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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Will Forster

   Heathrow Airport Expansion

   It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing the debate, and for the way in which she introduced it. I know that my two Liberal Democrat colleagues from south-west London, my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), will completely agree with her. They have a long history of standing up against the unreasonable plan to expand Heathrow. I want to talk about my Woking constituents’ point of view. Despite Woking being the busiest railway station in Surrey and less than 20 miles away from the airport, we have no rail link to Heathrow. I say to the Minister that if Heathrow airport is to expand, the Government must ensure that southern rail access is paid for by the airport so that my constituents in Woking, and the whole southern region under Heathrow, can have proper access. It is not reasonable that we cannot access it at the moment via any form of public transport. Thankfully, Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd, a private company with which I recently chaired a roundtable, has put together a business case to ensure that we can have southern rail access. It would also enable Woking and the broader west Surrey area to have a second route to London via Heathrow, and then on to Paddington. Has the Minister met with Heathrow Southern Railway Ltd? If not, will he or a ministerial colleague do so? I want to draw parallels with the planning requirements for Gatwick’s second runway. As a planning condition, the airport was required to ensure that a certain percentage of travellers could come via public transport, particularly trains. Will those requirements be applied to Heathrow, if it expands? If it does expand, it should have those requirements. I know that the Department for Transport was looking at this issue via the airports national policy statement review and the public transport requirements, but I hope it makes Southern Railway access a legal requirement if Heathrow expands. That would ensure that if the expansion happens—many colleagues do not want it—passengers will be able to get to Heathrow as sustainably as possible.

   Hansard source
2. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

   May I begin by apologising to the Committee? Last week’s carry-over motion was a bad-tempered, partisan affair with lots of angry chuntering. I assumed that this week’s Committee of the whole House would be similar and said something to that effect at the beginning of my speech yesterday. I could not have been more wrong. There were so many profound and compelling speeches. I was here for almost eight hours listening to them, and I was in awe of the Members who spoke from all sides of the Committee. It was a wonderful moment that spoke so highly of this House, no matter how we agree and disagree. I still think we should have had a Committee upstairs, however, and I want to give an example from yesterday to prove my point. Provided that we invited our Northern Ireland colleagues, a less formal Committee upstairs would have been more effective. I think we all want to avoid repeat investigations in the absence of compelling new evidence. My party supported the Tories’ new clause 21 to that effect, which was excellent in many respects. That included a certification process with a Supreme Court judge. The Secretary of State said he thought that was impracticable—I agree. I have known a few Supreme Court judges. They do not have the time, they do not have the inclination and, frankly, many of them do not have the evidential expertise to provide that function efficiently. My party tabled an amendment that included a different certification process, as suggested by the SAS Regimental Association, whereby the director of investigations would issue a certificate and give reasons. The Government also had a fair point to make in their amendment 192: that the process should only begin after other sources of evidence have been fully explored. We all had something to bring to the table, and had we been discussing this in a sensible Committee upstairs, we would have improved the Bill. Please, for the future, can we think about having Committees upstairs, bringing in our Northern Ireland colleagues, on Bills such as this? As I said, yesterday we heard from Members across the Committee in powerful and often moving speeches that covered a wide array of views from the various communities impacted by the Bill. I was hugely taken by the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) and the right hon. and gallant Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Their remarks on the passage of time, the fading of memory, and the vanishing chance of achieving justice were insightful. I think the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak went as far as to suggest, as I have heard some in the veteran community also say, that justice might not be possible and we should focus on truth and reconciliation. However, as the Secretary of State said a little later, one cannot have reconciliation without justice. Members will accuse me of being a typical Lib Dem, but I think both Members are correct. The key to resolving the apparent disagreement lies in how we define justice. In these debates the notion of justice is often mediated through a lawyer’s narrow conception of the word, and in terms of criminal prosecution and civil liability—an essentially retributive concept. But justice is about more than just retribution. As I know from personal experience it also includes restorative justice, where truth and sometimes reconciliation are key. That broader more holistic view of justice is not at variance to truth and reconciliation, but a critical component. Mediating justice through the narrow lawyer’s lens risks preserving divisions and animosities, for healing will rarely be achieved through lengthy inquiries providing limited chances of prosecution. If we want to achieve reconciliation, we must broaden our conception of justice to move beyond the adversarial and recriminatory, and focus on establishing truth and finding answers. Yesterday I broadly focused on veterans. That is because my party and the constituencies we represent are home to many veterans, including many who served with courage in Northern Ireland. Their protection and welfare are hugely important to my party. In saying that, I do not wish to lose sight of who the Bill must deliver for, and the thousands of victims, survivors and families who lived through the troubles and still carry that weight today. As others have said, veterans and victims are not two separate groups. Those who served bravely as part of Operation Banner and their families are also victims of the troubles. The one thing that nearly every victim wants is answers. In particular for those families still wondering about their murdered loved ones, the inevitable questions that come with a violent death still haunt them today: how, where, who and, most importantly, why? I wish to reflect on a meeting I had at the excellent WAVE centre when I visited Northern Ireland earlier this year. I met relatives of those who had been murdered by Stakeknife, and who had gone through the Operation Kenova process. They did not get what they initially wanted, which was prosecutions, but they were so thankful for the process, to Jon Boutcher who headed it for much of the time, and for the fact that someone was listening to their concerns, and they had the opportunity to speak to those involved and get answers to what had happened. Information and answers give families restored faith. The process built trust, and even though they did not get what they wanted from Jon Boutcher at the outset, they all spoke highly of the process, which helped with the healing. Information retrieval is a powerful thing. We saw that in the recent report into Rory O’Kelly’s murder by an IRA gunman, which provided catharsis to his two children. Anne Frances O’Kelly described the process as “something sacred and transformative”. The report did not reveal the identity of the killer—it could not—and it did not lead to the prosecution of a terrorist for a heinous crime, but it provided closure all the same. I share, as I hope we all do, Anne’s hope that as many families as possible will be able to engage in that process, which has such a key role to play in reconciliation. I appreciate that ICRIR and its successor, the legacy commission, have information recovery functions, but they could be doing far more to promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland. In a letter to me, the Secretary of State places great emphasis on measures in the legacy Act, referring to oral histories. I do not doubt that those will have a role to play in reconciliation, but oral histories alone are not enough. The Bill presents a unique opportunity to review our approaches to reconciliation, and to try to make a more active approach, and broader our understanding of justice.

   Hansard source
3. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Paul Kohler

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

   I echo the words of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart): it has been a huge honour to be part of this debate over the past two days. I have heard so many profound, moving and thoughtful speeches—it has said so much about this House. I thank the brave veterans who did so much during Operation Banner to preserve the rule of law and keep people safe. I also say this to every victim: I hope you find the solace you require, the truth you demand and the justice you deserve. Those things are utterly important. I thank the Secretary of State and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), for the constructive approach they have taken throughout. We often disagree, but he has always been helpful and constructive, which means a lot to everyone in this House. Sadly, the Liberal Democrats will not be supporting the Bill, because it our view it still does not do enough to protect veterans or to promote reconciliation and justice for victims. For that reason, we hope that more will happen during the Bill’s passage in the other place. Much can be done to improve the Bill, and I hope the Government are still listening. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

   Hansard source
4. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Angus MacDonald

   Long Duration Electricity Storage Systems

   I beg to move, That this House has considered long duration electricity storage systems. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I am glad to have been able to bring forward this debate on long duration electricity storage systems. I would like to focus on pump storage and the cost-benefit of hosting that technology in the highlands of Scotland. The highlands and islands hope to benefit from the new Prime Minister’s growth in every postcode plan, however we do not have a defence, artificial intelligence, tech or financial industry to rely on. Our major industry is tourism, which suffers from a short season and low pay in hospitality. It is a struggling industry. I recently wrote to the Prime Minister and laid out some harrowing facts. Remote Scotland has a 30% higher cost of living and a 10% lower income than urban Scotland. We have seen a dramatic drop in school rolls and a 71% increase in the number of people over the age of 75. I represent Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire and it would be difficult to find another part of the UK with a greater interest in renewables.

   Hansard source
5. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Angus MacDonald

   Long Duration Electricity Storage Systems

   The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. There is not enough in it for the communities to benefit from. Pump storage seems to be as good a way of providing electricity that we could find. In the highlands, we have the wind, water and geography that make the area so important for our national energy system. We have been producing hydroelectricity for the rest of the country for generations and we now have the opportunity to store much more of it. The highlands already generate 12 times the amount of electricity they need, but we have one of the highest levels of fuel poverty in Britain. Go figure, as my children would say. When Alex Salmond was First Minister of Scotland, he declared that Scotland could become the “Saudi Arabia of renewables”. Yes, the hills of Scotland are covered in wind turbines, but they are manufactured abroad and are often owned by overseas utilities. From a multi-billion pound industry, Scotland’s communities got only £30 million of community benefit last year and the highlands got only £7 million. That is just £30 per head of population in the highlands. The highlands already generate almost 8 GW of renewable electricity per year; roughly a third from hydroelectricity and two thirds from onshore wind. Even before factoring in pump storage, we play an important role in the electrification of the UK. I have said in this House before that I want the highlands to properly benefit from the enormous value of their natural resources. I was hopeful about onshore wind investment and the jobs and opportunities it could bring, but in practice that has been minimal. The proposed pump storage projects are now the only remaining chance I can see to bring proper money into my left-behind part of Britain. Why does electricity storage really matter? Long duration storage has an important role in our energy future and the highlands have a particular ability to help deliver it. We need to be able to store electricity when there is plenty of it and to use it when we need it. Batteries play an important role in managing shorter periods, but we need technology that is capable of supplying electricity for much longer stretches. Pump storage is a proven technology, capable of providing large amounts of electricity for long periods. These are long-life infrastructure assets, which are expected to operate for more than a century. They use electricity to pump water from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir; when electricity is required, water is released through the turbines. As people can imagine, with our geography the highlands is very well placed for these assets. Our lochs, hills and mountains allow us to create the height differences that pump storage requires. The technical term is hydraulic head. In simple terms, the greater the height difference between the reservoirs, the more energy that can be produced with the same amount of water. This summer, Ofgem announced that it has provisionally approved three pump storage sites in the highlands: Coire Glas, near Invergarry; Loch Kemp, near Loch Ness; and Lochan na h-Earba, which is quite near Newtonmore. These three sites will produce a collective 4 GW of electricity, which is three times as much electricity as Greater Manchester uses. The development costs will be over £5 billion, which will make the entire scheme by far the biggest ever infrastructure investment ever seen in the highlands. There are also three more pump storage sites that are keen to get Ofgem’s go-ahead: Loch Fearna, near Invergarry; Loch Ericht; and Loch na Cathrach, on Loch Ness.

   Hansard source
6. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Angus MacDonald

   Long Duration Electricity Storage Systems

   I think that hydro is a far better source of electricity than wind. It has much less visual impact and it is available when we really need it; we have quite a lot of wind, but it is obviously dependent on the wind blowing. The future energy scenarios report of the National Energy System Operator, or NESO, for 2025 suggested that Britain could need between 13.2 GW and 16.6 GW of long duration storage by 2050. The six sites in the highlands that I have mentioned will go a long way towards providing that storage. The second point I wish to make is about the implication for the electricity market and the people paying their bills. One aspect of this is the way that the wholesale electricity market works. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but gas still sets the price for electricity when gas-fired generation is needed, even at a time when a great deal of electricity is coming from renewable sources. Mains gas is 8p a kilowatt at the moment, whereas electricity is 26p a kilowatt, or more than three times as much. Broadly speaking, people in rural areas across the whole of the UK do not have mains gas. In my patch, only those people in Inverness city and Dingwall receive mains gas.

   Hansard source
7. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Angus MacDonald

   Long Duration Electricity Storage Systems

   Until I received the hon. Lady’s email yesterday, I had never heard of sand batteries; sand is not one of the big features of my constituency. Nevertheless, I agree that we should consider all sorts of technologies. The bottom line is that Britain will not transition to electricity when it costs three times as much as carbon fuel imported gas does.

   Hansard source
8. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Angus MacDonald

   Long Duration Electricity Storage Systems

   I will briefly attempt to do so, but there is a much more eloquent gentleman here today—the Minister for Energy, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks)—who would do better. [Laughter.] As I understand it, the tariffs and the distribution charges go on the electricity—the home-produced renewable electricity—and not on the carbon fuel imported gas, which in my opinion is the wrong way round. However, I am sure that the Minister will enlighten us and provide a bit more detail. Another problem is constraint payments—when we are paying to stop renewable electricity being produced. When the electricity network cannot carry power from where it is being produced to where it is needed, the systems operator has to intervene. That means paying wind farms to reduce their output. The National Audit Office says that constraint costs reached £1.9 billion over the last year, with an expectation that the figure could be as high as £8 billion by 2030. That is a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money and hopefully pump storage will reduce it. What is the opportunity for Scotland? Pump storage sites are very expensive to build and, historically, it has been difficult for developers to secure private finance, because future electricity market revenues are uncertain. The UK Government have introduced the cap and floor scheme to unlock investment in this type of infrastructure. The floor provides a minimum level of revenue certainty and, if a project’s market revenues fall below that agreed floor, support is provided to cover the gap, funded through consumer bills. The cap limits the excess revenue. If a project earns above the agreed level, excess returns are returned to the consumer through lower network charges. There is an opportunity for Scotland to develop a serious industry around pump storage. The benefits are not just the electricity stored at the end of construction. There is the civil engineer, the tunnel and the electrical equipment required—billions of pounds’ worth. Can we ensure that a significant amount of that supply chain work will remain in Scotland or even in Britain? Are we educating our young with the skills they need to be employed in these multi-billion pound infrastructures? I really do not believe we are. I want to move on to community benefits. Do the communities impacted by wind farms and pump storage sites welcome them? They absolutely do not. I have attended hostile meetings of the convention of community councils with hundreds of attendees, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Scottish Government Ministers have declined to attend. There is very much a feeling in the highlands that this is being done to us. If locals had jobs at these projects, if legacy housing were built rather than temporary modular constructions, and if the communities got significant community benefit or, even better, were shareholders, I guarantee that there would be much better support. When we ask communities to host major infrastructure, it should be beneficial to them. That is particularly important for the highlands, where our fuel costs are prohibitive, major developments can be very visible, the costs of providing public sector services are high, and we have a serious problem with the availability of housing and opportunities for young people to stop them emigrating to the cities. I welcome the Scottish Government’s recent proposal to bring pump storage hydro within its updated community benefit guidance, but I suspect that it will result in an underwhelming consequence. Glen Earrach is a model case study. It has not yet received Ofgem’s provisional approval, but it is an example of the scale of opportunity we have. It has an expected operating life of approximately 125 years. It has 34 GWh of storage capacity and around 1.8 GW of generating capacity, and its hydraulic head of 500 metres makes good use of the geography of the site to store large amounts of electricity efficiently. The project is committed to putting 5% of its annual gross margin into a community wealth fund. The estimate is that the fund could receive £20 million a year. Compared with the highlands only getting £7 million, that is significant. The Highland Council said that the fund could be worth around £3 billion in today’s money over the 125-year operating period. Glen Earrach has bravely volunteered a model where its host community will share in its success. I strongly urge the Government to recognise it as a model that can be adopted by other developments.

   Hansard source
9. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Angus MacDonald

   Long Duration Electricity Storage Systems

   I have always believed that tide is probably the single best energy source, because it is entirely predictable and operates well in the estuaries where our cities are, so we do not need to transform it. I am not up to date, but it is something that we should really concentrate on.

   Hansard source
10. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Angus MacDonald

    Long Duration Electricity Storage Systems

    Hopefully, we will have all these different renewable energy sources coming through, but geothermal is a big one. We have an enormous opportunity in rural Scotland to facilitate the electrification of Britain, and long-duration storage can help us make better use of the renewable electricity we generate. It can improve the security of supply and support a more efficient electricity system. Rural Scotland plays a role in enabling Britain to achieve its net zero ambitions. However, the impact on our communities is currently almost entirely negative. It is like telling the inhabitants of Norway or Aberdeen in the 1970s that there will be an oil and gas boom, but the locals should not benefit from it. As things stand, these multibillion-pound pump storage sites will produce few local jobs, no legacy housing and minimal community benefit for the people of the highlands. That is completely unacceptable. Pump storage sites are an essential part of our national energy portfolio, and they are great for Britain. Let us make them great for the highlands, too.

    Hansard source
11. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mr Angus MacDonald

    Long Duration Electricity Storage Systems

    The Minister mentioned one of the pump storage sites and the £7.5 million investment, which is a one-off payment. For example, Glen Earrach is offering £20 million a year for 125 years, inflation-linked. That is what we have to move to: an amount of money being invested year after year that is agreed and controlled by the Government. What does the Minister think of that?

    Hansard source
12. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mike Martin

    House of Lords Reform

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
13. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mike Martin

    House of Lords Reform

    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?

    Hansard source
14. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Mike Martin

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    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?

    Hansard source
15. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
16. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
17. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
18. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
19. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
20. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
21. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

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

    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.

    Hansard source
22. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

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

    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.

    Hansard source
23. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

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

    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.

    Hansard source
24. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

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

    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?

    Hansard source
25. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

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

    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.

    Hansard source
26. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

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

    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.

    Hansard source
27. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

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

    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.

    Hansard source
28. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

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

    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.

    Hansard source
29. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Luke Taylor

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

    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.

    Hansard source
30. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    House of Lords Reform

    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.

    Hansard source
31. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    House of Lords Reform

    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—

    Hansard source
32. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Lisa Smart

    House of Lords Reform

    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.

    Hansard source
33. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Layla Moran

    Maternity and Neonatal Care

    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?

    Hansard source
34. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ian Sollom

    Manufacturing Skills

    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.

    Hansard source
35. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ian Roome

    NHS Maternity Services: Devon

    13. What steps her Department is taking to improve NHS maternity services in Devon.

    Hansard source
36. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Ian Roome

    NHS Maternity Services: 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?

    Hansard source
37. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Maternity and Neonatal Care

    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?

    Hansard source
38. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Morgan

    Topical Questions

    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?

    Hansard source
39. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Helen Maguire

    Topical Questions

    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?

    Hansard source
40. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Gideon Amos

    Manufacturing Skills

    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.

    Hansard source