr Turner. As a vocal advocate of flying, it falls to me to acknowledge that, currently, flying is horrible, uncomfortable and stressful. On most occasions we arrive late, in a condition such that our initial reaction is to strip off all our clothes, shower and rid ourselves of the filth that we have been stewing in for hours in an aircraft. The fact that we all aspire to fly regularly shows that it is necessary, but there is an opportunity in the Bill to remove some of the stress, worry and discomfort in as minor a way as possible, to make the experience slightly less horrible. I will speak on amendment 25 and new clause 14, which I think are fair and proportionate attempts to reduce the stress and worry of the flying and airport experience in minor and sensible ways. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, I hope the Government see the wisdom of protecting parents and everybody else on an aircraft from the risk of an unaccompanied minor being seated next to a stranger. It is a reasonable expectation that someone should make a flight booking that covers themselves and their children, and that they should not be split to the four corners of the aircraft, forced to worry about persuading people to change seats to have the child under some level of control. For some parents that may be a blessing, and the thought of their seven-year-old sitting next to some poor soul at the back of the plane is attractive, but I think most of us agree that we should not subject random members of the public to that. Amendment 25 takes a reasonable and proportionate approach to address the issue. I am interested to hear from the Minister on the Government’s approach as, unless I have missed it, it does not currently appear in the Bill. We would be minded to withdraw the amendment if the reassurance from the Minister were sufficient, particularly regarding how an adult is a person aged 16 and over, and how an adult requiring care should also be covered.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are particular booking sizes, seating arrangements and issues relating to the geometry of aircraft in respect of which conflicting groups may well mean that the mathematical problem is not solvable. There would need to be redrafting to exclude those occasions, so that we do not subject airlines to fines for failure to achieve impossible requirements. The goal of amendment 25, which relates to new clause 14, is to stop predatory charging for seat selection to avoid families and carers being split up and to give groups, families and carers confidence that they will be sitting together on the aircraft. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage made the point that assigned seating is relevant to air travel and not to other modes of transport because it is different in an aircraft, where assigned seating is particularly important to ensure that passengers are in the right part of the cabin, to be able to identify passengers with allergies or meal preferences, or because of things like weight allowances. The amendment reflects the need to protect the passenger—the consumer—as the Bill has rightly been introduced to do, in a proportionate way. New clause 14 relates to the fact that passengers can sometimes choose a particular seat, whether in an exit row, by a window, or at the front or back of the plane, perhaps because they want to make a connection and so be able to leg it off the flight at the very first opportunity when they land. Airlines may choose to offer that product, and that is okay. However, what they cannot do is make families and carers pay that premium fee to ensure that they are able to support loved ones and, potentially, to protect other passengers from their eight-year-old flicking his porridge or scrambled eggs across the aisle. Amendment 25, together with new clause 14, would prevent that. It is entirely within an airline’s ability to issue automatic refunds when services are not delivered. The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston argued that airlines might not be able to deliver due to the geometry or combination of passenger preferences, which is okay, but on occasions when an equipment change or groups mean that passengers have to be moved and the product they paid for is not available, the refund should be automatic. I agree with the premise that a new clause or amendment must be proved to be necessary—this new clause is necessary because the systems are able to do that today, but it does not happen. It is down to the consumer to chase an airline for a refund. They have to go through the rigmarole of emailing and potentially deploying their AI refund bot to get that fee returned. Depending on the Minister’s response to amendment 25 and new clause 14, we will choose whether to push them to a vote or withdraw them.
I thank the Minister for his words, particularly on new clause 13. We very much welcome the Government’s movement in the other place to introduce greater protections for disabled airline passengers following pressure from a cross-party group of lords. The removal of the compensation cap for damaged wheelchairs on domestic flights is a great step forward for accessibility. For a disabled person, a wheelchair is not merely luggage; it is a vital extension of their body and their independence. I am glad, though, to pick up the noble Baroness Brinton’s amendment on wheelchair passports. She has been a strong advocate for accessibility for many years, and we are glad to support her in her campaign. I invite all Members to read the exchanges in the Lords to see and understand the lived experience—I am sure that we will hear some of that here too—of disabled passengers struggling with complex, unwieldy and challenging circumstances at various airports around the country. I am glad that we are getting a focus on that here. Over the past few years, the Department for Transport has discussed creating wheelchair passports, which would smooth the journey, with one brief check at check-in to ensure that the wheelchair—and, if relevant, the battery—and the passport match. Once someone had such a passport, the details could be in the airport’s system and the airline’s system forever. However, the new clause would make it clear that the Secretary of State has to work with the International Air Transport Association, and the other countries and the airlines that are part of that organisation, to make this happen, because it will not work if only the UK does it. I note that IATA’s international guidance already provides for a mobility aid passport, but it is self-evident that that is not sufficiently well understood or implemented. The Minister talked about a mobility pack and an investigation that is being undertaken to design appropriate measures. I encourage him to refer back to the IATA mobility aid passport to understand how that can be incorporated, improved and strengthened, and to work with airlines and international organisations to make sure that the aims of the new clause are reflected in the lived experience of those who, time and again, when they approach an airline check-in desk, have to struggle through the same set of questions and the same arguments, and—again, I reflect on the experiences that were shared in the Lords—pull out the guidance that they have printed and explain it. That is just not acceptable. Whether it is through regulation, through the wording of customer protections or by making it incumbent on airlines and ground handlers to understand and implement these measures, we all need to make sure that the airline industry is implementing and improving things for those who rely on mobility aids, so that they are able to experience flying as miserably as the rest of us.
We accept that huge steps have been taken. As somebody who has particular experience, does the hon. Member see the challenge around training airline check-in staff and ground handlers? What does he see as the way to achieve the aims and goals that we have? We can talk about regulation and legislation until the cows come home, as we are paid to do, but how does he see implementation on the ground, as someone who lives in this world and struggles with different airlines, some of which implement measures well, while others do not? I am interested to hear how he suggests we break through that and feed that back to the working groups so that it can really understand the trick to this.
The hon. Gentleman has invited me on to the point we raise in the new clause, about the need to work with IATA to ensure that this is part of either the mobility aid passport or a separate wheelchair passport structure, so that it protects passengers when they fly both from and to UK and EU airports. A theme to pick up on later is that it is common for aviation to be asymmetrical and that covering flights between different jurisdictions is difficult. Therefore, working with international organisations, and being rule makers and influencers rather than sitting back and being rule takers, is the right way to proceed.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. On new clause 6, I note the Minister’s comments about the study to understand the level of public transport provision and charges at UK airports, which we obviously welcome. It is worth reflecting on the comments from a number of Government Members that a charge to encourage passengers to use public transport to access an airport, to reduce emissions, congestion and the impact on airport communities, is unfair when a public transport option does not exist for that airport. It is contradictory and confusing, and it undermines the case and the consensus that we must build that aviation is good but the impacts of aviation travel—be they emissions, disruption for nearby communities, or noise—must be mitigated and addressed. As part of the review, I encourage the Minister and his officials, and those who are undertaking the study, to come up with a much more nuanced approach to the allowable limits for charges related to public transport provision to the airports in question. I believe we will push new clause 6 to a vote, primarily to make the point that a particular charge level cap is appropriate, but I implore the Minister to look into that nuance. It is absolutely right that we encourage modal share and push passengers to use sustainable methods of transport to get to the airport; however, where airports use a charge to increase their revenue that conflicts with the goals at alternative airports, where it is levied entirely to manage ground transportation demand and the impact on local residents. Airport charges, it is worth noting, are not the norm across Europe. They are definitely not the norm across the world. It is our model of airport ownership that means that this has become an additional fee that, as in the two examples given by Government Members, is unavoidable. It becomes effectively an essential fee. There is an argument that suggests using public hire vehicles to travel to an airport reduces the impact on roadways because instead of dropping off and travelling home empty, or parking, that vehicle is then available for picking up passengers and returning them to another location. It should be considered that there is a possibility to have different charges for different vehicle types—public hire taxis, for example. It is not that we are against the principle; there just needs to be a much more considered approach to how it is structured. Finally, as stated in the new clause, we believe that £5 is the right level for the charge to be set at, considering all the various cost of living challenges and the lack of alternatives in many places. We have to see that accompanied by investment in active travel and public transport infrastructure at airports, particularly those outside London, where there is lacking provision at present. Hopefully the Government are able to pull those two aspects together to balance that investment in alternatives with the nudge of that charge pushing passengers into alternative modes.
Amendments 21 and 20 are alternative approaches to a safeguard, as the shadow Minister observed. Our preferred amendment is 21 because it gives the oversight back to the Secretary of State to confirm that that minor classification is appropriate. We prefer amendment 21 and will hopefully persuade the Government to accept it, in which case amendment 20 will be superseded.
It is worth clearly defining the CAA’s role in delivering safety and process improvements. Obviously, it is down to the Minister and the Government to drive the direction they want to take. Is there a risk that the regulator, which is operating within the status quo, may consider something minor without being able to consider the direction the Government might want to take—for example, in prioritising the impact on drone operators, new technologies and innovation? Should it not therefore be for the Minister to agree whether a particular innovation or approach can be fast-tracked, or whether it requires full consultation? I think it just gives the Government and the Minister himself more opportunity to direct, which is why this would seem to be a logical process.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I thank the Minister for the meetings he has held with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) to discuss his new clause. However, there are still some concerns and issues that we would like to address on behalf of his constituents. To be clear, the Liberal Democrats, including my hon. Friend, do support airspace modernisation. Communities across the country support it too, but modernisation works only if people trust the process that delivered it. At the moment, there is a risk that that trust is missing and that consent is not necessarily fully collected at the beginning of the process. Communities are asked for their views only once a draft design exists and, unfortunately, by that point—I have spent time in the aviation industry and know this full well—although choices have not necessarily been made, the direction and likely outcomes have been narrowed down to what is feasible, and there is often not a huge amount between many of the options. The new CAP 1616 update, in force since 1 October, makes that feedback and collection of consultation and input more difficult still. Residents affected by proposed changes are not included in the earlier stakeholder reference groups, and locally agreed design principles have been replaced by national priorities. The sponsor decides who is consulted and how, and the gateways in the process have fallen from three to one, with post-implementation reviews removed. Although we understand the need to speed up the process, we feel that this has tilted too far towards expediting the process rather than allowing communities to meaningfully feed back. Before, during and after a proposal, there is no accessible independent route for a community to be heard. The only challenge available after a decision is made is judicial review, and that is not a realistic option for a village, residents’ association or group of residents wanting to bring its points forward. Some will say that an independent review function existed, but was barely used and the CAA scrapped it. However, new clause 1 proposes something different. Low use of an old process is not an argument against producing a better one. Nor is this about slowing change: the purpose is to let communities feed in early so that problems are caught before decisions are made, rather than having to be fought afterwards. The Government have given conflicting signals on whether the Public Service Ombudsman can deal with regulatory decisions. A written answer in the other place said that it cannot, but on Second Reading, the Minister suggested that it could. I have three questions to ask the Minister, which I hope he can respond to today. Were the PSO route and the first-tier tribunal route examined, and if not, why not? Why is aviation excluded from that tribunal? How do the Government plan to ensure in practice that communities are included throughout the process and that their voices can truly be heard?
That is a good question, and I think the principle there would be to shift it on to the Government to say what the assessment of the cost would be. The cost was used as a reason to push back on this, but it did not appear to have been calculated. If the cost is unknown, I would suggest that that slightly weakens the argument that it is excessive. There will obviously be a trade-off between the cost, the delay and the additional time taken to deliver these changes with the ability of communities to meaningfully feed back. Ultimately, this is about taking communities with us, because as we have said a number of times today—and different colleagues have made this point at different stages—we have to take communities with us in the changes that we are making to airspace, flightpaths, and approach and departure routes so that everybody can feel like their input is being considered. In that way, we do not lose that public consent and engagement with the process, and people are still encouraged to apply and feed back in future consultations. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s responses to my three questions.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause returns to my overarching theme, and that of all of us, which is how to make flying slightly less horrible for all involved—for families, the disabled, those who need to drive to the airport. The new clause would take a huge step towards making flying marginally less stressful and, importantly, less expensive for anyone who brings hand luggage aboard a flight. To explain the new clause as clearly as possible, I will start by defining the difference between the British standard hand luggage in subsection (2)(a) and the British standard suitcase in subsection (2)(b). Those admittedly somewhat overly theatrical terms simply act as minimum standards and not, sadly for any aspiring baggage entrepreneurs among us, as required suitcase models or dimensions. Regulation EU261 has recently been agreed for passengers departing from inside the EU. That regulation will entitle passengers to carry a personal item that fits under the seat in front of them, which corresponds roughly to my British standard hand luggage item. Under EU261, that has a maximum dimension defined as 40 cm by 30 cm by 15 cm, adding up to 85 cm combined. EU261 also defines one piece of hand luggage, which corresponds roughly in concept to my British standard suitcase, as weighing up to 7 kg and requiring a maximum of 100 cm in combined dimensions. We are all very aware that the UK is no longer part of the EU. Opinions on the wisdom of that may vary, but it means that British passengers may be entitled to a free cabin bag only when returning home on a carrier covered by the new EU regulation. For example, easyJet has confirmed that the changes will apply to flights returning from EU countries and not to departures from the UK. Passengers flying out of the UK will therefore not benefit from a free item of hand luggage, despite the new rules in Europe. The airline easyJet said that the rules will apply to UK passengers only on return flights. That demonstrates the need for the new clause. It would avoid streams and streams of passengers potentially being fined by airlines on their way home to Europe, because of different rules on one leg of the trip from another. If we do not address the issue, we risk tourists being put off visiting our country due to the lack of parity, costing our fragile economy and hospitality industry huge amounts of revenue. Today, we have already heard about how passengers run a gauntlet of fees, charges, fines and mistakes: as they travel from home, through the drop-off curve where they are forced to pay a charge or are fined; at check-in, where they may be forced to pay a fee to guarantee that they can sit near their children or to check a bag; and then at security, where they might have their perfume or purchased drink taken away if slightly over the limit. Having navigated our way to the gate, we can see the fragile aluminium or carbon-fibre tube, mere millimetres thick, which, together with the wings full of extremely flammable jet fuel, will convey us at 600 mph at 40,000 feet through storms and turbulence, lightning and rain, to a far-off land while we stew in 200 strangers’ halitosis and flatulence, surrounded by other people’s screaming children—while ours sit at the far corner of the plane, because we did not pay the fee to guarantee we would all sit together. Before boarding, however, we must face the most terrifying hurdle of all: the gate agent and the handbag sizing frame. We look down and suddenly realise that we have packed our hand luggage in our easyJet bag, instead of the Ryanair bag—easyJet, alongside British Airways and Jet2, allow the most generously sized bag for large airlines, at 56 cm by 45 cm by 25 cm, which compares with 55 cm by 40 cm by 20 cm for Ryanair. The 1 cm-height, 5 cm-width and 5 cm-depth exceedance of that bag clearly means that it cannot fit on the 40-metre long aircraft I longingly gaze at through the terminal window. I shuffle forward with my bag. I am now past the point of no return, because I could have dealt with my error at check-in by paying £45-ish to check the bag into the hold.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that checking the website could protect the passenger, but the problem is that these are arbitrary sizing decisions so they can be changed at any moment. Should Ryanair need to prop up its bottom line this season by taking another 5 cm off its baggage sizing, there is nothing to restrict it from doing so. The Bill offers the opportunity to set minimum standards for passenger service and to give passengers power and protection from predatory practices. I think we should grasp that opportunity, and that is why the new clause is so necessary. To begin to conclude, the race to the bottom that Lord Hendy described is not the worst-case scenario; it is what is actually happening today. We live today under the tyranny of the gate agent’s sizing frame. The new clause would throw off that yoke and release us into a free market of airlines competing on passenger experience, service and price, rather than on their fear at sea level before they even board that terrible, fragile, flammable metal fart tube of misery. Please support new clause 8 today—not just because it is right, but maybe so I do not have to subject Members to this rant all over again during the Bill’s remaining stages.
I sympathise with the Minister’s experience on holiday—and the experience of his rapidly decreasing youth. This point was potentially buried at the beginning of my speech, but the introduction of asymmetric EU regulations could present a challenge. Our passengers departing from the UK might not be protected by—I do see this as being “protected”—the same mandatory minimum standards that would support our European brethren on their journeys here. It really is a challenge to remove that disparity and ensure that there are not different rules at either end, which could then be exploited by carriers imposing charges and different conditions in each direction of a trip.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause is intended to ensure that the economic regulation of NATS contains effective incentives to prevent avoidable disruption and strengthen operational resilience, as we recognise the impact that major system failures have on airlines, passengers and the wider economy. It would establish the principle that NATS’s regulatory framework should incentivise the prevention of major disruption events, particularly those arising from operational and technology failures. It should not simply focus on the recovery of costs. Recent NATS outages have demonstrated that the consequence of operational failures are borne overwhelmingly by airlines and passengers through cancellations, delays and the loss of economic activity, but the existing regulatory incentives are primarily focused on delay metrics and do not adequately address resilience, software assurance and major cancellation events. The new clause would not alter NATS’s role as the UK’s air navigation service provider or undermine resilience. Instead, it would ensure that the regulator considers the economic consequence of major failures and whether the existing incentives are sufficient to drive operational performance. It would place those principles on a firm statutory footing and enhance the role of the CAA regarding the role of NATS in mitigating the impact of major cancellation events.
Thank you, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) both on the way he opened this debate and on how he chairs the all-party parliamentary group on House of Lords reform. The Liberal Democrats have called for a democratic second Chamber for decades. We simply believe that those who make the law should, at some point, be accountable to those who have to obey it. In the other place, that link does not exist. People across the country understand that; they see a Chamber filled by prime ministerial appointment, where a seat in our legislature can follow years of party loyalty or a generous donation. That system ingrains patronage. It feeds the sense that politics is run by and for a small elite and it is one of the reasons why so many people have lost faith in our democratic institutions. In her excellent speech earlier, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) mentioned the Lords Spiritual—the 26 Church of England bishops who take their seats in the other place. It is not an excessive understatement to say that that arrangement feels a bit outdated. Britain today is a country of many faiths and none, and nobody should have a hand in making our laws simply because of the religious office they hold. It is surely long past time to modernise. Peers may also be appointed because they are seen to be experts within a field. However, as there is currently no time limit on how long they sit within the Lords, someone could indeed have been an expert in something 40 years ago, but the field has moved on vastly. Yet they still legislate in that area and are viewed as a specialist. Some say that this issue is not a priority; it does not come up often on the doorstep. But a quick look at my inbox shows that some of my Hazel Grove constituents do indeed care about it enough to contact their MP. I have had constituents write to me about this, including most recently Kellie from Offerton, who argued powerfully that we should have an elected second Chamber. I agree with her. The Lib Dems supported the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. Nobody can seriously defend a place in Parliament being handed down through a family line.
The hon. Gentleman has extended himself several times this afternoon—and I, for one, am here for it. There are many things I would change about the way our country runs. If we were designing a country from scratch, I do not think we would have a Parliament or a monarchy like this. The monarch and the royal family do an important job in all sorts of ways, but I would very much change the relationship between Parliament and the monarch. To answer his question, yes I would. Removing the remaining hereditary peers on its own does not go anywhere near far enough. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) tabled an amendment to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to replace every unelected Member with a fully elected Chamber. Sadly, neither the Labour nor Conservative party supported that, which feels like a missed opportunity to begin the transition. We continue to see events that highlight why we should have an elected and accountable second Chamber. The Mandelson scandal has shown how poorly the current Chamber copes when a Member appointed for life has lost the public’s trust. According to an Electoral Commission study from 2025, only 14% of respondents trusted politicians. We must all work to improve that level of trust; increasing accountability in Parliament feels like an important place to start. In February, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), called for legislation to strip Peter Mandelson of his peerage. Ministers told the public that reform was urgent and that they were talking to other parties. The Removal of Peerages Bill was included in the last King’s Speech, yet we are still to see any wide-scale reform. Can the Minister confirm if, and when, we should expect to see legislation to produce reform in the House of Lords—including, but not limited to, the Removal of Peerages Bill? The Representation of the People Bill could have been a good place to start to make vital reforms to the way the second Chamber works. It contains welcome measures including votes at 16, steps towards automatic voter registration and a U-turn on the independence of the Electoral Commission—all changes that the Lib Dems have campaigned for. But it says nothing about the Lords or proportional representation, and far too little about the money that flows into our politics. We want the Government to stop tinkering at the margins and to make the real changes needed to fix the broken political system in which we currently operate. They could take steps now: implement the 2017 Burns report; bring the House of Lords down to 600 Members; introduce the retirement age for peers that Labour promised in its own 2024 manifesto; put the ministerial code into law so that Ministers—
I look forward to seeing that happen at pace; I am sure that is what is going on. The Government could also move at pace to move power out of Westminster and Whitehall. But none of the steps I just mentioned is a substitute for the end goal. Our second Chamber needs the legitimacy that only a democratic mandate can give it. The Lib Dems will keep making that case until it has been won.
The chief executive of NHS England and I toured the John Radcliffe’s maternity unit this summer. The building is in a dire state: women give birth in rooms with no windows and no toilets—and where there are toilets, they often flood. In fact, Valerie Amos said that it was the worst she had seen as part of her review. The trust leaders are clear with us that they want a new maternity unit. May I invite the Secretary of State to come to Oxford and see for herself? If she has not got the time for that, will she at least have a meeting with me and the trust leaders so that we can discuss how we can move the project forward?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this important debate. I start with some numbers we should celebrate: UK manufacturing produces output worth £220 billion and supports 2.6 million jobs, paying on average 8% more than the rest of the economy, and it accounts for 42% of our exports and almost half of all business research and development. It is a sector of skilled, well-paid careers that we are rightly proud of, but it is also a sector that could do more if it had more of the skilled people it needs. Skills England identifies advanced manufacturing as having the third highest proportion of skills shortage vacancies of any sector, and projects that 84% of the additional jobs in its priority occupations to 2035 will need qualifications at level 4 or above. The businesses in Cambridgeshire that kindly shared their insights with me in advance of this debate described problems that I suspect Members from every part of the country will recognise. One electronics firm, Cap Air, told me that although electronics is the largest manufacturing sub-sector in our region, the county is a dead spot for the sort of technical education it needs, with training necessitating travel outside the county. There is no occupational standard for much of the work the company does. As Cap Air put it, “You cannot fund a course for a job the system does not recognise.” That is a national problem for Skills England, but lack of local provision is something places could fix for themselves. I hope the Prime Minister’s well-known enthusiasm for devolution extends to giving areas like ours the skills, powers and capital funding to do it. Another manufacturer in my constituency, ZEISS, which makes electron microscopes, makes a related point about the future. Advanced manufacturing now combines traditional mechanical and electrical engineering with automation, software, data and AI, and we need to build those capabilities now before they become critical shortages, not just fill today’s vacancies. In 2024-25, there were over 46,000 starts in engineering and manufacturing in England, but level 2 manufacturing starts fell by 80% in the five years to 2023-24. That is a significant problem in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. The Liberal Democrats have long called for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced, so we welcome the Government’s move to a more flexible growth and skills levy, but we recognise that progress has been slow. Apprenticeship units have been available since April, yet the skills charity Enginuity found that a fifth of manufacturing SMEs have never heard of them, and only one in 10 think that they will fill their skills gaps. On the Department’s own forecasts, apprenticeship spending is due to fall after this year, even as levy receipts rise. Employers tell me that the system needs to be straightforward for employers to use, responsive to changing industrial needs, and attractive to young people as a genuine alternative to university, but too often it is none of those things for smaller firms. The apprenticeship model may work for large employers, but a firm of 20 cannot easily release a young employee for two or sometimes three days a week to a college that might be miles away. It is also difficult for them to carry the paperwork that comes with. Another manufacturer in my constituency, Domino Printing Sciences, pointed out that employers pay into the levy but cannot use it to cover much of the real cost of employing and developing an apprentice, as the funding bands for many engineering apprenticeships simply do not cover the cost of delivery. As a result, we have employers with skills gaps, young people who need good routes into careers, and apprenticeship funding that is not fully used. As hon. Members might expect me to say, there is a lot that the Government could take from Liberal Democrat policy. We would like to introduce skills tax credits with enhanced relief for priority sectors to reflect the fact that skills are an investment. We would also establish structures for skills co-operatives—I know the Prime Minister likes co-operatives—so that smaller firms can pool training resources and even rotate apprentices between them. We would also expand higher technical routes, such as higher national certificates, higher national diplomas, foundation degrees and higher apprenticeships, building on the investment already made in FE colleges and institutes of technology. We would like Skills England to be a truly independent body with employers at its heart. Already in its short life, it has been moved from the Department for Education to the Department for Work and Pensions. It remains an Executive agency in that Department and is not the independent voice for skills that employers really need, so I urge the Government to look again at giving it genuine independence. I have three questions for the Minister. First, levy receipts are forecast to be £4.5 billion this year, but after the devolved nations’ share and England’s £3.3 billion budget, about £700 million will not be returned to the skills system but will stay with the Treasury. On the Government’s own spending predictions, that will rise to about £1 billion next year. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the money raised for skills is spent on skills and is not clawed back by the Treasury? Secondly, will the review of funding bands address the shortfall of up to £8,000 per apprentice that employers face in engineering and manufacturing? Thirdly, will the Minister press Skills England to develop occupational standards for a wider variety of manufacturing roles, such as printed circuit board assembly, which the system currently cannot see? Nyobolt, a battery manufacturer in my constituency, put it well: the opportunity now is to make sure the skills pipeline develops at the same pace as the technology. Skills, like manufacturing investment itself, require multi-year, long-horizon decisions. Industry needs a long-term, stable plan from the Government, and I hope the Minister will tell us that it is coming.
13. What steps her Department is taking to improve NHS maternity services in Devon.
I thank the Secretary of State for her earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) about North Devon maternity unit. As the local MP, I can attest to how urgent reopening the centre is to the local community. I heard what the Secretary of State said about the plans under way to improve local recruitment. Will she meet me to update me on the work that is under way and will she update the House on the national workforce plan, which is long overdue?
This week, Matthew Hopkins, who, until November 2025, was the chief executive of one of the worst performing hospital trusts in the country and is now the acute and ambulance network director of NHS Alliance, was reported to have said that the closure of at least 20 rural maternity units was “inevitable” and the “right thing”. In North Devon, we have seen the impact that closures have on women in labour, who have faced an hour and half of driving on country lanes with many turning round to give birth in A&E—a sign of the national maternity crisis being out of control. Rather than agreeing to closures, will the Secretary of State review how we staff rural maternity services to improve safety and protect women, and will she meet me and rural Liberal Democrat MPs who are fighting to protect mums and families?
Last week, ITV News uncovered devastating statistics showing that thousands of children are now being treated in hospital corridors. It shared the heartbreaking story of Finlay Roberts, whose parents spent hours in A&E waiting for help before he died—he was just two. As a mum, I cannot bear to imagine waiting and seeing your child deteriorate like that. The Roberts family deserved better, so will the Secretary of State confirm when we will see data on the number of children receiving corridor care, and will she commit to ending corridor care once and for all within a year and making children an urgent priority?
The unit of dental activity formula is broken, pushing dentists out of the NHS every single day. In Epsom and Ewell, there is a dentist who is restricted from providing NHS dentistry by the UDA quotas. Will the Minister reform the dental contract now, and incentivise NHS dentistry?
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that colleges need more support to develop those engineering courses? At present, they receive no funding at all to develop a new course, as university colleges in Somerset have found when catering for the new Agratas factory. They have to find their own investment to develop courses and they receive no funding until those courses have actually started. Surely that hampers innovation, new training and new skills being developed.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing the debate and shining a light on this really important part of our economy, both locally and nationally. Specialist manufacturing is critical to my constituency, as well as to growth across the United Kingdom. The Agratas factory being constructed just outside my constituency will employ 4,000 people and have a huge impact on the whole south-west economy. Many of my constituents work there already, and many local suppliers are involved in the supply chain, so the regional economy will be very positively affected. That is what specialist manufacturing can do for regional economies, but only if we get the skills right to support the sector. In this Chamber last November, I raised the work of University Centre Somerset College Group, which is based at different campuses, not only in my Taunton and Wellington constituency but across Somerset. It is the largest college provider of apprenticeships in England. UCS has had to develop a first-of-its-kind programme to meet demand that barely existed just a couple of years ago, when battery manufacturing was barely a mainstream concept in the UK. It is not an easy task, but it is exactly the kind of innovation required to build a skills base that can support the new specialist manufacturing sectors that we need, such as battery production. To the Government’s credit, some things have moved on since then, and I genuinely welcome them. In April, they announced a £380 million grant for the factory itself, and UCS was named a clean energy technical excellence college. Last year, I called on Skills England to invest in partnerships that deliver rather than just producing consultation papers that plan and devise. In March—in just three months—it produced a battery manufacturing apprenticeship unit. That is fantastic progress, but there is a great deal still to do. The first pilot course this summer trained nine Agratas staff, but around 1,600 people will be needed just to start battery cell production. In a written answer the Government gave last month, they said that they are “supporting University College Somerset’s work with Agratas.” I welcome that, but I am afraid that the basic problem I raised last year has not gone away. A college that is developing a curriculum and hiring specialist trainers in a completely new industry will receive funding from the Government or other sources only once the course starts, and, as a further education college, it is not allowed to borrow against potential future funding. The current FE model simply does not support the up-front investment that is required, and specialist skills will suffer as a result. Colleges are also no longer allowed to borrow to invest in the student accommodation that they need, even though doing so would generate income, help to regenerate towns and deliver housing—a priority of this Government—in a particular sector to relieve pressure on local family housing. We cannot expect colleges to shoulder all the risk of investments and initiatives while the Government take credit only for the positive outcomes. This issue is not just about specialist manufacturing skills; building sites such as the Agratas facility requires an enormous amount of construction skills and labour. Figures from Agratas show that in the peak year of activity, the building of the first factory will support more than 3,000 jobs in the south-west, which is equivalent to around a fifth of all construction jobs in Somerset. That comes on top of Hinkley Point C, which is close to my constituency and also needs many workers skilled in the same area. If we are serious about boosting regional growth through specialist manufacturing, we need to be equally serious about training the people who will build and work in such facilities. The Liberal Democrats have called for apprentices to be paid at least the national minimum wage, and for lifelong skills grants so that adults can retrain for new industries. I have four asks for the Minister. First, when the Government say that they are “supporting” the work of UCS with Agratas, does that support cover the up-front cost of developing innovative courses? Secondly, will the Government make sure that colleges can set up apprenticeships and skills training in advance of factories being built? Thirdly, does the Minister agree that colleges should be able to forward-fund student accommodation to deliver much-needed housing? Finally, will the Minister meet me and UCS College Group to discuss those points? For Taunton and Wellington, and for the whole south-west, the opportunity is right in front of us. I welcome and congratulate the Government on their backing the Agratas factory with £380 million. They now need to grab the opportunity with both hands, and provide the support and certainty on skills to turn it into a real success.
My hon. Friend is making a typically excellent and cogent argument for stronger community benefit from these projects. Does he agree that a cousin of pump storage technology is tidal range energy? The west of England has the second highest tidal range in the world, and it will be a missed opportunity if we do not exploit tidal range energy, just as it will be if we do not develop the community benefit programmes that he proposes.
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 17, page 11, line 27, at end insert— “17A Rural event impact assessments (1) Before making regulations under section 2(2) which apply the transport provisions to a sporting event, the Secretary of State must ensure that a rural event impact assessment has been carried out where the event is to take place wholly or partly in a rural area. (2) For the purposes of this section, an event is to be treated as taking place in a rural area where the Secretary of State considers that— (a) the event takes place in an area in which there are limited alternative routes for road users; (b) the closure, restriction or diversion of roads in connection with the event is likely to result in materially longer journeys for persons living, working or carrying on a business in the area; or (c) such other criteria as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State are met. (3) A rural event impact assessment must assess the likely effect of the sporting event, including any proposed traffic restrictions, road closures or diversions, on— (a) the availability of alternative routes; (b) the length and accessibility of alternative routes; (c) access for carers; (d) persons who require access to employment and who may suffer financial loss as a result of being unable to arrive at their place of employment; (e) local businesses, including small and micro-businesses; (f) residents and persons who ordinarily travel through or within the affected area; and (g) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (4) The assessment must identify and consider measures for mitigating any adverse effects identified under subsection (3), including measures designed to— (a) maintain reasonable access for residents and businesses, (b) prioritise access for carers and persons providing essential care, (c) minimise disruption to persons travelling to or from employment, (d) minimise disruption to small and micro-businesses, (e) take account of the absence or limited availability of alternative routes in rural areas, or (f) provide reasonable access for emergency and essential services. (5) The Secretary of State must not make regulations under section 2(2) applying the transport provisions to a sporting event to which this section applies unless the rural event impact assessment has been considered and determined to be acceptable by an independent person or body appointed or designated by the Secretary of State. (6) The person or body appointed or designated under subsection (5) must be independent of the sporting event organiser. (7) Before an assessment is determined to be acceptable under subsection (5), the independent person or body must have regard to representations from— (a) each local authority whose area is likely to be materially affected by the event, (b) any mayor of a combined authority or other directly elected mayor whose area is likely to be materially affected by the event, where the Secretary of State considers that consultation with that mayor is appropriate, and (c) such other persons or bodies as may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (8) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe criteria for determining— (a) which local authorities and mayors are to be consulted for the purposes of subsection (7), (b) the matters to be considered by an independent person or body in determining whether an assessment is acceptable, (c) the form and content of a rural event impact assessment, and (d) the measures which may be regarded as appropriate mitigation measures for the purposes of subsection (4). (9) Where a local authority or other relevant public authority has already put in place measures which address the matters required to be considered under this section, the rural event impact assessment may take those measures into account and need not require equivalent measures to be put in place again, provided that the independent person or body is satisfied that those measures are adequate having regard to the likely impact of the event. (10) Where a sporting event is recurring, the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for a rural event impact assessment to cover more than one occurrence of the event, provided that the assessment is reviewed where there is a material change in— (a) the scale or nature of the event, (b) the proposed traffic restrictions, road closures or diversions, (c) the affected road network, or (d) the circumstances of the affected communities. (11) Regulations under this section— (a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and (b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.” This amendment would require a rural event impact assessment before transport regulations apply to sporting events in rural areas likely to cause significant disruption due to limited alternative routes. The assessment would consider impacts on residents, carers, workers, small businesses and essential services, with mitigation measures approved by an independent person or body. It is wonderful to have an opportunity to say something other than “abstain”. Amendment 20 would require a rural event impact assessment before transport restrictions are put in place for a major sporting event. While this might seem niche, it is a direct result of something that recently happened in Dorset. Road closures for sporting events can cause disruption anywhere, but in rural areas the consequence can be very serious. There is often no alternative route, and a diversion that may add 20 minutes in a city can add hours in the countryside. I have received several examples from constituents who struggled with road closures during a recent sporting event in Dorset. In one case, carers were repeatedly given conflicting instructions about how to reach a vulnerable resident. Despite assurances that they would be allowed through, they were stopped and diverted several times. As a result, my constituent’s father was left in bed in his own faeces for several hours. This amendment would simply require organisers and the Government to consider those impacts before transport restrictions are imposed. It would look at access for carers and emergency services, and the effect on local businesses and workers, ensure that arrangements for access to affected areas are effective, and allow essential carers and emergency services to reach those they support, whether realistic alternatives exist or not. It should also require independent scrutiny and consultation with affected local authorities. This is not about preventing events from happening—far from it. Major sporting events bring real benefits to rural areas. It is about ensuring that proper planning prevents unnecessary disruption. I hope that the Government will support the amendment.
I am grateful to the Minister for her comments and for her commitment to write to her colleagues in the Department for Transport. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That clause 17 stand part of the Bill.
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 25, page 19, line 27, at end insert— “(2A) In the case of a sporting event that is a one-off sporting event of significant international or national interest, the power under subsection (1) may be exercised for the purpose of securing community benefit in areas hosting the sporting event. (2B) Community benefit under subsection (2A) may include— (a) the repair of potholes and other defects in roads; (b) the repair, maintenance or improvement of pavements and footways; and (c) the renewal, repair or improvement of road markings. (2C) The provision made under subsection (2A) must, so far as reasonably practicable, be directed towards improvements which provide a lasting benefit to the community and remain available for use after the sporting event has ended. (2D) In determining the amount and conditions of financial assistance under subsection (2A), the appropriate national authority must engage with affected local authorities including on the condition of roads, pavements, footways and road markings in areas materially affected by the hosting of the sporting event. (2E) In this section ‘one-off sporting event’ means a sporting event which is held in the United Kingdom on a non-recurring basis, including the Olympic Games, Paralympic Games, Commonwealth Games, Rugby World Cup or FIFA World Cup.” This amendment would enable Government financial assistance for major one-off sporting events to support improvements to potholes, pavements, footways and road markings in communities hosting the event.
These amendments are about ensuring lasting benefits for communities hosting major sporting events. Events such as the London 2012 Olympics have shown the potential for sporting events to bring investment and improve local infrastructure. We should ensure that communities hosting future events have the same opportunity. Amendment 18 would allow the use of Government funding to improve local roads, repair potholes, maintain pavements and renew road markings in areas affected by major sporting events. Amendment 19 focuses on mobile phone coverage and capacity. Large events put enormous pressure on local networks, leaving residents and businesses struggling to get signal when demand increases. The amendments would ensure that public and private investment in major sporting events benefits the wider area, not just the venue itself. Better roads and more reliable mobile coverage can improve daily life, support local businesses and help communities to prepare to host future events.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 14 Fees “(1) Where regulations under section 2(1) apply the advertising provisions or the trading provisions to a domestic sporting event, a relevant authority may require the event organiser to pay fees to the authority in connection with some or all of the relevant costs incurred by the authority in relation to the event. (2) In imposing such a requirement, a relevant authority must have regard to the need to secure that the total amount of fees paid does not exceed the relevant costs incurred by the authority in relation to the event. (3) ‘Relevant authority’ means— (a) a local authority; (b) an enforcement authority. (4) ‘Relevant costs’ means— (a) where the relevant authority is an enforcement authority, the costs incurred by the authority in connection with enforcing the advertising offence or the trading offence; (b) where the relevant authority is a local authority, the costs incurred by the authority in exercising its functions in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.”—(Stephanie Peacock.) This amendment would insert a new clause after clause 21 (maximum penalty amounts etc) which would enable a certain bodies to charge fees in connection with certain costs which are incurred by those bodies in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 4 Advertising offence: exceptions for newspapers and periodicals “(1) The advertising offence does not apply to an advertising activity carried out in a restricted advertising zone if that activity consists of selling, distributing or providing a current newspaper or periodical. (2) The exception in subsection (1) does not apply to the selling, distribution or provision of a current newspaper or periodical— (a) in the street if the selling, distribution or provision is done in a manner that causes undue interference or inconvenience to persons using the street; (b) if the version of the newspaper or periodical sold, distributed or provided has been created for the purpose of sale, distribution or provision only to, or principally to, members of the public who are in, or in the vicinity of, a restricted advertising zone; or (c) which is accompanied by any item if the whole or principal purpose of including that item is to promote a product, service or business specifically to members of the public who are in, or in the vicinity of, a restricted advertising zone.”—(Mr French.) Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 13 would ensure that major sporting events that receive Government funding or special statutory support deliver a lasting benefit for community sport. If public money is being used to support a major sporting event, some of that benefit should reach local schools, grassroots clubs and community facilities. In West Dorset, that could mean better facilities, more opportunities for children to play a sport and more support for local clubs. We have seen this model work through the legacy funding for women’s rugby following the women’s rugby world cup. After the Red Roses’ historic world cup win, £14.55 million was allocated to support the legacy of women’s rugby. The number of girls playing age-grade rugby has increased by 35%. That funding has also helped clubs improve their changing facilities, many of which were built when rugby was predominantly played by men and do not provide the facilities that women and girls need. Improving those facilities can make a real difference to whether people feel able to take part. The same approach could help to support other groups who face barriers to sport, including disabled people, children in deprived areas and young people who lack access to equipment or local facilities. The new clause would make sure that major sporting events leave a lasting benefit to local communities. I hope that the Government will support it.
I thank the Minister for her comments, and the shadow Minister and all other Members who contributed. Given the perilous state of community sports in my constituency and across the UK, it is incumbent upon us to drive as much money as possible down to those grassroots clubs and community centres, so the Liberal Democrats would like to divide the Committee on new clause 13.
12. Whether she plans to implement a redress scheme for people harmed by pelvic mesh and sodium valproate.
In 2006 my constituent, Ruth, had pelvic mesh implanted. It has corroded and caused her severe pain. She has been desperate for me to raise this issue with the Government. Three years ago, she paid for surgery to remove it but that has left her tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket and she requires more surgery. What steps is the Minister taking to implement the recommendations of the 2024 Hughes report, particularly if we are to give justice to pelvic mesh patients and support to those who cannot access the NHS compensation scheme?
We owe our special forces an enormous debt. I understood that more clearly when I served in counter-terrorism in the Foreign Office. That debt has not been honoured with the endless and unjustified litigation against Northern Ireland veterans. In Northern Ireland, there has been a sustained attempt to paint a moral equivalence between those who are maintaining law and order and those who conducted murder. Veterans fear persecution, and that is why I support amendment 129, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), which will require a new evidence certificate to be issued before the resumption of any inquest. As the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) described so movingly, on 8 May 1987 a heavily armed eight-man Provisional IRA team approached a police station at Loughgall. They used a JCB to breach the perimeter, with a 300-to-400 lb bomb in the bucket. They were engaged by the SAS and killed. It was the largest single loss of life for the IRA. Tragically, an innocent civilian was mistaken for an IRA member and was killed as well. There have already been four investigations or inquests into Loughgall. If there is another, what further answers are the families expecting? On their own terms, their loved ones were members of the Provisional IRA, committed to violence for political ends. What would this mean for veterans? Anyone who opened fire would be anxious that doing their duty could be portrayed as a serious crime. I share the grave concerns of SAS veterans and their regimental associations. The failing in the Bill is that there is no robust, objective test to prevent the reopening of inquests without new and compelling evidence. I may be a Member of Parliament, but I am also a reservist soldier in the London Guards. I have served alongside soldiers who know that they have done nothing wrong, but who now worry about the possibility that in 30 or 40 years’ time they too could be hauled out of retirement into court. How can that be right? British soldiers risked their lives for others, and we owe them the just protection of this amendment.