Westminster Hall

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 20 October 2026

[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Manufacturing Skills

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered manufacturing skills.

It is a sublime pleasure to serve under your superb chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), who, due to his giddy elevation to Parliamentary Private Secretary, has allowed me to hijack his debate and talk about the Isle of Wight. Derby has rightly received a lot of focus, so now it is our turn.

Although I will of course continue to argue that the Isle of Wight does best at everything, it would be unfair of me not to recognise what Derby does exceptionally well, whether it is trains, aerospace or the development of small modular reactors, coupled with the exciting Team Derby initiative announced in last year’s Budget. It is a city that demonstrates the value of bringing together industry, skills and investment to drive growth.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I am an MP for Derby—or, as our Prime Minister called it, the “great city of Derby”—which is famous for its advanced manufacturing and engineering skills. Our largest employers, such as Alstom, Rolls-Royce and Toyota, are able to invest in skills through apprenticeships. Just last week, Great British Railways, which will have its headquarters in Derby city centre, announced up to 600 new apprenticeships. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must focus more on enabling and supporting smaller manufacturers to invest and train up new apprenticeships to address the skills shortages across the country?

[Richard Quigley]

The great city of Derby has two great MPs, and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend: the more we can do to help small businesses take on apprentices, the better. Anything that teaches people who would not go down the university route a set of skills and takes them into good paid work is absolutely ideal.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The challenge in my region is that foreign direct investment comes in, builds big factories and hoovers up the existing skilled workforce from local small and medium-sized enterprises, and there is not a pipeline to replace them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that regional government works with the further education sector and employers to ensure that there is a proper joined-up skills system so that we do not just bring in new businesses but support our existing SMEs?

[Richard Quigley]

That is a really good point. On the Isle of Wight, we send 25% of our school leavers to university, but 25% end up not in education, employment or training. A lot of effort goes into the structure and support for getting people to university—we can see how to get to university from the moon—but we do not have the same structures around those who do not end up going to university. My hon. Friend makes the good point that we need to encourage home-grown skills.

Hon. Members are used to hearing me complain about the everyday inequalities that islanders face—do not worry, I am not going to mention ferries. However, today is a welcome opportunity to celebrate an area where the island truly punches above its weight: the advanced manufacturing sector. Per capita, the Isle of Wight has one of the highest concentrations of technology and advanced manufacturing businesses in the country. What is particularly exciting is that we are showing no signs of slowing down. New investment, growing businesses and the development of future skills are helping to ensure that the Isle of Wight remains at the forefront of advanced manufacturing for years to come.

Far from being a peripheral economy, the island is helping to shape the industries of the future and is proving that innovation can thrive in every corner of the country. Take shipbuilding as an example. Once seen as a traditional industry, it is now a showcase for advanced manufacturing. It is an industry in which the island excels. At Wight Shipyard, aluminium welding skills are among the best in the world, and Diverse Marine combines craftsmanship with cutting-edge design and innovation to produce vessels that are lighter, more space efficient and use less fuel.

That success is built on the achievements of island businesses that are leading the way in advanced manufacturing. Companies such as Vestas are helping to power the UK’s transition to clean energy through the manufacture of wind turbine blades, while GKN Aerospace and BAE Systems continue the island’s proud tradition of high-value engineering and world-class aerospace expertise. Johnson Electric develops and manufactures precision motion technologies that are integrated into products used by millions of people around the world, and Rheinmetall’s specialist vision systems provide advanced capabilities for defence and security operations across the globe.

Then there is Inflight Peripherals Ltd, a company whose design innovation reaches millions of people every year. There is a good chance that anybody who has ever sat in an aircraft cabin and plugged their headphones or a device into an in-seat power module has experienced a piece of Isle of Wight manufacturing without realising it.

Such businesses demonstrate that the Isle of Wight is not just preserving our industrial heritage, but helping to define the future of advanced manufacturing and innovation in the UK.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions some fantastic local businesses in his area, leading the way on the transition to clean power and net zero. Crewe and Nantwich is home to Bentley Motors, one of the area’s largest manufacturing employers. The company recently announced 93 early-career opportunities, including 29 apprenticeships, 15 graduate positions and 49 industrial placements, investing directly in the skills of the next generation of workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that employers such as Bentley are demonstrating the long-term commitment to skills we need to see across the country?

[Richard Quigley]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Companies such as Bentley offer good, hands-on skills that can be transferred anywhere. If the company needs someone to test drive one of its vehicles on the Isle of Wight, I am that person.

Across the Isle of Wight, manufacturers are developing specialist composites, marine technologies and precision-engineered products that are exported around the world. Those businesses do not just create jobs, they create highly skilled careers, drive innovation and demonstrate that world-class manufacturing can thrive in the UK, especially on the Isle of Wight.

Earlier this year, I was proud to welcome the Minister for Climate Transition, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White) to the Isle of Wight, where we visited investors and saw first hand the world-leading manufacturing taking place on our doorstep, helping to lead the way as the country makes the green energy transition. What excited me even more, was the announcement of the new Large Structures Innovation Centre, backed by the National Composites Centre, the High Value Manufacturing Catapult and the University of Bristol.

The centre will be an open-access national facility dedicated to developing, demonstrating and industrialising large high-performance structures, with an initial focus on next generation wind energy. The significance goes far beyond the investment. If we want Britain to remain a leader in advanced manufacturing, we need a pipeline of highly skilled engineers, technicians, fabricators and composite specialists, who can turn innovation into commercial success.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for his excellent contribution. In Derby, apprentices at Alstom are making a huge difference, not just for their own futures but for the rail industry across the UK. More than half the manufacturers I speak to tell me that the shortage in the skills pipeline is their biggest limiting factor for growth. Does my hon. Friend agree that having more apprentices throughout their early years is a key way to reduce that skills gap and help economic growth?

[Richard Quigley]

I thank my hon. Friend from the great city of Derby for his intervention. He makes a good point in the context of university or not university. Even before apprenticeships, work experience that gets people across the threshold of employers is an important step to providing the skills we need for the future.

The Isle of Wight’s Centre of Excellence for Composites, Advanced Manufacturing and Marine is at the heart of that effort, giving young people and adult learners the chance to develop the cutting-edge manufacturing, engineering and technical skills employers need. That is further proof that advanced manufacturing is not just part of the economy of the Isle of Wight, it is a cornerstone of our future, creating highly skilled jobs and providing opportunities for the next generation.

For me, that is one of the most important parts of this debate. Our skills future matters and we must ensure that no young person is left behind or constrained by the outdated assumption that university or academia is the only viable route forward. Two weeks ago, my office hosted its second annual skills summit, where we brought together island employers, educational institutions and training providers to discuss how to ensure that local people have the skills needed for the jobs being created on their doorstep. There is little value in securing investment and manufacturing opportunities if young people are not equipped to take advantage of them.

We need to ensure we invest in the future of this manufacturing ambition. Apprenticeship starts in engineering and manufacturing have fallen by more than 40%, and many manufacturers still cannot access the training they need. That is why the Government’s investment in vocational education, apprenticeships and manufacturing matters. It sends a clear message that there is more than one route to success.

A young person on the island, who is perhaps unsure whether to take the conventional university path, should be able to look at our thriving manufacturing sector and think, “There is a career there for me.” They should be able to see world-leading businesses on the Isle of Wight and know they do not have to leave the island to build a highly skilled, rewarding career. That is what makes the Government’s emphasis on investing in manufacturing and vocational education so exciting, but it is also why we must move further and faster.

After 14 years of chronic underinvestment in both advanced manufacturing and the opportunities available to young people, there is significant ground to make up. If we want Britain to lead in the industries of the future, we need to invest not only in factories, facilities and innovation, but in the people who will design, build and operate them. The success of advanced manufacturing on the Isle of Wight shows what is possible when talent is given the opportunity to thrive. Our challenge now is to ensure that every young person across the country can see a pathway into those careers and access to the training, apprenticeships and the technical education needed to get there.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the skills shortage can sometimes start with a lack of procurement? For example, factories in my constituency used to clothe the world and Leicester was the second most prosperous city in Europe because of its textile industry. It has gone from having 1,500 factories to 96 because we do not have the procurement or the investments into the factories that give opportunities for skilled workers.

[Richard Quigley]

I could not agree more. The idea that we can move everything offshore because it is cheaper means we are forgetting what value looks like. If we look at models of community wealth building around the country and the world, procurement is where we start.

[Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)]

Students in Gorton and Denton tell me they often have to spend two to three years on a course before they can even be considered for an apprenticeship. Make UK reports that 39% of manufacturers do not think our education system can deliver the skills that they need. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to make apprenticeships more accessible and flexible so people are not held back from skilled jobs and manufacturers can get the workers they desperately need?

[Richard Quigley]

The Isle of Wight and the north share a lot in common; we often do not get the focus we need. We know how to get to university; that is a structured route. Even if someone does not get the grades, they can get into university—the whole school will get them into university. On the other side, the option is to just go off to a further education college, if they are lucky. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s point.

Our challenge now is to ensure that every young person across the country can see a pathway into those careers and access to the training, apprenticeships and the technical education needed to get there because investing in manufacturing is only half the job. Investing in the skills that power it is what turns ambition into long-term economic success.

09:41

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this debate and setting the scene incredibly well, as he often does. I wish him well in the work that he does for his constituents; I can honestly say that they are fortunate to have him as their MP.

Manufacturing is a cornerstone of the United Kingdom, but it might be in jeopardy of crumbling as young people are not entering the sector in sufficient numbers as against workers leaving the industry. What is the background to the debate? I always give a Northern Ireland perspective and make asks of the Minister; hopefully that adds to the debate and where we are.

Employment in the advanced manufacturing sector is set to rise, with projected growth of 13% between 2025 and 2035. That is in addition to an estimated 101,000 workers expected to leave manufacturing priority occupations, bringing the total demand to around 148,000 workers. That is a lot of people to train and prepare for work. Part of that is because the manufacturing sector has a largely ageing workforce when compared with the wider working population.

A report in 2026 found that some 50% of engineering and manufacturing small to medium-sized enterprises experienced skills gaps and/or shortages. That comes despite Government support efforts, as nearly three quarters of businesses surveyed felt support to address skills shortages were lacking. That is largely unsurprising; there has been no increase in funding for engineering apprenticeships since 2020. In the last few days, the Government have indicated plans, so perhaps the Minister could tell us more about what is happening. It is the very definition of unsustainable and the quality of products will undoubtedly be affected.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

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.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is listening intently and I am sure he will be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman and encourage him and all of us, as that is the purpose of us being here.

I will speak about Northern Ireland now. The issue is not unique to Northern Ireland, however skills shortages will be felt particularly acutely there. Northern Ireland boasts of major manufacturers, such as Spirit AeroSystems, Wrightbus, Harland & Wolff and Thales. Thales is one of the defence sector companies that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I visit at least once every year. I primarily go because the majority of workers at Thales come from my Strangford constituency. It has also been encouraging that Thales sets a target for apprenticeships every year and is always oversubscribed.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that apprenticeships are key going forward? We have to increase the number of apprenticeships, the skills base and the productivity—a problem that has beset successive Governments for many years.

[Jim Shannon]

I do. On the work that Thales does with students, it pays their student fees and gives them an incredible wage. Some of the young boys I know from Comber—they are young men now—who have taken the apprenticeships are working incredibly hard across the world in the Thales corporation. There is a network of small engineering firms to supply specialist services. Many of these skilled suppliers operate in and around my constituency of Strangford, making the local economy particularly vulnerable to manufacturing skills shortages.

Harland & Wolff is looking for 500 new workers. It has recruited some 500 already and is hoping to recruit another 500, so there is demand in Northern Ireland for skilled workers. It also offers apprenticeships. Manufacturing accounts for approximately 11% of employment in Northern Ireland, making it a vital contributor to the regional economy. Northern Ireland’s employment is currently the third lowest in the United Kingdom, standing just shy of 900,000. Further strengthening and investing in our manufacturing skills could help expand employment opportunities.

I welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to her response. What discussions has she had with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can enjoy the policy and strategy happening here? I join other Members and those who speak after me in calling on the Government to take urgent action to address the skills shortages across the manufacturing sector. The United Kingdom’s manufacturing and engineering skills gap is estimated to cost businesses more than £5 billion each year. Now is the time to act. It can take three to four years for apprentices to actually learn the skills and add to the companies they are employed with.

I am mindful that some 12 other Members wish to speak. Failing to act now will leave the next generation without the technical skills that employers need. Action must include improving women’s access to manufacturing careers. I am blessed and pleased that, with Harland and Wolff and Spirit, young ladies are getting the opportunity to gain engineering skills—and are taking it—but we could do more to encourage young women in particular to get into manufacturing careers and to create more opportunities for young people to gain practical industrial skills. By widening the talent pool, the Government can help secure the future of manufacturing in Northern Ireland and indeed across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and beyond, protecting skilled manufacturing businesses. That is the purpose of Government, and that is the purpose of the hon. Member for Strangford. Let us see what we can do together.

09:47

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this important debate. Wolverhampton and Willenhall helped build Britain and beyond. Generations of skilled engineers, metalworkers and manufacturers made products that were sold across the world. Manufacturing skills are fundamental to places like mine, and call for policymakers, industry, schools and colleges to work together to rise to this Government’s ambition to reindustrialise our country.

As the MP for Wolverhampton North East, I represent a constituency with a proud industrial heritage and a thriving manufacturing base, which forms an industrial ecosystem that supports skilled jobs, innovation and economic growth. While the industries have evolved, the principle has remained the same: success depends on having the skilled workforce to innovate, compete and grow, yet employers across the country continue to report shortages in the technical skills they need to grow and innovate.

I commend Collins Aerospace, which chose Wolverhampton to host its new world-leading engineering centre of excellence for aircraft systems in innovation, leading the charge on collaboration with industry and academia. I was delighted this year when City of Wolverhampton college secured technical excellence college status for advanced manufacturing. That is a rubber stamp of confidence in places such as Wolverhampton, which are now among the national leaders in technical education and helping to develop the future engineers, technicians and skilled manufacturing workers that our local economy needs. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to developing a new school curriculum that values technical and vocational education alongside academic achievement. As a former school leader, I know that for far too long technical routes have been treated as a second choice.

Apprenticeship starts have begun to move in the right direction; in 2024-25, they increased by more than 13,000 on the previous year. That is encouraging progress after years in which they consistently failed to recover to the level needed by our economy and manufacturing sector.

However, many training providers report that funding bands no longer reflect the real cost of delivering high-quality technical training, while employers and colleges continue to face additional costs in training welders, fabricators, CNC machinists and engineering technicians, despite those being precisely the skills that our economy needs more of. A skills policy works best when decisions are made closer to the communities and employers that they affect. Greater devolution of skills and economic development powers gives manufacturing communities in places such as the west midlands a strong voice in shaping local training provision. Local employers, colleges and training providers are often best placed to identify the workforce needs of our advanced manufacturing and engineering sectors.

When will the Government conclude their review of apprenticeship funding bands? Will engineering and manufacturing apprenticeships at levels 2 and 3 be prioritised to address critical skills shortages? Will the Government work with Richard Parker, the Mayor of the West Midlands, and with the combined authority, local colleges and schools, training providers and employers, to ensure that Wolverhampton and Willenhall have the engineering and manufacturing skills provision needed to meet the demands of major employers and their supply chains, so that local people can access the highly skilled jobs that will drive Britain’s reindustrialisation?

09:52

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

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.

09:57

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Doncaster has an incredible history of manufacturing, particularly in transport. Everyone will know of the Flying Scotsman and the Mallard, both of which were built in Doncaster, and Nigel Gresley still has a strong legacy in our local culture. However, right now, all eyes in Doncaster are on another form of transport. Yesterday, we received the fantastic news that my long-standing commitment to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport has been supercharged by an agreement to bring the airport back into public ownership. That incredible achievement comes after a huge amount of work from all involved.

The DSA project is not just about the airport: the deal also covers the adjacent innovation quarter, which has the potential to become a centre for advanced manufacturing, innovation and, ultimately, re-industrialisation for our area. The Prime Minister has put public control, re-industrialisation and localism at the heart of his mission for this country, and Doncaster could not be a better case study for all three, both for how badly they are needed and for the enormous scope for opportunity. When the pits closed, huge parts of my constituency were left behind. De-industrialisation changed the faces of Rossington, Hatfield, Thorne and Moorends, and nothing has ever filled that gap—that is, until now.

All the pieces are in place for Doncaster to become a centre for manufacturing and industry once again. We have excellent logistical connections through road and rail, proximity to the Humber ports, and soon, once it is reopened, the airport. We have major distribution and logistics hubs, including the iPort and the Unity development. Our two Labour mayors and our proactive chamber of commerce work tirelessly to bring jobs and growth to every postcode. We also have educational infrastructure in place, with one existing university technical college and a second one having been approved, as well as other wonderful FE colleges including John Leggott, New College and North Lindsey, to name but a few.

All we need to do now is make sure we develop the skills and the workforce to match the opportunities that lie ahead. We cannot wait until factories are built and businesses recruiting before we begin training the people they will need. I welcome the Government’s commitment to advanced manufacturing through our industrial strategy and the reforms to the growth and skills levy, including new foundation apprenticeships in engineering and manufacturing, but we need to make sure that the skills we teach match the skills and needs of the industries we are trying to attract, and that we provide opportunities for existing workers to retrain and develop new skills as well. That means bringing together Government, local authorities, businesses and education providers to plan for the industries and jobs of the future.

Will the Minister outline how the Government are working to ensure that investment in manufacturing skills is aligned with major regional development projects, such as South Yorkshire airport city? In Doncaster, we have seen what happens when industry disappears and nothing comes along to replace it. We know all too well the impact on our economy, on the community and on people and their families. But we have a chance now to regain lost pride and purpose, a chance for the places blighted by deprivation to flourish and prosper once again, and a chance to rebuild our industrial economy. We must make sure that the people of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme have the skills to take advantage of it.

10:01

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this debate.

We hardly make anything any more. For decades, Scotland has been the victim of industrial vandalism, with our manufacturing base hammered. Last year Petroineos—in other words, the billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe and the Chinese Government—ended a century of oil refining at Grangemouth. Ultimately, private capital and a foreign Government decided that 435 jobs were to be lost on site, along with 2,822 in the wider supply chain, removing a positive destination for local young people. Over £400 million per annum was lost from Scotland’s national economy, and Scotland’s fuel security was weakened.

In my time in this place, I have been critical of both the Scottish and UK Governments. I stand by that criticism, but the truth is that the SNP Scottish Government knew about the closure for three years and did absolutely nothing to stop it. I will not allow anyone in the SNP to rewrite history on that—although I do not need to, because as everyone can see, SNP Members could not be bothered to attend the debate this morning. They are taking their passion for abstentionism and lack of participation in this place to a new level.

This year, there is yet more industrial devastation as Alexander Dennis’s Canadian owners, NFI, stop bus manufacturing in Scotland, with 115 job losses. That is another piece of Scotland’s manufacturing base deemed disposable by international capital. And yet again the SNP Scottish Government have abandoned workers. Some 334 zero-emission buses were to be built through the ScotZEB3 scheme. Alexander Dennis was awarded 123; the Chinese company Yutong was awarded 166. The truth is that in Scottish politics it was the working class that propelled the SNP into generational power, and the SNP has rewarded communities with buses from Beijing. There are redundancies at Ferguson Marine. We are seeing the creation and promotion of the Tory idea of freeports, which means international tax havens for private capital to extract resources and wealth from Scotland. Make no mistake: the SNP is comfortable with all of that.

With manufacturing, we are on the cusp of a green industrial revolution. We have an opportunity with renewables. But what have the SNP Scottish Government done to create new manufacturing jobs in that sector? They have had off-the-record meetings with corporations looking to get involved in Scotland’s renewable industry. The end result is a green investment portfolio worth £3 billion of green assets that were to be bought by private firms. That is money that the Scottish Government could have ploughed into manufacturing skills and job creation, transforming communities. Instead of building a Scottish manufacturing base that would create worker and community prosperity, the SNP went for outsourcing, privatisation and the continuation of pandering to foreign capital. The SNP are capitalists to their very core.

I do not hold the desire for independence against the SNP or anyone that identifies as a Scottish nationalist—not in the slightest. Indeed, I respect their view. The reason I have no time for the Scottish National party is that it has decimated Scottish manufacturing and waged war on the Scottish working class.

10:05

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. For many people growing up in Portsmouth, the shipyard was a constant visual reminder that we are a city and a country that made things, and that we made important things: ships that defended our country, protected our freedom and protected British expertise around the world.

The Portsmouth that people remember was full of people with skilled jobs—men and women who took pride in their work, in what they produced and in the contributions that they were making to their communities. There was a clear connection between effort, skill and opportunity. Young people could see a future for themselves. They could look around the city and see where hard work and talent could take them. Unfortunately, over the years, that connection has been weakened. The loss of shipbuilding and other industrial jobs under the Conservatives has meant that too many young people today are not seeing the same opportunities as previous generations. But it is not just a challenge for young people; it is also a challenge for British business. Manufacturers repeatedly tell us that they struggle to recruit people with the right skills.

Before entering politics, I was a teacher for 24 years. Throughout that time, I saw countless young people with enormous potential, but too often those talents were not valued in the way that they should have been. This has to change. We need an education system that values technical excellence just as highly as academic achievement—a system that recognises that our country needs first-class engineers as much as it needs lawyers, accountants or academics.

If we truly want to reindustrialise Britain, we must first rebuild the pipeline of skills that make industrial success possible. That is why this Government’s reforms are so important. I am delighted that from the age of 14, young people will have the opportunity to combine core academic subjects such as English, maths and science with high-quality vocational subjects. They will be able to spend more time with employers, gain real-world experience and develop the practical skills that businesses are looking for, but more importantly, they will be able to see a pathway. That connection matters enormously. The local connection means opportunity for young people and confidence for employers that they can invest, expand and create jobs, knowing that the skilled workers they need will be available.

I have long argued that apprenticeships and training need to be more flexible and more responsive to the needs of different sectors, so I am pleased that the Government are taking these steps with manufacturing. Fixing the skills shortage is not about filling vacancies; it is about building our national capability. Nowhere is that more evident than in a sector that is extremely important to my constituency: the space sector.

The next iteration of the Skynet satellite programme is currently out for procurement. This is a crucial decision for our national security, sovereign space capability and industrial future—and for my city’s future. At Airbus in Portsmouth, highly skilled workers manufacture the payloads, the brains of the satellite. Airbus remains the only company capable of building large spacecraft end to end in the United Kingdom.

The Skynet programme sustains 3,000 highly skilled jobs directly and supports 18,000 jobs across the supply chain. These are skills and capabilities built over decades and they cannot be easily recreated if lost. If we are serious about reindustrialisation, we must be serious about protecting the skills and industrial capabilities that we already have. We cannot simply create shiny new jobs; we must protect the ones we have already. It is not enough to talk about creating skilled jobs if we fail to safeguard the jobs that still exist.

I share the Prime Minister’s ambition to back British industry, strengthen our capabilities and create good jobs in every part of the country. That includes my city. I ask the Minister to impress upon colleagues in the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence the importance of protecting and sustaining these world-class space manufacturing skills in Portsmouth. We know that rebuilding British manufacturing strength begins with investment in skills, but it must continue with supporting the skills and industry that we already have. Ultimately, it is about ensuring that the next generation can once again look at my city, just as I looked at Portsmouth shipyard growing up, and see a future full of opportunities, purpose and pride.

10:09

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this important debate at a time when our economy is undergoing transformation. AI, robotics and automation are changing how we manufacture and the skills that our businesses need. If we are serious about reindustrialisation, we have to make sure that our workforce is ready to seize the opportunity that those changes will bring. For places like my constituency of Mansfield, that means rebuilding the connections between education, local employees and employers, and skilled employment. Further education providers, including colleges like West Notts college in my constituency, are critical to delivering that.

On constituency visits, I have been fortunate to see the great work that is already being done by employers working in partnership with West Notts college and Nottingham Trent University. One such visit was to a local aerospace and nuclear electronics company, Glenair, which has recently taken on 60 new apprentices in Mansfield. Often, people consider apprenticeships as an option for school leavers, but what I find in my area is that those opportunities exist equally for adults who want to retrain, change careers or develop new skills. I am therefore very encouraged that Mansfield recorded 680 new apprenticeship starts in 2024-25, more than half of which were taken up by people over the age of 25.

The backdrop to this discussion, as Make UK has reported, is that there are almost 50,000 live vacancies across UK manufacturing. Three in five small or medium-sized manufacturing enterprises identify a lack of the right type of technical skill as a key barrier to recruitment. That apparent weakness can also be seen as an opportunity. For areas like mine, reindustrialisation and the ideas around it represent a real chance to build on our proud industrial heritage and create a new generation of skilled and well-paid jobs, but we have to make sure that local people have the skills to take on those opportunities, whether they are young people starting their careers or adults looking to retrain and learn something new, and skills for a new economy. If we get that right, as a Government and as a country, we can make sure that the industries of the future bring investment, opportunity and prosperity to places like Mansfield and that local people are properly equipped to play their full part in sharing our economic future.

10:13

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing the debate.

I am incredibly proud to represent Stoke-on-Trent South, which includes part of the city of Stoke-on-Trent—a city with a proud heritage in craftship and industry. Stoke is the birthplace of the Lunar Society, a group of amazing, innovative thinkers, including the great innovator, Josiah Wedgwood. The Lunar Society helped fuel the industrial revolution, and manufacturing is embedded within Stoke-on-Trent and its people.

With the Government’s reindustrialisation agenda, now is the time to invest in creative and advanced manufacturing skills so that our young people can secure highly paid specialist jobs. That is why I want first to mention the excellent myFuture initiative, which was raised with me by Stoke-on-Trent sixth form and the Potteries Educational Trust, and is delivered in partnership with Keele University, the University of Staffordshire, the Careers & Enterprise Company and local SMEs. The initiative is delivering an employer-led skills framework for ages 10 to 19—indeed, up to 25—to over 63,000 students. It delivers a co-designed curriculum experience for 14 to 19-year-olds, with employer-linked career gateways helping teachers to embed employer engagement activities into study and address local skills gaps. MyFuture is seeking support from the Department for Education to become a funded pathfinder project. Will the Minister work with DFE colleagues to support the proposal where gateways align with manufacturing?

Of course, I could not speak in a debate on manufacturing without mentioning ceramics. From iconic tableware manufacturers such as 1882 and Duchess China in my constituency, to advanced ceramics firms such as Mantec, ceramics have shaped our local identity. While ceramics are best known for the products we all love, such as mugs and tableware, advanced ceramics are the hidden backbone of modern manufacturing. They are essential components in the supply chain for high-tech industries, including defence, electronics, nuclear energy, construction and aerospace engineering.

Across the UK, the sector contributes more than £2 billion annually, employs approximately 20,000 people and supports thousands more jobs through the related supply chains. We are incredibly lucky that north Staffordshire is the hotbed of this activity. However, businesses repeatedly tell me that skills shortages are having a significant impact. Experienced workers are retiring, taking decades of specialist knowledge with them, and too few young people are entering the industry. Valuable heritage skills are being lost entirely as employers struggle to attract and retain trainees. Recently, I spoke to an amazing entrepreneur whose business using our creamware is going from strength to strength, but she is concerned for the future, as the person she depends on will soon be retiring. She risks losing his skills and we risk losing her business overseas if we do not fix our skills pipeline.

This is an increasing problem, and it is time we truly focused on backing British products. There is a need to train an estimated 200 to 400 operatives per year in Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle in traditional ceramics alone. In advanced ceramics, emerging technologies such as ceramic matrix composites do not yet have recognised apprenticeship or qualification routes. Specialist technical manufacturing knowledge is being lost, with no national masterplan to replace the capability.

I was delighted to see the launch of the craft technician apprenticeship earlier this year, led by Emma Bridgewater in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and supported by Ceramics UK, Skills England and Creative Alliance. Such initiatives are exactly what the sector needs to help the next generation of skilled workers. I also welcome the Government’s £120 million investment to support energy efficiency and decarbonisation in the ceramics industry. Although that funding is important, I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that future funding will consider skills.

At the heart of our reindustrialisation plans sits manufacturing in all its forms. It is the bedrock of our national economy, growth and resilience. We must invest in our future, our people and our skills.

10:18

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Sir Christopher; it is an honour to serve under your chairship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for adopting this important debate. It will not surprise him that I am going to talk largely about Cornwall.

Across Cornwall, our beautiful coastlines hide some of the deepest pockets of deprivation in the country. That deprivation and the lack of opportunity is felt most sharply by our young people. In my constituency, we have neighbourhoods where the child poverty rate is over 40%. Equally concerning is the number of young people claiming unemployment benefit, which is up 39% in the last year alone. But there is hope on the horizon for Cornwall. Our critical minerals sector offers an incredible opportunity to create well-paid, highly skilled jobs that our young people and communities need, all while strengthening the country’s industrial resilience and supporting the transition to a green economy. However, we will realise that opportunity only if young people are equipped with the skills that our local economy and businesses need. To that end, we are moving in the right direction.

In September, the new Engineering Mining Academy was launched at Cornwall college, which has been rated outstanding by Ofsted, in partnership with Cornish Metals, based at the South Crofty tin mine. The academy’s location could hardly be better, as it is moments around the corner from South Crofty, which was the last tin mine in the UK to close and is now on course to reopen after 30 years. As projects like South Crofty and the Agratas battery gigafactory advance, demand for mining and manufacturing skills will only grow. I therefore welcome the academy’s focus not only on the engineering and technical skills associated with modern mining, but on transferable skills that create a clear pathway into apprenticeships, employment or further study: welding, construction, carpentry, electronics, plumbing—a lifetime trade for our young people with their hands.

Those are the partnerships with industry that we must champion to support our critical minerals and downstream manufacturing sectors. They create good jobs and give young people the aspiration and opportunity to raise their horizons and to build their futures in Cornwall. I therefore ask the Minister to consider what further steps can be taken to realise Cornwall’s potential as the UK’s critical minerals skills hub.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. The winding-up speeches will have to begin at half-past 10.

10:21

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in a debate with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher, and in one led by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley)—the UK’s spokesperson for ferries.

The Government are rightly talking about reindustrialisation at the moment. We can see how well supported that is by Labour Members, given the number of us who want to contribute to the debate, but too often talk of reindustrialisation can lead people to think that we are trying to go back to the past. That is not true anywhere in the country, but especially in the west midlands, where we have a proud manufacturing tradition. Yes, that has been depleted, and many communities across the region are still scarred by that, but communities are also really looking forward to a brighter future in which industrialisation can come back.

Central to manufacturing in my part of the world—Staffordshire—is ceramics. I am proud to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who talked about ceramics in north Staffordshire, but in my part of the world we talk about a different type of ceramics: toilets. Every single Member of this House will have spent a penny with Armitage Shanks at some point, because it has been operating for over 200 years in the village of Armitage, in my constituency. The ceramics industry as a whole supports 20,000 skilled jobs and produces toilets and plates, but also bricks, pipes and the technical ceramics spoken about earlier. Those jobs are essential to economic growth and the economic wellbeing of the entire country, but especially to communities in the north midlands, where so much of the ceramics industry is based.

That is really important to those communities, but it is also really important for what the Government are seeking to achieve. The Government rightly talk about ending the housing crisis, and about the need to make sure that there is enough housing stock available for every single person in this country. I would wager that every one of us would expect to see at least one toilet in every single one of those new houses. The last volume producer of sanitaryware anywhere in the country is in a little village called Armitage, which is not far from Lichfield. The Government have already done much to talk about the importance of industry, the importance of manufacturers like Armitage Shanks, and the importance of the skills that such companies need. We have already seen changes to the functional skills requirement for apprenticeships, which I wholeheartedly support, and that has led to an increase in the number of young people taking up that opportunity. It is a great step in the right direction, as is talking about vocational GCSEs.

As important as it is to see skills coming through, we also need to make sure that businesses provide the jobs in which those skills can be used, which is why I am so pleased that the Government were able to provide a £120 million rescue package for the ceramics industry—funding that is desperately needed to help the industry regenerate itself, look forward to the 21st century, decarbonise and continue to drive economic growth. However, that funding is no good if it is sitting in a bank account in Whitehall waiting to be delivered; we need to get it out of the door faster to ensure that both sides of the equation of manufacturing skills—the manufacturers and the skills—are working hand in hand. Will the Minister have a conversation with her colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to ensure that we are leaving no stone unturned to push that funding out the door? We need to get it into the ceramics industry so that it can provide jobs, and so that the skills we are trying to build can be pushed forward into companies and help drive economic growth in every postcode in the country, but especially in WS15.

10:25

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing the debate—much like in Yorkshire, in the Isle of Wight west is best. Too many people’s vision of manufacturing is the dark satanic mills of the past, but in Calder Valley that is not what it looks like; it is robotics, advanced materials and precision engineering. How can we provide the skilled workers for those industries without the proper training?

Too many industrial communities have been told that decline was inevitable—a poverty of ambition since Thatcher—but in Calder Valley, manufacturing employs about 16% of the workforce. Twenty years ago, that figure was 25%, but we can go the other way. When we lose manufacturing jobs, we lose skills, confidence and opportunities in an area, and we lose the sense that a young person can build a good life whatever they choose to do. A manufacturing wage is about 8% above the average wage, and we need a skilled workforce, particularly when one looks at the NEET crisis. About 8.5% of 18 to 24-year-olds in Calder Valley are on unemployment benefits and not in training, but the industrial sector’s workforce has aged faster than the rest of the workforce; the average age is over 50. That is not sustainable.

One managing director in my constituency started at 16 on a YTS. He joined me in 11 Downing Street last year. That is the kind of success story that skilled manufacturing jobs can bring, and that is what I want to see more of in Calder Valley, but manufacturing needs to feel like an option. Denford engineering in my constituency makes equipment for schools and runs the international STEM racing competition. Its chief executive asked me, “Why don’t we talk about design and manufacturing rather than design and technology, which is less meaningful to people?” It is that kind of shift that we need in order to get people to think about the future of manufacturing and consider it as an option.

In Calder Valley, we have just secured the Yorkshire robotics adoption hub, hosted by the brilliant West Yorkshire Manufacturing Services in Brighouse. It will work with more than 300 manufacturers to get them ready to work with robotics and the skills of the future. It is those kinds of innovations that can give us those skills. I ask the Minister: what more can we do to supply that confidence in business and build skills for the next generation?

10:27

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing the debate. I am particularly fond of this discussion because, in a slightly tenuous link, my late grandad Bill Dibley was born and raised on the Isle of Wight and went on to become an electrical engineer. When I was about five, he made me my first circuit board to play with, which ignited my love of innovation. I am sure he would be delighted that we are here supporting the great legacy of technical skills in the Isle of Wight and the whole UK. I am grateful to private companies in my constituency such as BAE Systems, which, in its Academy for Skills and Knowledge, trains apprentices for both its own organisation and the surrounding supply chain.

I want to make two quick key points. Under the EU, areas such as mine in Lancashire were among the biggest beneficiaries of skills support and funding, but now, as schemes such as the apprenticeship brokerage service go only to mayoral areas, which Lancashire is not, we risk losing so much of our progress. I have been encouraged by the Prime Minister’s focus on reindustrialisation and this Government’s commitment to growth in every postcode, but we need to ensure that it means exactly that.

I also have a lot of food manufacturing companies in my heavily rural constituency. One of those is Baxi, which typically would look to take on around 30 apprentices each year. However, this year, because of wider financial pressures, it has not been able to take on any. We must address skills shortages, not just by encouraging more young people into manufacturing, but by ensuring that businesses have the means to invest in them.

I am grateful that this Government believe deeply in technical education, and we know that the public are with us, because 93% of people believe that manufacturing is important for growing the UK’s economy, but we have to ensure that the cost of doing business is not too high to develop those skills, and that all parts of the UK are supported to contribute to building our skills base here.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

John Grady, you have half a minute.

10:29

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing this debate.

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

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

10:30

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

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.

10:37

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing time in this House for this really important topic. I have heard a lot of very good speakers, and I agree with their sentiment. Although we may not always agree on every policy issue, I do agree that our best years are ahead of us.

Before I was a Member of Parliament, I was a director of the local enterprise partnership in the west midlands. I remember my first ever meeting, in which I spoke to the chair of an FE college, who told me that the time between what his college could deliver and what businesses said that they wanted was about three years. That told me two things, as a small business owner: that the skills landscape is incredibly complex and difficult for businesses to navigate, and that demand plays a huge role. I will talk about demand in a bit.

The UK’s manufacturing sector is hugely important, accounting for roughly 8.5% of total economic output across the country, and employing roughly 2.6 million people. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) mentioned the Lunar Society, because I was a member of a modern-day Lunar Society—in fact, I helped to write its constitution. I was pleased that she put that on the record.

I am the proud Member of Parliament for Meriden and Solihull East, a constituency in the heart of the west midlands. We are also a UK manufacturing powerhouse, because we are the home of Jaguar Land Rover. The west midlands remains the UK’s leading manufacturing region, and Jaguar Land Rover is right at the heart of that. The region contributes £10.4 billion and employs more than 200,000 people.

The shadow Chancellor and I recently visited Rolls-Royce, which has a huge facility in the west midlands. I invite the Minister to visit it, because it does a huge amount of work. I know it is said that the UK does not manufacture anything anymore, but I reject that; I do not think it is true. I saw at first hand engines and control panels being built for some of our most important and sensitive projects, and met a number of apprentices, who showed how important apprenticeships are. I am proud that the previous Government over 14 years created more than 5.2 million apprenticeships.

As shadow Minister of State for Education, I regularly hold meetings with businesses, further education colleges and others who are very concerned about skills shortages in the manufacturing sector. In July, I hosted a roundtable in Parliament with Enginuity, a charity focused on closing skills gaps in the UK’s engineering and manufacturing sector. It was clear from the businesses we met that they expect the Government to do much more to help support manufacturing, and help engineering businesses to recruit the best talent. We spoke at length about some of the findings in Enginuity’s recent “Mind the Gap” report. Its research found that around half of surveyed SMEs reported skills-related issues in the past year, with 36% experiencing skills gaps and difficulty recruiting workers. It estimates that the failure to plug that gap in manufacturing skills costs the UK economy £5.2 billion annually. That is clearly an important area that needs to be fixed, we must all agree.

I would like to know about the Minister’s relationship with the DFE and how she works to ensure that the advanced manufacturing workforce is skilled, not just at NEET-level but throughout careers and lifelong learning. I am confident about the future of the UK’s manufacturing sector. It is a growing industry that will offer varied and exciting jobs for the future, but there are significant challenges coming manufacturers’ way as a result of Government policy, which we already see.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister wrote in The Times about the prospect of Britain facing

“economic catastrophe and moral failure”

because a generation of young workers has been written off to a life on benefits. I agree, because youth unemployment is now 16.4%. When the Conservatives left office, it was 14.2%, so there has been a significant increase. There are currently one million 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training. I welcome the Government’s focus on reducing that number, because we will support them in the right policies; unfortunately, however, it is the view of His Majesty’s Opposition that the Government’s approach to tackling that grave injustice is entirely wrong.

I have talked about demand in this sector. The drastic shortage of jobs in sectors such as manufacturing is a result of the Government’s policy platform. I did not once hear Labour Members talk about the impact of national insurance, tax and the reduction in the national insurance threshold, or that the cost of employing an apprentice has gone up so much that is has become challenging for businesses to take them on. Where they are employed, the opportunity cost means that fewer apprentices are taken on, as a result of such policies. It is obvious to us that the Government’s tax policies are making it harder for young people to get into good jobs.

That is not just the view of the Opposition. Huw Pill, chief economist at the Bank of England, agrees that higher national insurance contributions and the Government’s increase in the national living and minimum wage have priced out entry-level workers, many of them young people.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Could the shadow Minister set out exactly, in pounds and pence, how much less he thinks apprentices and young people should be paid today than they are under the current minimum wage?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I reject the framing of the question. [Laughter.] No one finds youth unemployment funny. Many business owners talk to me about what happens when a young apprentice is interviewed. They say that if they have a 25-year-old with experience versus an 18-year-old with no experience, that hinders the prospects of hiring them. That is the reality. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is a conscientious MP, so I encourage him to pose that question to his small business owners in the way I framed it.

[Brian Leishman]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Saqib Bhatti]

No, I am going to carry on. When met with reality, the Government’s plans in this space fall far too short. The Government have made lots of noise about recruiting targets. I just noticed that the Government announced 40,000 new construction placements every single year. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the same or a different version of the announcement made in a Government press release in August 2025, which mentioned

“40,000 future builders, bricklayers, electricians, carpenters and plumbers”?

Government by press release is one thing but recycling old press releases is something else. Those apprentices deserve better.

There has also been no mention of the impact of the Government’s fiscal policies. Just as we were having this debate, I saw a headline saying job vacancies are at their lowest in 12 years. There are 176,000 fewer jobs now than when Labour took office.

Members have mentioned the Education Secretary’s ambition to close off academic options and offer more vocational options for the 14-to-16 age group. I am deeply sceptical of that policy, and the Opposition are calling for an evidence-based approach. When a previous Labour Government introduced similar reforms, fewer children from poorer backgrounds ended up going into academic subjects. They were funnelled into vocational work. We believe that plenty of people who would have been able to get into higher-quality jobs were funnelled off at a lower age, so we are deeply sceptical. The policy announcement is welcome, but we are yet to see significant detail. Many of the headteachers I spoke to last week asked how their teachers will be trained to deliver vocational subjects and where the funding will come from.

We are incredibly proud of the reforms instituted by the previous Conservative Government, which have meant that England’s education delivery is among the best and most resilient in the world, according to the programme for international student assessment rankings. When I meet people from the advanced manufacturing sector, they laud the fact that a knowledge-rich curriculum has helped young people to gain critical and analytical skills, including in numeracy. We are really worried that some of the Education Secretary’s announcements will undermine opportunities for young people.

The criticism comes not just from the Opposition. Jon White, the chief financial officer at building materials firm Huws Gray, has said that employers are struggling with a lack of incentives to hire younger people. He pointed to the Government’s narrowing of the gap in respect of the national minimum wage, which I have alluded to, and said that they should change the rules in respect of how employers can spend the apprenticeship levy. I hope the Minister can shed a bit of light on some of the questions around the apprenticeship levy.

Making it easier for employers to hire young people is really important, which is why we have pledged to halve employer national insurance for young people aged 21 to 24, to help them get to into work. We have also offered more incentives to small businesses to take on young people. Small businesses are often lauded as the lifeblood of the UK economy and the high street, and they, not big businesses, are the greatest employers of young people across the country. We believe our approach will free up the business sector and manufacturing to employ more young people; I would welcome the Minister’s response.

10:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this important debate and making such a strong case for manufacturing skills, both on the Isle of Wight and across the country. As he set out, the Isle of Wight punches above its weight in advanced manufacturing. Businesses including Wight Shipyard, Diverse Marine and GKN Aerospace demonstrate the breadth of modern British manufacturing, from shipbuilding and aerospace to clean energy, defence and precision engineering. My hon. Friend is right that this is not simply about preserving Britain’s industrial heritage; it is about building the industries, supply chains and skilled careers of the future.

I particularly welcome my hon. Friend’s focus on the new Large Structures Innovation Centre and Isle of Wight College’s specialist centre for engineering and advanced manufacturing training. Investment in facilities and innovation must go hand in hand with investment in people, so that employers have access to workers with the skills they need, and local people can benefit from the opportunities being created.

My hon. Friend was also right to recognise the strengths of Derby, from rail and automotive to aerospace and nuclear power. Alongside the Team Derby initiative, those strengths demonstrate the benefits of bringing together industry, skills and investment to support growth.

As we have heard, across the UK manufacturing contributed £229 billion to the economy last year and supported 2.5 million jobs, with advanced manufacturing alone supporting around 770,000 jobs. But we need to prepare for the future: 36% of the manufacturing workforce is aged over 50, and Skills England projects demand for around 148,000 workers in priority occupations in advanced manufacturing by 2035, reflecting both growth and the need to replace those who leave the sector. That is why skills are central to our approach to growth in every postcode. We are investing more than £1 billion in sector skills packages, including £182 million for engineering, to strengthen technical training and build the workforce needed by advanced manufacturing and other growth-driving sectors.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West made an important wider point. As well as creating the skilled workforces that businesses need to grow, we need to ensure that young people have the opportunities they need to start, stay and succeed in high-demand sectors. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), talked about youth unemployment; I remind him that between 2021 and 2024 the number of young people not in employment, education or training rose by a quarter of a million and the Conservatives did nothing. That is why we are reforming vocational routes for young people, including apprenticeships and technical education, and investing in technical excellence colleges, strengthening careers education and expanding work experience to help young people to move from education into skilled employment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) said, we need clear technical pathways that begin before young people make crucial choices and continue into further education, apprenticeships and skilled work. That starts with technical education from age 14, on an equal footing with academic education, to help more young people to access technical qualifications alongside their GCSEs, careers guidance and relevant work experience.

[Perran Moon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will not because I am short on time. If I have time later, I will.

We have also announced new vocational GCSEs to give young people greater choice and equip them with practical knowledge and skills. After GCSEs, young people need routes that are easy to understand and valued by employers. This week is T-level week; these qualifications in engineering and manufacturing combine specialist classroom learning with a substantial industry placement, giving students experience of the workplace and a route into skilled employment, an apprenticeship or further study.

From 2028, V-levels in engineering design and engineering manufacturing will provide a broader applied route, while occupational certificates will offer a two-year route towards skilled roles such as engineering operative, autocare technician and welder. Foundation certificates will help students who need additional preparation before they progress to level 3 study. Together, the reforms will provide greater choice and clearer progression into manufacturing careers.

[Gareth Snell]

I declare an interest as a governor of City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college. The previous Government decimated the BTEC programme, creating the gap that V-levels are filling, but V-levels are going to be short qualifications as opposed to larger qualifications that mirror BTECs. Given that the Department is looking at the roll-out of future V-levels, will the Minister consider making them a large qualification that could be studied independently—rather than alongside A-levels, or requiring three for a university application—as a way to make the breadth of opportunity mirror BTECs while keeping the values of the V-levels that the Government are going to try to introduce?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The whole point is that we want to offer young people a range of options and choices.

Apprenticeships will remain central to our offer because they allow people to earn while they learn, and help employers to develop the skills that they need. I know there are calls for the maximum funding band levels to be reassessed in certain occupational areas, and we are working closely with the sector and Skills England to determine how best to use all available funding sources, based on robust evidence of cost of delivery.

Transforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy is giving employers greater flexibility and supporting 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships. New apprenticeship units will also help the system to respond more quickly to changing skills needs. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for recognising that apprenticeship units in battery manufacturing, mechanical fitting and assembly, and mechanised welding were developed by Skills England in just three months, following consultation with employers and sector experts. I am sure the Skills Minister will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the dedicated support that Skills England has established.

We are also increasing support for employers. We fully fund apprenticeship training for employers of all sizes for eligible young apprentices under 25, while smaller employers will receive a £2,000 hiring payment when they recruit an apprentice who is under 25. That support matters, particularly to smaller manufacturers, which are vital to local supply chains but can find it harder to meet the initial cost of recruiting and supporting an apprentice.

Alongside clearer routes and strong apprenticeships, colleges need the specialist facilities, equipment and teaching expertise required by modern manufacturing. That is why we have established four advanced manufacturing technical excellence colleges, including the one my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) highlighted in her city. They are part of a wider network of 29 technical excellence colleges, representing an investment of £295 million, that is expected to benefit more than 100,000 learners by the end of this Parliament. The colleges will provide advanced facilities, expert teaching and training shaped by employer demand. Through a hub-and-spoke approach, they will share expertise with other providers, thereby strengthening technical education beyond their own campuses.

[Perran Moon]

The announcements over the past two months relating to post-14 skills have been largely targeted at mayoral strategic authorities. Some 48% of the country is not in a mayoral strategic authority, and Cornwall never will be. Does the Minister agree that funding and flexibility for post-14 skills need to be spread across every postcode, not just in mayoral strategic authorities?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend pre-empts what I was going to say, which is that a key part of our approach is about shifting power, funding and accountability away from Westminster. We will work with mayoral and strategic authorities to shape their local skills systems and support economic growth in their regions. I assure my hon. Friend that that will apply to Cornwall, just as it will apply to the opportunity to work with our mayors in the west midlands, west Yorkshire and south Yorkshire, as colleagues asked about.

We want to design locally tailored, vocationally focused pathways for each region. Strategic authorities are well placed to bring together employers, schools and colleges, to strengthen the links between education and work, and to help to broker relevant work experience. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) highlighted, they can build on existing successful partnerships such as that between Nottingham Trent University and West Notts college. They can connect skills decisions with their understanding of local investment, workforce demand and the needs of employers. That really matters, because the opportunities available on the Isle of Wight are not the same as those in Derby, Stoke-on-Trent, Mansfield, Lichfield, Cornwall, Doncaster, Portsmouth, Wolverhampton, Lancashire, Alloa and Grangemouth, Taunton and Wellington, Glasgow, Cambridgeshire or Meriden and Solihull. Local leaders can shape delivery around the strengths and needs of their economies—I hope the devolved Government in Scotland have listened carefully to hon. Members’ points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West rightly highlighted the success of manufacturing on the Isle of Wight and the importance of investing in the workforce that will sustain it. The businesses that hon. Members have described demonstrate that world-class advanced manufacturing can thrive and create skilled jobs throughout the country. But that is only half the job; investing in the skills that power them is what turns ambition into long-term economic success. That is already visible on the Isle of Wight, showing what is possible. Our task now is to ensure that more people, particularly young people in all parts of the country, have the skills and opportunities to be part of that success. I have not had a chance to address a number of questions raised by colleagues, but I am sure that my noble friend the Minister for Skills will listen to their representations and perhaps write to them on any specifics.

10:58

[Richard Quigley]

I thank the Minister for her response and Members for their engagement—with the exception of the shadow Minister, who appears to be in cloud cuckoo land. We should all be excited about the shared enthusiasm for growing and nurturing our manufacturing skills sector. The call to action today is for us all to make apprenticeships as exciting and desirable as university and say that it is okay to learn a trade.

I look forward to tutoring colleagues from all parties so that they too can create a powerhouse of manufacturing skills in their constituencies, through world-class businesses and thriving skills support groups for education establishments helping to develop the next generation of engineers and manufacturers. I suspect they may find it harder than we make it look on the Isle of Wight.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered manufacturing skills.

Long Duration Electricity Storage Systems

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

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.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

To give the hon. Gentleman encouragement, we see the incredible potential for this in Northern Ireland, where a £100 million joint venture on Islandmagee is set to build a massive 150 MW storage facility capable of powering 36,000 homes. Does the hon. Member agree the Government must aggressively support those multi-day storage systems right across the United Kingdom, working hand in hand with devolved nations to modernise our grid infrastructure?

[Mr MacDonald]

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.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The hon. Member mentioned Lochan na h-Earba, which is in my constituency. The number of projects included in the Ofgem list at the moment, which he mentioned, and the number of projects that we could build and get benefit from differ quite significantly. And in addition to the possible projects in the highlands, there are some in the lowlands as well, in Dumfriesshire and other areas, which could benefit from Government investment, time and effort to get them onstream. Does he agree that we absolutely need to maximise the use of the extremely reliable and extremely well-tested technology of hydro?

[Mr MacDonald]

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.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about his constituents who are off-gas; likewise, I have a number of constituents in my Carlisle constituency who are off-gas. Recently the committee of a village hall—Hallbankgate village hall—came to talk to me about their ambition to move off the heating oil system and instal solar, but storing the energy—the heat—in a sand battery. I do not know whether he has come across that before, but does he agree that whatever the scale or technology—be it pump or small sand batteries—the Government’s long-term storage strategy needs to be technology-neutral, so that we maximise as many of these different technologies as possible?

[Mr MacDonald]

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.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman states that the electricity price is considerably higher than the gas price. He made the argument that gas is setting the price for electricity, but can he explain why the price of gas was so low compared to the price of electricity?

[Mr MacDonald]

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.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

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.

[Mr MacDonald]

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.

[Graham Leadbitter]

There are also huge opportunities for geothermal energy, particularly in Aberdeenshire, but also in other parts of Scotland. The Government could focus more attention on geothermal and tidal stream. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that sentiment?

[Mr MacDonald]

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.

11:17

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for securing the debate. He and I have talked about this issue many times, but I never tire of it. As he rightly said in his speech, it is an incredibly exciting opportunity for the highlands and an important opportunity for the country.

I always know that winter is coming when the hon. Gentleman’s jumpers make a reappearance. I am a big fan of them, and it is great to see him here today. He is a great champion of his constituency, which covers an enormous part of Scotland. However, having run the Arisaig to Mallaig half-marathon, I would say that he has a significant amount of very beautiful sand in his constituency.

This has been an interesting debate. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s points about long duration energy storage, but we have also heard about its cousins, such as pumped hydro and sand batteries, which is about storing energy through heat rather than in more conventional ways. It is important to be agnostic about the new technologies that are coming forward all the time and becoming ever more developed. We need a significant amount of flexibility in our system to be able to store and utilise the clean power that we are generating when we need it most. We should be open to a whole range of technologies, so I am very happy to have more conversations about all of them.

The hon. Gentleman made a strong case for the importance of long duration electricity storage. Over decades we have built a significant amount of renewable energy generation across the UK, both offshore and onshore, but we have not kept pace with being able to store that electricity for when we need it most, which has meant that our electricity system cannot get the full benefit of the clean, cheap, secure power that is being generated every single day. In fact, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have to spend considerable amounts of money on constraining that renewable capacity, because we did not build the grid. We have not built the necessary storage, so our transition to being able to deploy clean power when we need it requires much more flexibility, which comes from long duration energy storage.

I recently visited the pumped hydro project in Cruachan, which follows a well-trodden path of technology that we have deployed for a very long time. Pumped hydro lasts for a long time, is an important part of how we deliver long duration energy storage and will play a critical role in balancing supply and demand. In June, Ofgem published its minded-to list for window 1 of the cap and floor scheme. That was a significant milestone for the sector. I agree with the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter)—there is a double act of Members with long constituency names——about the ambition on long duration energy storage, but I would also say that this is the first long duration energy storage we have built in Britain in 40 years, and it is a significant amount: 7.5 gigawatts of capacity is not nothing. We remain really ambitious. He is right to say that future scenarios require even more long duration energy storage, but this is a remarkable turnaround from a 40-year gap in building any of these projects anywhere in the country.

Ofgem has provisionally selected 16 projects. It has made minded-to decisions, but a consultation process is running. Three projects are pumped storage hydropower in Scotland, representing over half the LDES capacity. Ofgem will announce its final decision on those projects by the end of the year. When they are delivered, they will reduce costs for consumers by maximising our renewable energy generation to make it available when we need it at peak times and reducing our reliance on natural gas, which is the part of the constraints that is often misunderstood in the press. The cost does not come from turning off wind; it comes from turning up gas somewhere else in the country. If we deploy LDES in the way we intend to, we will be able to reduce that dependency on costly gas generation.

I understand that the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire agrees with me on the need for long duration energy storage—we have had this conversation many times—but he also rightly wants to make sure that his community benefits from these projects. Their construction in itself creates a significant number of jobs over several years. That is expected to begin by next year and continue into the early 2030s. One project that he mentioned, Loch Earba, will create approximately 600 jobs over its five-year construction period, including at least 30 new apprenticeships. It is estimated that another project, Loch Kemp, will create 370 jobs in the highlands at peak construction. It has committed £7.5 million to a community fund, and to investing in projects such as the Caledonian canal and local roads.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly made the point about local supply chains and making sure we are delivering as much of the economic benefit of those projects in local communities. The single most important thing my Department has been driving in two and a half years in relation to the construction of these projects is no longer to be agnostic about where we build things as a country, because we actually care about industrial strategy. I have been very clear with all developers that expect to receive public money that they should look at every single part of their procurement to ensure, even down to the smallest contracts, that they procure locally as much as possible. I recognise that that is a shift from where we have been for a long time as a country, but it is critical because that is where we get supply chain jobs right across the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

[Mr MacDonald]

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?

[Michael Shanks]

Let me come to that point, because we have discussed that before. My starting point is that communities who host infrastructure should feel the benefits of it, and they should be meaningful benefits. We consulted on how we will deliver both community benefits and shared-ownership opportunities for communities. We have put £1 billion pounds into Great British Energy to make sure that there is the financial capacity for communities to take up that shared-ownership offer. We will continue to push that.

I have spoken before about the need for us to balance that though; ultimately, all the costs of building these projects is borne by consumers across the country. The hon. Gentleman and I share the objective of bringing down bills as much as possible. There is a balance to be struck and I do not pretend that is easy because his community—he is right to champion them—will rightly want more and more community benefits. My job is to balance that against the cost of these projects. I need first to ensure that they are economical and will be built, because that is important for the national interest, and secondly that they are built as affordably as possible so that we can bring down bills for everyone. There is a balance to be struck, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before.

I know that the hon. Gentleman will always want us to go further, but I would just say that the cap and floor scheme is designed to provide not huge public subsidy to make these projects happen, but just the right amount to make them viable. That is the key thing; the cap and floor scheme is designed to be a viability mechanism, so there is a risk that we end up using consumer bills to subsidise projects if we go too far. That does not mean that I do not share his ambition, and I have been very clear with developers that we should see genuine community benefits coming forward and that those should be meaningful for communities.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Very briefly, I am raising these issues with colleagues in the Scottish Government as well, but while DESNZ and Ofgem have a role in this, I think it is helpful for every organisation to be pushing the developers and saying, “What are you doing about the roads infrastructure? What are you doing about how you get people to and from the sites?” Projects represent big influxes of people into areas, while the local infrastructure can be just lane-and-a-half roads, with passing places and all that. Will the Minister commit to putting some pressure on those companies to invest in that?

[Michael Shanks]

I thought the hon. Member was going to conclude by asking whether I would commit to putting some pressure on the Scottish Government, which would be unlike him. But I agree with him, actually. I have had a number of really productive conversations with Stephen Gethins, Scotland’s Energy Minister, on exactly that topic of how we can make these projects work for local communities. If we can bring that local investment into roads and other infrastructure, it leaves that legacy that I think we all want to see in communities. It is also of benefit to the projects, which will need some investment in road infrastructure anyway.

In summing up, I want to pick out two issues. First, I really welcome the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire’s recognition of the importance of long duration energy storage for our system. The truth of the past few years has been a recognition that, for decades, we had a consensus on building renewables across Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, but we did not make the investment that we should have in building the grid to connect them. We are now paying the price for that.

Equally, storage is absolutely central to how renewables can work in the system, giving us the flexibility to deploy that energy when we need it most and making sure that we are genuinely bringing cleaner, cheaper power to homes and businesses when we need it, which is how we bring down bills. It also has to be the foundation of delivering economic growth. The hon. Gentleman rightly recognised the Prime Minister’s commitment to growth in every postcode. Energy policy does not exist in a vacuum; it is part of our industrial strategy.

We are building these extraordinarily important projects that will last for more than a century. There has to be some legacy for communities from those projects, and we have to bring people with us on this journey. I frequently say in this place in particular, but in the main Chamber as well, that we do need to build infrastructure as a country—that is important—but we should try to bring communities with us wherever we possibly can. Community benefits and real investment are a critical part of that.

The Scottish Government are clearly a key partner in this, given that planning decisions in Scotland are not for me but for the Scottish Government. I know that they share my ambition about the importance of both deploying long duration energy storage and community benefits. They have guidance on this matter, and we are working together on it.

Whether it is through community benefit funds, the bill discounts that we have announced in terms of electricity infrastructure, or our ongoing work to make sure that there is an industrial benefit from these projects, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, while we might not get everything quite to the extent that he would like, these projects are an opportunity for communities to benefit from construction, from community benefits and from—I hope—a genuine lasting legacy.

Importantly for us as a country, this is how we deliver the secure, home-grown clean power that we need in the system, bring down bills for people and continue the transition to net zero, which is so important. I commend the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire again, and I look forward to what I am certain will be further conversations on this in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Heathrow Airport Expansion

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]

[Relevant Documents: Oral evidence taken before the Transport Committee, on Scrutiny of the draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement, 14 October, 13 October, 15 September, 9 September, 8 September and 2 September, HC 482; Written evidence to the Transport Committee, on Scrutiny of the draft Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement, reported to the House on 13 October, 14 September and 1 September 2025, HC 482; and Correspondence from the Chief Analyst, Department for Transport, to the Transport Committee, on the Heathrow expansion economic case, reported to the House on 1 September, HC 482.]

14:30

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Heathrow airport expansion.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and I thank all my constituents in Putney who have written to me, attended public meetings and taken part in the recent consultation on Heathrow expansion. I am really grateful to have secured today’s debate, and for the opportunity to explain why the Mayor of London, so many London MPs and so many Londoners continue to oppose the enormous expansion of Heathrow, the third runway and all that comes with it. I am also grateful to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aviation for engaging with the concerns that I and many others have raised.

The proposal on the table would significantly and adversely affect the health and wellbeing of 3 million people living near Heathrow, and there would be a 58% increase in flights. Under the expansion proposal, the number of flights would increase by 276,000 per year— 756 per day. This debate comes at an important moment in the decision-making process. It is only weeks since the Government’s consultation on the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement closed on 1 September, and we are only days before Heathrow launches its own consultation on its expansion plans on 27 October. However, Heathrow is consulting on expansion before the Government have completed the policy framework that would govern it. That is the wrong way round.

Before taking a decision of such magnitude, we should ask a simple question: knowing what we know now, would Parliament make the same decision today as it was asked to make when the Airport Commission reported and made the proposal in 2015? I do not believe that it would. In 2015, the Airport Commission’s case rested on assumptions about jobs, growth, aviation demand, sustainable aviation fuel, carbon reduction and regional economic benefits, but many of those assumptions have now been blown apart and look considerably weaker, so I am going to whizz through eight major things that have changed since 2015. I will also talk about three important things that have not changed since then.

First, I am going to focus on the major central justification for expansion: the economic case, which I believe has collapsed. The Government’s own figures tell a very different story from the one we were told a decade ago. In 2015, the Airports Commission estimated that expansion could boost GDP by £20 billion to £23 billion. Earlier this year, supporters of expansion were still citing figures of around £13 billion. However, the Department for Transport’s appraisal in the HENPS document estimates a GDP increase of just 0.03% to 0.05% by the 2050s—the equivalent of roughly £900 million to £1.5 billion over decades. The headline economic benefit used to justify Heathrow expansion has therefore fallen from £20 billion to perhaps little more than £1 billion. A project once sold as transformational would now deliver an impact that is barely measurable in the context of a £3 trillion economy. Those figures would raise serious questions for any major infrastructure project.

Secondly, I will talk about jobs. In 2015, the Airports Commission argued that a third runway could support about 70,000 new jobs across the UK by 2050, yet the Government’s own analysis suggests that many jobs would be relocated, rather than created. The DFT estimates that Heathrow expansion could draw around 21,400 jobs into the Heathrow area while contributing to the loss of approximately 15,200 jobs elsewhere in the UK. Moving jobs from one region to another is obviously not the same as creating new jobs.

Thirdly, the premise of spreading growth across the UK has changed. The Government cannot demonstrate that the growth generated would be genuinely additional. If jobs, passengers and investment are simply drawn from other airports and regions, Britain is not creating growth; it is just relocating it. Analysis by the New Economics Foundation suggests that Birmingham airport alone could lose around 7.5 million passengers annually by 2050, alongside approximately 9,500 jobs across the airport and its supply chains.

On devolution, No.10 North is going in one direction, but Heathrow expansion—being so concentrated on London and the south-east—would take us in another direction. At a time when Ministers rightly want to spread opportunity more evenly across the country, Heathrow expansion risks doing precisely the opposite.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a really powerful point. When he was the Mayor of Manchester, the Prime Minister warned many times that Heathrow expansion would suck the life out of regional airports. Does she agree that that is now more true than ever? The Prime Minister is also really into devolution. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is also against Heathrow expansion, so the Prime Minister should listen to our Mayor, too.

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The context of this debate has changed, which is my point; things have changed since 2015. We are looking again at devolution and growth across the country, and that changed context means that Heathrow expansion really needs to be looked at again, especially when the Mayor of London opposes it so strongly.

Fourthly, business travel has changed; the world that originally produced the case for the third runway no longer exists. Much of the demand modelling that was made then assumed ever-increasing business travel, but the pandemic accelerated a shift towards remote working and video conferencing, which has become permanent. Research highlighted by the New Economics Foundation shows that over the two decades before the pandemic, UK GDP grew by around 25% while business passenger numbers through UK airports showed virtually no growth at all. Today, business travel remains at a level that is about 20% below pre-pandemic levels, so the fundamental assumption about business travel no longer applies.

Fifthly, assumptions about sustainable aviation fuel have also changed. Sustainable aviation fuel was meant to be the great white charger that would come galloping over the hills, and that we would all be using it, and it would be the answer to all our climate problems. However, use of it is far less than predicted and is growing more slowly than predicted. It still accounts for far less than 1% of global aviation fuel use, and even under the Government’s own plans, around 90% of aviation fuel being used in 2030 would still be conventional fuel. In effect, Parliament is being asked to approve additional emissions now on the basis that future technology might solve the problem some time later, but that hope is really not being borne out.

Sixthly, the climate challenge has become far more acute. The Climate Change Committee’s conclusion in its report last month was clear—the UK does not currently have a credible pathway to reduce aviation emissions in line with net zero while accommodating Heathrow expansion. The Committee estimates that expansion would add an additional 2.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year by 2050. That is roughly the equivalent of putting around half a million additional petrol-fuelled cars on Britain’s roads, all the emissions of Denmark, and greater than all the emissions of New Zealand.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

When I was first elected to Parliament nine years ago, we had people coming in and saying that new technology in aviation—electric planes, hydrogen planes and SAF—would significantly reduce emissions by 2025; I think that was the date given. None of that has happened. So all these assumptions are being made about new technology, which has not arrived and will not arrive. And we will break through our carbon budget just with increased aviation, particularly if we go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for that intervention, which speaks for the views of so many people, who are saying similar things. Indeed, a long time ago they were saying, “Look at the assumptions”, but now we have even more facts about those assumptions. We know what has actually come to pass and it is not all that was promised. At a time when households, motorists and businesses are being asked to reduce emissions, and after the summer of extreme weather that we have just had, why would we seek permission to increase emissions by so much?

Seventhly, our understanding of the health impact of noise has changed. Noise is not just an inconvenience; it is not something for people to get used to. We now know the impact of noise on many health conditions, including heart conditions and mental health conditions. This new knowledge about the impact of noise and what that impact will be on so many millions more people really should give the Government pause for thought. At the very least, the Government should commit to a full seven-hour night-flight ban between 11 pm and 6 am, with a pathway towards an eight-hour ban in the future. That respite would be so important for my constituents.

Eighthly, our expectations on air quality have changed. London is now the world’s largest clean-air zone. Putney’s high street used to be one of the most polluted in the country, but is now just the same as other high streets. That has been through a lot of hard policy and hard work. The ultra low emission zone covers every London borough and has reduced harmful nitrogen dioxide concentrations in central London by more than 50%. There has been heavy investment around improving our air quality, but this pollution from Heathrow airport would take us in the other direction.

Those are eight things that have changed since 2015, and I am sure that the Minister has listened very carefully to them all, but there are three things that have not changed. First, there is no funding plan for the surface transport to go along with the airport. I have been asking this question of Treasury Ministers ever since the proposals came out: “Will the Government fund the ground transport?” No. I have been asking Heathrow, “Will Heathrow fund the ground transport?” No, it will not. We have a massive gap here given the number of people who will travel to Heathrow airport. What will they travel on? I think that that will be a real millstone around the Government’s neck in future.

The second thing that has not changed is that Heathrow is the wrong location for a hub airport of this scale, for areas such as Northern Ireland—I know that we have a Member from Northern Ireland here—Liverpool, Manchester or Scotland. If anyone looked at the UK to decide where to put a hub airport, would they really put it next to one of the most densely populated parts of the whole country, or would they put it in the middle of the country? Would they locate it at an airport that already had two runways, such as Manchester’s?

The third thing that has not changed is that we do not have a national aviation strategy. Why are these decisions being made piecemeal? We have Gatwick, Luton and now Heathrow; where is the overall strategy for this? What is the decision-making behind it? Why do we not step back, look at what kind of aviation growth we want and need and where we want that to be, and then put this decision within that?

When the Airports Commission recommended Heathrow’s expansion in 2015, it asked the public and Parliament to accept a trade-off: to accept the noise, the environmental impacts and the disruption, because the rewards would be worth it. We were promised transformational economic growth across the United Kingdom, but, more than a decade later, we find a very different situation. Those foundations and assumptions are very weak. The projected economic gains are smaller than promised.

[Alex Sobel]

One concerning point that my hon. Friend did not raise is the number of houses that will be demolished and the number of people who will be displaced. Heathrow’s own assumption is fewer than 1,000, but that is really only the direct curtilage of the runway. Even a quite casual look at a map would show that the uninhabitable zone around Heathrow could be north of 5,000 homes.

Who would pay for those demolitions, and for the replacements and compensation for those homeowners? That is something, alongside ground transport, that nobody is willing to pay for. That is an exceedingly large amount of money, on top of the misery caused for all those people living there.

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely have all those communities in my mind. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I am sure that we will hear more about that from other Members in this Chamber today who represent those communities that will be so directly affected.

That is what I mean about the national strategy; that would be a very big factor. How many communities will be affected? What is the trade-off here? Why—again—would anyone choose to put this hub airport next to London? It affects more people than all the other major hub airports across Europe. Five hub airports there have fewer people affected than this one, because it is so close to London. It is not in the place we would put it if we started from scratch.

As I was saying, Parliament was asked to accept a trade-off between the negative effects and the economic gains, but that whole equation has now crumbled. This is no longer the proposition that Parliament was presented with in 2015; it asks communities to accept many more dangers and harms, but for less-certain benefits.

Every day, my constituents live with the consequences of Heathrow. Asking them to accept more flights, more noise and more disruption requires a compelling national case, and we just do not have it here. If the growth is smaller, the jobs are less certain and the benefits are less widely shared than promised, the responsible thing to do is not to simply press ahead regardless; it is to stop and look again. I therefore hope that, when the time for a conclusion comes, the Minister will conclude that a third runway at Heathrow is not right for the country.

14:44

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for setting the scene. She and I are good friends. I spoke to her before the debate; we have a difference of opinion on this issue, and I will outline the reasons why. I respect everybody else’s point of view, and I hope that others will respect mine.

The proposed expansion of Heathrow airport is expected to support some 108,000 jobs across the United Kingdom, making it a significant source of economic growth. The third runway would increase capacity, provide for more affordable travel and increase the reliability of flights. Across the UK, airports are recognising the need to plan ahead. I want to give some figures, ever mindful of how much I respect the opinion of the hon. Lady and other Members. Heathrow is the UK’s gateway to growth: it connects people and businesses from all parts of the country, including Belfast, to global opportunities, and it serves as the UK’s only hub airport.

The challenge is that Heathrow is operating at 99% capacity and has been for decades, which is why the third runway is imperative for the growth of this country. Indeed, it is bursting to grow. Heathrow continues to perform strongly, but passenger growth is now trailing the European average. Passenger growth at Heathrow is 1.9%, whereas the European average is 4.6%. Heathrow’s expansion is expected to add some £17 billion annually to the UK economy, and 60% of the economic benefits will occur outside London and the south-east. That is the reason why I am speaking in this debate as an MP for Northern Ireland: I want to put forward the case for how the third runway will benefit us in Northern Ireland. Whenever it comes to the Government here doing something centrally, it has to be for everybody’s advantage across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The £33 billion of private investment into Britain supports jobs, exports, manufacturing and economic growth at no cost to the taxpayer, so it is advantageous. The benefits begin well before the first flight, and the wider economic prize goes beyond conventional transport modelling. Heathrow’s expansion builds on an existing 1,100-business UK supply chain, creating opportunities for companies in every region of the country. By way of example, I mention Zaun in Wolverhampton, but there are many other companies across the United Kingdom that rely on Heathrow’s connectivity, including Durham-based Coltraco Ultrasonics.

For us in Northern Ireland, it is really important that we have the connectivity. Heathrow has stated:

“this is not a choice between the economy and the environment; it will deliver for both.”

If it can show that expansion can do that, that is something that must be considered. Heathrow has also said there was a 7.5% carbon reduction in air emissions last year compared with 2019. That is factual evidence. There has also been a 60% reduction to the noise footprint since the early 1990s. Again, I would say that that shows that there has been a commitment in relation to that.

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Member has come out with some statistics, and I just want to give him one. We have the largest clean air zone on Earth in London. Nitrous oxide emissions have been cut by 54%. Would that not be put at risk by Heathrow expansion?

[Jim Shannon]

As always, the hon. Lady makes a very helpful intervention. I would suggest that those who are looking at the expansion of the third runway at Heathrow have indicated that those are issues that they can address. We must give them the chance to do just that.

In Northern Ireland, plans have been proposed to increase the capacity of Belfast City airport, because we want to see growth in Belfast. It is the airport I normally use; others may use Belfast International airport. There is an opportunity. In discussions, an indication has been made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I know that growth in Belfast is helped by, connected with and part of the third runway at Heathrow.

The Minister is betwixt a rock and a hard place on this one, I suspect, but does he agree that we have to have a forward-thinking approach and support the infrastructure needed for future air travel? We are trying to increase connectivity, such as between Heathrow and Belfast. I see the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) is present, and he has ambitions for Doncaster airport as well.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

Yesterday we had the amazing news that agreement had been reached to bring Doncaster Sheffield airport back into local public ownership. That will create jobs and growth and will be amazing for our area, in particular for NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—and their challenges. It will give opportunities for cabin crew, ground staff and, potentially, pilots in the future. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we talk about expansion of Heathrow, we must also consider the importance of the regional hubs and regional airports as we go forward and as part of a strategy?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman deserves some of the credit for his hard work in the time that he has been in this House on a way forward for Doncaster airport. He can take some credit, because it has been one of his primary objectives.

We must build for the future. We must support economic growth in the UK as a whole, as the hon. Gentleman just said, and no time is better to invest in such projects than right now. Heathrow airport expansion is not just a London issue; it is a vital national infrastructure project that is critical to strengthening our entire Union, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I want to promote that, concentrate on it and help it to happen.

The London-to-Belfast corridor is among the busiest domestic routes in the United Kingdom, yet our businesses and families face constant, crippling flight cancellations and slot constraints that isolate Northern Ireland from global markets. Our hope is that the third runway at Heathrow happens, along with the expansion of Belfast City airport, so that the two can grow together and provide for our businesses and families. Without any doubt, a third runway is urgently required to guarantee and protect vital regional slots for Northern Ireland, for Scotland, for Wales and for Doncaster, to ensure that every single corner of the United Kingdom benefits from global connectivity.

I will finish with this: the third runway will ensure connectivity throughout the UK, and it is essential that that is a material consideration. Often Heathrow expansion is talked about in terms of more holiday routes, but it is not just holiday routes; there are domestic connections as well, such as from Belfast City to London. Those who want to go further can take the holiday routes, and they are important, but for businesses based in Northern Ireland, reliable connections from London to Belfast are their lifeblood. We cannot afford to be cut off. For that reason, I say respectfully to right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber that I support the Heathrow extension. It will be beneficial for Northern Ireland. I see advantages—coming through jobs and opportunities for connection—to build this United Kingdom where there is the ability to grow it. I support this and I put the needs of Northern Ireland very much before all hon. Members present for their consideration.

14:53

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I almost feel like just republishing a Hansard of one of the dozen debates we have already had on this subject over the past number of years. We just need to get real. The reason we are having this debate is that the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), when developing a speech for growth, wanted an example, and she just went for the third runway. At the moment, however, I cannot find anyone in Government who privately thinks, seriously, that it will go ahead. That is where we are at. This is the “Monty Python” dead parrot sketch all over again.

Given that we are having this debate, I will remind people, as I always do, what the third runway means in human terms for my constituents, because that is my job. This has been mentioned, but 4,500 homes will be demolished or rendered unliveable by noise and air pollution. We think now that 17,000 people will be displaced to ensure the profits of a company owned by a whole range of foreign multinationals. A number of schools will be closed. I held my first third runway meeting and set up the third runway action group in 1983, in Harlington school. We had to demolish and rebuild that school elsewhere because the noise and air pollution had made it impossible to teach in. This expansion will push the runway near to the school that we built some distance away. We are going to lose our schools. We are going to lose our whole community.

Before anyone votes on this issue, come down to Harmondsworth. Come and see the village. Members should not vote on this unless they have been there, because otherwise they will not know how this is devastating beautiful villages. Harmondsworth has just won London in Bloom. We have a church that is 1,000 years old; the barn of the medieval church, which we believe is the biggest in Europe, will be 50 yards from the airport runway. This is absolute devastation. Where are my constituents going to go? Where are school pupils going to be taught?

On top of that, we have been breathing this poisoned air for more than a generation now. We have done survey after survey about the scale of respiratory problems and the cardiovascular impacts. Before anyone votes, come down there and talk to some of the people about what it means. People say, “Oh well, people will move.” We have generations of families who have lived there, and young families who have moved in. Why? Because Governments promised us that there will be no third runway. At one point in time, there was cross-party agreement. No wonder we feel betrayed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) has set out all the arguments. The fact that we are even considering this issue in this debate is a monument to Heathrow’s lobbying capacity and the corporate capture of different political parties over time. I have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he is generous with his support on a whole range of issues—but every one of the points that he raised, which are basically from the Heathrow briefing material, has been shot through completely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney mentioned the economic benefit. In the Government’s own figures in the consultation, that has reduced 10 times, to 0.05% of GDP, and even that is now in doubt. On the number of jobs, when the fifth terminal was developed, we were promised, I think, 50,000 jobs. We did not get anything. What has happened in our area of west London is that as Heathrow has developed, our industrial base has moved out, gone to other, cheaper regions. What have they been replaced by? Warehousing. We have lost skilled jobs and got unskilled work and exploitation.

On the wider health implications, I warn hon. Members and the Government about ultrafine particles. When I was a youngster, I left school and went to the shop floor. I worked up north in a place near Hebden Bridge. Hebden Bridge is where they manufactured asbestos. We had suddenly discovered asbestos. At that point, people were campaigning to keep the factory there for the jobs and all the rest of it.

The effects of ultrafine particles are the asbestosis of the future. Look at the research. The Government have now set up a committee of experts to look at this issue, and it will report in three months’ time, possibly after we have been asked to make a decision. What we know about ultrafine particles is, first, that they come from aviation fuel in particular and that they spread across not just the surroundings of the airport, but at least 10 km around where there are emissions from aviation in particular. That means that we now have evidence from the working group of ultrafine particles in central London.

What do ultrafine particles do? They penetrate our bodies, get into the lungs, the heart and all the rest of it, and we are now discovering the cardiovascular disease and different cancers that are occurring. They also penetrate the brain. We are worried about what they are doing to our children, who are growing up breathing these ultrafine particles.

I warn the Government: this is a bit like asbestosis. We have to recognise that once this impact has been pointed out to us, if we continue to inflict it on our population in London, we will be held responsible as a Government for enabling it to happen.

We have already raised all the issues that have been brought forward today, including noise. We had a session a month ago with the noise experts, who now tell us that the Government’s level is too high. The threshold of damage to people’s health is so much lower than that, and we are well beyond the European limits. We need to shake people up, because we do not even know the flight paths yet. All we can do is look at what has been said in the past, and we know that at least another 900,000 people—nearly a million—will be affected by the consequences of noise and air pollution.

When we debated this issue last time, we were told that there is an urgent need to deliver the project for the good of our economy, even though we now know that it will cost us 15,000 jobs. Where will those jobs be lost? From regional airports. Members should have a look at the New Economics Foundation analysis. On top of that, we are told that there is a sense of urgency, but what did we hear a fortnight ago? Heathrow has delayed expansion by another five years.

I come to the cost escalation. Since we have had this debate over the last couple of years, the costs have doubled. It is expected that £15 billion is needed to pay for the transport infrastructure, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, Heathrow is not putting in a penny. Hon. Members know that Heathrow will come to two groups to pay for the infrastructure: taxpayers and passengers. This is such a con and we have to throw it out, once and for all. I do not want to be here in a couple of years’ time.

There is now no rationale for proceeding with Heathrow expansion. We need to come back after the consultation, and I hope that the Government will say, “Enough is enough.” We must kill off this project, once and for all. We cannot just keep coming back and wasting resources on all this. I think there is a responsibility on all our shoulders, particularly now, because we know so much more about the detriment not just to our individual constituencies, but to the economy overall and to the health of millions of people.

The message to the Government should be to just kill off Heathrow expansion. Let us finish this ritual that we have purely because of the lobbying impact of Heathrow airport. We have to stand up and represent our constituents, not corporations that will rip off us in the future.

15:02

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

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.

15:05

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this timely and important debate. She set out very well the issues that we are concerned about and grappling with.

Heathrow expansion raises significant concerns among my constituents, given that my constituency neighbours the airport. As has been said, this is not a new issue. I was going to say that it has been going on since the ’90s, but apparently it was in 1983—before I was born at Hillingdon hospital—that the people took up the mantle and battled expansion. That explains why people are incredibly frustrated and jaded: the same questions are being asked yet again, but we are getting no answers to these decades-long problems.

The Government have been explicit time and again about their commitment to the four tests, which I share. Does Heathrow expansion deliver economic growth in every region? Is it consistent with our climate change commitments? Will it undermine air quality progress? Will the plans properly manage, limit and mitigate the noise impact? If the expansion fails to meet those tests, it should not be allowed to go ahead. That was always my starting point, and to this day I have been consistent about that when looking at the proposals.

To be frank, the numbers that we have seen are not reassuring. According to the Government’s own modelling, the impact on GDP is predicted to be just 0.03% to 0.05% by 2056—a reduction in the economic benefit set out in earlier estimates by a factor of 10. In addition, the Department’s modelling suggests that, once monetised costs and benefits are considered, expansion could impose greater costs than benefits over 60 years, with a negative net present value of between £20 billion and £60 billion to the economy.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that there would potentially be benefits to consumers, but projections suggest that ticket prices could rise by £60 to £65, or £250 for a family of four, as the higher airline charges to fund the development will be passed on to passengers. Rather than extend air travel to more, it could price out ordinary families from travelling from Heathrow. That is why major airlines themselves are concerned about the proposals. Many Members have heard from them.

I share the new Government’s ethos of delivering growth in every postcode, but the analysis shows that Heathrow would not be a silver bullet. Modelling suggests that between 72% and 92% of the benefits of the expansion would be concentrated in London and the south-east, and research by the New Economics Foundation suggests that up to 15,000 jobs could be displaced from regions outside London and the south-east, harming regional airport capacity. Many Members are rightly fighting for such growth in their regions.

It was previously claimed that expansion could be funded entirely from private investment, but that is simply not the case. There are real concerns about burdens on taxpayers. Just last week, Heathrow told the Transport Committee that it does not intend to cover the full cost of rail infrastructure. Time and again, we see taxpayers in London and elsewhere in the UK pick up the price for Heathrow-related travel. The new Elizabeth line trains, which are being built and will be rolled out soon, will not serve West Drayton, my constituents or constituents between Reading and Maidenhead, because the capacity is going to serve Heathrow, but the airport is providing no money. The headlines about expansion tell us one thing, but Heathrow bosses admit to another.

We risk pressing ahead with an incredibly expensive and financially dubious infrastructure project not because it offers a credible path to growth but because it has become a symbol of whether we are committed to growth in an abstract form. We saw that with HS2. Although rail expansion and capacity are undoubtedly needed in the country, we pushed ahead with a project that was poorly scoped, poorly costed and poorly specced, and it led to decades of underperformance and cost inflation.

As Members have said, the evidence falls flat on the other tests too. On the noise impact, a huge number of people will be pulled into increased noise and disruption across London, although the flight paths are still uncertain, so we cannot be sure about the exact scope and extent. The costs of mitigating noise impacts, with secondary glazing or replacement housing, are potentially exponential, and we still do not know how they will be paid or who will pay for them.

The Climate Change Committee’s work, published last month, found that aviation emissions had more than doubled since 1990, and that Heathrow currently accounted for half of all UK aviation emissions. It concluded there is no credible pathway for Heathrow expansion to be compatible with the UK’s vital climate commitments under current policies. Meanwhile, on air pollution, serious concerns remain over the reliability of modelling and whether the impact of the latest expansion proposals has been sufficiently assessed.

Frankly, there is no point standing on a commitment to these four tests as criteria for shaping the future of Heathrow, if the moment they are not met, we abandon them. It is not something I can do while looking my constituents squarely in the face. For many of us, Heathrow expansion is a perennial issue that should be dealt with, so we do not have to keep on talking about it. For residents in Hillingdon and London, the impacts will be profound, with the case as shaky now as it has ever been.

That has been compounded by what can only be described as an incredibly poor consultation process, which failed to engage properly with the strength of feeling on the issue, with consultations taking place in August, despite many stakeholders, including me, outlining the difficulty of securing proper engagement over the summer. Heathrow’s own consultation that is taking place as we speak, with have no events in my constituency, despite its neighbouring the airport. Perhaps Heathrow does not want to hear questions because, as we have seen time and again, it does not have the answer to meeting the four tests.

We must take our time and think fully about the implications of expansion. We must have access to proper data that is thought through. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Putney in calling for a proper national strategy about our aviation needs, which thinks holistically about every region and every aspect of our nation’s aviation needs. We must think again on Heathrow expansion.

15:12

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair today, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this important debate and for so clearly laying out the case against Heathrow expansion. I begin by declaring my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on airport communities.

Hon. Members who support a third runway would likely say it is appalling that we have been debating this issue for 20 years, or 40 years in the case of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who started his campaign as I turned five. Those Members are right; it is appalling that we have been discussing it for so many years. Every time a new Government raise the prospect of a third runway, communities in west and south-west London feel this is an albatross around their necks that they cannot get rid of.

It is time to put this issue to bed once and for all. The evidence is clearer than ever that Heathrow expansion is a white elephant that would have devastating consequences for our environment, as well as our local communities. The economic case simply does not stand up. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for repetition in my speech of what has already been said, but it is important that the Minister hears, across parties and across London, the strength of feeling against this project.

When I last spoke on this issue in the Chamber, I pointed out that the Government had provided little evidence to support their claims of the benefits of a third runway. Since then, the Government have published the Heathrow expansion national policy statement—HENPS as we like to call it. Rather than provide evidence, if anything it has made even clearer that the case for expansion is simply not credible.

In the space of 21 months, since the former Chancellor announced Government support for expansion, the promise of GDP growth has been downgraded from 0.43% to just 0.05% by 2056. That is a decrease of 90% since an announcement was made in a speech about growth—just to send a signal to the City, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington laid out so clearly.

The same can be said about jobs. The former Chancellor promised 100,000 jobs, but 61,000 are promised in the HENPS, and the Department for Transport explicitly acknowledges that this is likely to mean the redistribution of labour, not new jobs. That is supported by research conducted by the New Economics Foundation, which suggests that two thirds of jobs will be displaced from other parts of the UK.

As our new Prime Minister said, Heathrow expansion traps investment in London and the south-east, and the regions of the UK will suffer for it. Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to growth in every postcode, perhaps the Government should bring forward a national aviation strategy, rather than continuing to pursue Heathrow, to allow aviation policy with that regional growth mission.

I and many others have warned since the beginning that the affordability of the scheme is questionable at best. A third runway is a huge infrastructure investment that would require the relocation of London’s busiest motorway, the M25, with all the ensuing congestion, chaos and pollution. Will the Minister tell us in his closing remarks what work his Department is doing with National Highways to assess those impacts? With a price tag of £49 billion and rising, it is our duty as Members of Parliament to raise questions about where that money will come from, especially as the figure does not include surface access improvements, particularly for public transport.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) that I strongly support the southern rail link, and the case has already been made to build and invest in it. As he said, his constituents cannot get to the airport from Woking. Believe it or not, I am only a few miles from it in Whitton, near Twickenham, and there is not a direct link for me and my constituents to get there either, so there is already a case for public transport investment. However, there is no mention of that in the HENPS and no costing for it, so I hope the Minister will elaborate on the Government’s expectations for surface access improvements and how they will be funded. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, no one wants to see another HS2, with spiralling costs and delays.

That is why last week it was so galling, after months of questioning Ministers and being told that they had full confidence in the expansion being solely privately funded, to see reports in the press that the Government were hiring bankers to advise on:

“The financeability and financial deliverability of Heathrow expansion”.

Minister, why are the Government doing this and why now? Given that they have commissioned these bankers to make the assessments, how exposed is the public purse? It is grossly irresponsible.

After the summer we have just had, it is clearer than ever that climate change is having a serious impact on the quality of life in this country—on our health, economy and public services. At the same time, the Government propose to expand the single largest polluter in the UK, to the tune of carbon emissions equal to the entirety of Birmingham. The Climate Change Committee made that clear in its advice to the Government, arguing that expansion is incompatible with our climate commitments. That same morning, the Minister for Local Energy and Jobs said on the radio that it was only advice and could be ignored. I hope the Minister will say whether he accepts the Climate Change Committee’s expert advice and what the Government actually intend to do with it.

This is an opportunity to press pause, look again at all the evidence and listen to the voice of local communities. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said that this should be a decision for Londoners. Londoners will suffer most in terms of the health and noise impacts. Expansion could mean that up to 3.4 million people will be exposed to harmful levels of aircraft noise, but, as others have said, we cannot even be sure who, as airspace modernisation is happening at the same time, which makes it impossible to consider the scale of the impact properly.

More evidence continues to come out. The aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude survey studies done by Professor Charlotte Clark on behalf of the Department for Transport have stated clearly that the harmful impacts of noise occur at a lower level than previously understood. That is not something, as proponents of Heathrow expansion like to say, that one can get used to. Furthermore, expansion means that 10,000 extra tonnes of nitrogen dioxide will be produced a year. the HENPS simply does not have adequate protection for that, and it is deathly silent on the issue of ultrafine particles that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke so knowledgably about.

It is crucial that any decision on a third runway is undertaken with evidence leading the way. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent comments, and I hope he is not equivocating without thinking. I look forward to receiving a reply to my letter to him about the issue, which I sent on the day that he became Labour leader back in July. The evidence is clear. Millions of Londoners are clear. We do not want a third runway at Heathrow. While the Conservatives have made clear that they are very happy to ignore the evidence and the voice of local communities and railroad this scheme through, come what may, I hope that the Prime Minister will instead stand by his convictions, as he has promised to do time and again, and take a third runway off the table once and for all, for the sake of taxpayers, our planet and our local communities, whose health and wellbeing risk being blighted by this project.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I will now call the Front-Bench spokesman for each party. I suggest that the Liberal Democrats and the Opposition speak for eight or nine minutes and the Minister speaks for 10 minutes or so, and then there will be time for Fleur Anderson to speak for a few minutes at the end, and for me to put the question.

15:21

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for her excellent opening speech. I hope she will not mind my saying that I experienced a certain sense of déjà vu during it, because, although she put things excellently, as she always does, this is not something I have not heard before. I very much hope that the Minister was listening.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed a third runway at Heathrow because the case for expansion has never added up. With the proposed economic benefits declining by 90% in the past decade, an operational second runway at Gatwick in the pipeline, and the Climate Change Committee’s recent statement that a third runway would be incompatible with the UK’s net zero targets, there is simply no case to be made for expansion any more. Despite the former Chancellor’s framing a third runway as part of the UK’s growth agenda, the Treasury’s analysis puts the third runway’s net value to UK residents at between minus £23.4 billion and minus £62.5 billion over 60 years. Heathrow is already in over £17 billion-worth of debt. The headline cost of a third runway, which the Government assert will be completely privately funded, stands at £49 billion, but that does not take into account over £100 billion of carbon abatement costs, nor the billions of pounds required for investment in the surface access upgrades that are needed.

I was also reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) about the impact of the third runway plans on the M25 and the huge economic impact that will have across a vast swathe of the south-east. If the additional passengers cannot even travel to Heathrow, that rather defeats the purpose of adding capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made the point that we lack so many connections across the south-east that it is already incredibly difficult to travel to Heathrow. That is not just from Surrey; my constituency does not have a direct link, despite Richmond being a mainline station in south-west London. The lack of access will not just affect passengers; it will also reduce access to employment, severely limiting some of the economic benefits that we have heard about. It simply will not be possible for people to access the airport to take up the jobs.

That is not to mention that Heathrow will seek to recoup its investment by passing on the cost to passengers. That will, of course, increase the cost of flying, as we have heard from a number of contributors to the debate, which will dampen demand. The Government recently spent £3 million on a banker to advise on the strength of the economic case for Heathrow; those of us here in the Chamber could have saved them the bother. With the Government seeking to find savings in the upcoming Budget, we can also save them the effort: there is no viable financial case for expansion.

The introduction of nearly 300,000 more flights a year will have unavoidable environmental and social consequences. The Government’s commissioned aviation night noise effects study identifies that residents exposed to higher levels of aircraft noise are twice as likely to experience severe sleep disturbance. Many of the MPs in this room will have heard about those impacts directly from their constituents. We had a good community meeting across Richmond borough—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and I attended—and some of the stories we heard were particularly harrowing, especially from young people suffering from learning disabilities and additional needs such as autism. The impact of night flights and aircraft noise on those people is unendurable.

Those indicators are widely accepted to correlate with an increased risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease as well as poor mental wellbeing. People living in communities surrounding Heathrow have a 24% higher chance of stroke, a 21% higher chance of heart disease and a 14% higher chance of cardiovascular disease compared with people exposed to low levels of aircraft noise. The flightpaths for a third runway have not even been designed yet, so how can the Government produce a viable noise impact assessment and reassure residents who are not already exposed to aircraft noise that a third runway will not impact them? I did not plan to mention this, but I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and his impactful description of what it means for not only the people whose homes are on the proposed site of the third runway, but for those whose homes surround it, and his powerful case about the effect it will have on their lives.

On the environmental argument, it should almost go without saying that adding these additional flights to our skies will have a profound impact on air pollution and climate change. The Government have previously used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from the expansion of Heathrow, although they seem to have scaled back that argument more recently. Heathrow is already the biggest single source of carbon emissions in the UK, and expansion will add an extra 8 to 9 megatonnes of CO₂ into our environment every year. The Climate Change Committee’s recent conclusion that expansion is not compatible with the UK’s climate commitments presents the Government with a clear choice: to pursue a third runway at Heathrow or to take the climate crisis facing us seriously. It seems an easy decision to me.

Does the Minister agree with the Climate Change Committee’s verdict that the current plans for a third runway are not compatible with the UK’s climate change commitments? The Prime Minister’s recent comments that distanced the Government’s support from a third runway were a step in the right direction, but he needs to go further, back his own convictions and categorically oppose expansion. I anticipate that the Tory spokesman, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), will reflect his party’s recent conference commitment to expanding Heathrow. That shows not only its lack of interest in the wellbeing of London and Londoners but its susceptibility to big business lobbying in the face of hard economic facts. Will the Minister advise the Prime Minister that the third runway proposal is not fit for purpose and put an end to this white elephant once and for all?

15:28

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Just after the second world war, in May ’46, the first commercial flights departed Heathrow, marking the beginning of an 80-year journey that has seen over 3 billion passengers move through the airport and take 22 million flights. Between September last year and August this year, 84 million passengers went through Heathrow. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the industrialisation of the past century. Heathrow and our other airports across the country are symbols of the modern industrialised world, where transportation between countries is a major engine of economic development.

That leads us to the subject of today’s debate, Heathrow expansion. A long-running and undeniably contentious issue is at stake here. I do not think anyone could be surprised to see the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) make the case against expansion. Her predecessors as MPs did the same, all the way back to Hugh Jenkins, who in 1970 asked the Government to give an undertaking

“that no further enlargement of Heathrow Airport will be permitted and that no additional runways of any kind will be allowed.”—[Official Report, 4 November 1970; Vol. 805, c. 366W.]

However, the figure of 84 million passengers makes it clear that Heathrow is at capacity. The lack of further capacity is severely constraining its ability to grow and, as a consequence, Britain’s ability to grow through its hub airport. Data published in March by Airports Council International showed that the growth in passenger numbers at Heathrow of 1.9% falls well behind the European average of 4.6%. If we want businesses in this country to grow and to encourage private investment, we should not stand in the way of development that offers economic benefits. If we do, the demand for flights will not dissipate. Rather, operators will choose to fly and invest elsewhere—particularly given that Heathrow is a hub airport—and most likely at competing European airports that have expanded their facilities, such as Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt. In many cases, they will also build new runways. Alongside that will be the jobs and the other opportunities that go with it.

[Sarah Olney]

Would the right hon. Gentleman like to say more about those economic benefits, given that the Treasury’s figures show that the likely economic impact of Heathrow expansion is between minus £25 billion and minus £63 billion over 60 years?

[Mr Holden]

I will come on to those figures because I think we can all agree that there is questioning of them. It surprises me that the former Chancellor of Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and the current Chancellor of Exchequer are so vociferously supportive of the airport expansion if those figures are true.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I intimated that there is uncertainty about the growth of Belfast City airport: it has its plans to grow, but the growth of Heathrow will be part of how Belfast City airport will grow—the two of them can grow together. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that when it comes to regional connectivity, the opportunity for us to grow in Belfast, in Northern Ireland, depends greatly on how Heathrow grows?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I remember, as a Transport Minister, visiting Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and City of Derry airport. They are so important, and they reinforced to me how important that plug-in from Heathrow, as our international hub, is for not just Northern Ireland but Scotland, Wales and the north of England. None of our other airports have that hub status. That is why Heathrow is under different regulations and a different model. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how that connectivity drives growth right across the UK.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Holden]

No; I have just given way twice, and I will happily give way again later. Since the announcement was made, the Conservative party’s leadership has been clear: expansion should go ahead provided that sensible and proportionate local mitigation measures form part of that plan. Heathrow and the Government have already set out a number of those measures. However, it is critical that they genuinely serve the interests of local residents and do not impose excessive costs that will ultimately be passed on to passengers.

I turn to the challenges posed for the Minister in the debate. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey, as well as the former Prime Minister and the current Chancellor have all backed the project. The Minister is now in the unenviable position of trying to explain whether the Government of which he is a member actually support expansion or not. The situation has become a political version of Schrödinger’s cat. The Prime Minister seems to believe that by refusing to give a clear answer and by deflecting attention towards the concerns about other projects, he can leave some people believing that the runway idea is alive and some believing it is dead, all at the same time.

The other day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the International Monetary Fund:

“The case for a third runway at Heathrow has always been a case for growth”.

This created a completely different impression of the Government’s position. Unfortunately, that good cop, bad cop approach to expansion does little to reassure investors—not just investors in Heathrow, but investors in the UK in general. As Heathrow made clear in evidence to the Transport Committee, investors want clarity about the regulatory framework so that they can assess the project’s business case with confidence.

Although there has been much speculation about the timetable for expansion, the lack of clarity over the Government’s position and regulatory framework risks undermining confidence further. If the Prime Minister does not appear to give the project his support, how on earth can investors have confidence in the regulatory process, which is ultimately overseen by the Government he leads?

I am afraid that the discrepancy between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor gets to the heart of the challenges facing the Government. By giving the public the impression that they are jettisoning the previous Government’s commitment, the Prime Minister is once again demonstrating what has become his trademark skill: evading responsibility and avoiding difficult decisions.

[Danny Beales]

The right hon. Gentleman has presented the clarity in the Opposition’s position, but my understanding is that the Conservative party is quite divided on this matter. The local Conservative-led council in Hillingdon opposes it, as do many MPs. The position that he put forward had quite a big “if” caveat: they would support it “if” there were no costs and additional measures. Those measures are not clear. As many have said, the costs are not being covered. The taxpayer would have to foot the bill for significant transport improvements and mitigation measures, which are not being funded. What price are the Opposition willing to have taxpayers pay for Heathrow to go ahead?

[Mr Holden]

Whenever there is a large infrastructure project in the country—we are fully aware of this and always have been—there will always be local objections, as we would expect at council and sometimes constituency MP level. I think everybody understands that. The broader point is that Heathrow will be a privately funded project, and we support it on that basis.

What is the cost of the failure to make a decision? It is lost growth and forgone private sector investment. This is the same behaviour that we have seen towards vital projects such as more drilling in the North sea. The Prime Minister wants to talk about re-industrialisation without giving British companies or businesses the tools they need to achieve that. As the Leader of the Opposition stated:

“The future of our country’s busiest airport is not a regional matter”

That is why I take issue with some of the speeches made by Members today. This is a matter for the country and for the Prime Minister, so, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, he needs to “stop faffing about” and “get this runway built.”

There has been much discussion today about the level of economic growth that the airport would deliver, to pick up on the intervention made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. However, we should all be able to agree that the project would bring economic benefits. The £17 billion in benefits estimated by Heathrow is a considerable sum. Although I understand that the Department has produced different figures, I ask the Minister what steps the Department is taking to ensure that its economic analysis captures the full benefits for passengers and trade in full and, indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, right across the United Kingdom as well.

Furthermore, the project will increase investment in UK supply chains, create jobs and provide opportunities for new apprenticeships. The chief executive officer of Heathrow said only last week that of the billions in private sector investment, 95% will go into the UK supply chains, alongside more than 100,000 jobs that Heathrow says the project could support.

[Dr Arthur]

The right hon. Gentleman cites the CEO of Heathrow airport, but he will be aware that none of the airlines back his plan to expand the airport. Can he explain that, and what do he and the CEO know about this plan that the airlines do not?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with “Erskine May”, page 488, which makes it clear that when you have not been present for the bulk of the debate, it is not polite to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman who has the floor now needs to bring his remarks to a conclusion to give maximum time to the Minister.

[Mr Holden]

Thank you very much, Sir John. I will just say that there are clearly vested interests on all sides. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West does not think that existing airlines with existing slots have vested interests, he is living on a different planet. With the most recent economic figures showing a contraction in construction output, how on earth can we justify failing to provide clarity about such a significant infrastructure project?

From the outset, it has felt that the Department for Transport was trying to catch up with announcements made by the Treasury and Prime Minister. Now it appears that progress might be stalled by No. 10 instead. I am afraid that the non-answers we have seen from the Government to date demonstrate a lack of seriousness on their part. I hope that the Minister can encourage his more senior colleagues to provide some of that certainty, and maybe he can provide even more today.

15:39

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to today’s debate. I thank the hon. Members in attendance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for bringing this important debate to the House.

Hon. Members may have noticed that I am not the Aviation Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather) is attending Committee proceedings on the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill. However, I am here as the Minister for Local Transport. I care deeply about the impacts of the expansion on the wider transport network. That means considering how people travel to and from the airport and ensuring that transport infrastructure is able to meet future demand while supporting local communities.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will make a bit of progress, if the hon. Member does not mind. We are a bit short on time.

I may not be able to respond to every question raised during the debate, as the Government are currently considering the consultation responses, and parliamentary scrutiny of the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement—or HENPS—remains ongoing. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt those processes or prejudge any future decisions while that work remains under way. However, I will ensure that hon. Members receive responses in due course to any points that I am unable to cover.

This Government recognise Heathrow’s critical role as the UK’s only hub airport, connecting businesses and passengers to global markets and supporting trade, tourism and investment across the country.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am still going to make a bit of progress; I have limited time, and I want to reply to the points raised.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Government published the draft HENPS consultation in June. That set out the proposed planning policy framework for expansion and the requirements that any future scheme would need to meet, including the Government’s four tests on economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise.

As I have noted, we are carefully considering the more than 27,000 responses received and will also consider the recommendations of the Transport Committee. Any finalised HENPS would also be subject to parliamentary consideration, including a debate and a vote in the House, before it could have legal effect.

The draft HENPS does not grant development consent for expansion. Only when a national policy statement has been designated can proposals for a development consent order be brought forward. Any future proposal by a promoter of expansion would still need to progress through the statutory development consent order process and demonstrate that it met the requirements of the relevant policy framework. It is for potential promoters to determine the timetable and sequencing of their proposals, and for the Government to put the right frameworks in place. Any potential promoter bringing forward a scheme of this scale and complexity will need to balance pace with deliverability, affordability and value for money for passengers.

Given the current stage of the consultation process and the ongoing period of parliamentary scrutiny, I will not seek to pre-empt those processes, and my remarks today should be considered in that context. The Government will provide a more substantive update to the House once we are in a position to do so. That said, I will address some of the points raised during today’s debate where I can.

[John McDonnell]

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

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I will come on to ultrafine particles in a bit. First, turning to the four tests—economic growth being the first—expansion could generate economic growth across the country, with updated analysis indicating potential cumulative benefits of between £39 billion and £52 billion to UK passengers and the wider economy, including lower fares, increased flight frequencies and fewer delays.

[Ayoub Khan]

With any infrastructure project, there will obviously be a balance between growth and the economy on the one hand, and the impact on the environment and many families on the other. In this case, it seems that the growth does not outweigh the negative impact. May I digress a little? It may be unsurprising that we do not have transport infrastructure, given the cost to drivers who have to park at airports. Sixteen of the top 20 airports across the UK have faced an increase of more than 33% in six months. Drivers are calling it an absolute rip-off; 81% of those surveyed agree. Will the Minister consider reducing the costs, or involving himself in that?

[Simon Lightwood]

I am sure that the Aviation Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s message and will be delighted to respond to him.

Any promoter must give evidence that expansion will deliver benefits across the country, not just locally. Analysis published alongside the draft HENPS indicates that up to 40% of the estimated GDP growth is expected to accrue in regions outside London and the south-east.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will, for the final time.

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his limited time. Many of my constituents in Ealing Southall have responded to the consultation. Noise has been a particular concern, so I hope that he will manage to make some remarks on how realistic steeper landing approaches and new aircraft technology might be in addressing noise.

I also want to talk about jobs. The Minister talks about growth. Many of my constituents work at the airport, and their worry is that if the expansion does not go ahead, we will lose our status as a hub airport and their jobs might be at risk in the future. Is the Minister able to say anything to reassure the many workers from my constituency in good-quality jobs at Heathrow airport?

[Simon Lightwood]

Once again, I am sure the Aviation Minister will have heard my hon. Friend, and I will go on to address some of those issues.

The draft HENPS introduces a new test requiring potential promoters for development consent to demonstrate, through a clear, evidence-based growth strategy, how their scheme will support economic activity and growth at national, regional and local levels.

I will move on to climate change. The draft HENPS contains a clear climate change requirement whereby any increase in carbon emissions resulting from a proposed scheme must not be so significant that it would have a material impact on the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets. For expansion to proceed, it would need to align with the Government’s climate goals, including our legal commitment to reach net zero by 2050. Any increase in carbon emissions associated with Heathrow expansion would need to be considered against the Government’s carbon reduction targets and the mitigation requirements set out in the draft HENPS.

On air quality, the draft HENPS is also clear that a scheme for Heathrow expansion must demonstrate that it will not result in any new breaches of legal obligations on air quality or make existing breaches materially worse. As part of that, the draft HENPS sets out mitigations that a potential promoter should consider to minimise the impact of the project on the environment and affected communities.

Finally, the draft HENPS sets out a noise test requiring overall aircraft noise to be limited and, where reasonably possible, reduced in comparison with 2024, taking into account quieter aircraft and operating procedures while providing adequate and predictable respite for communities. The mitigations should include a runway alternation scheme and a scheduled night flight ban. The draft HENPS currently requires an applicant to propose a scheduled night flight ban of six and a half hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, as part of their proposed mitigations of the noise impacts. Expansion would increase capacity, which may provide greater operational flexibility and allow aircraft to land more efficiently, potentially reducing reliance on extended holding patterns. That could benefit people living in the areas currently affected by noise from aircraft in holding patterns before landing.

Through the consultation, we are listening carefully to views across all four tests. However, I want to make it clear that we recognise that noise and air quality are particularly important to many local residents, and we are committed to ensuring that those concerns are fully considered as part of the process.

The draft HENPS also makes it clear that Heathrow expansion must be supported by a credible surface access strategy that enables more journeys to be made on public transport and reduces pressure on the wider transport network. The draft HENPS defines clear passenger public transport mode share targets. However, the onus will be on any potential promoter to demonstrate through the development consent order process that their proposed approach can credibly achieve those targets. Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, and the Government have been consistently clear that it must be privately financed.

[Mr Holden]

On the DCO process for surface access targets, could the Minister address the point about drop-off charges? That is important for the surface access proposals being put forward by the Government.

[Simon Lightwood]

I am sure the Aviation Minister will have more to say on that. There has been much in the media about the Government looking at this area, and I am sure the Aviation Minister will continue to engage with hon. Members on airport drop-offs.

On affordability, Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, as I have said, and the Government have been consistently clear that it must be privately financed. That includes the surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport. The Civil Aviation Authority is continuing to develop the future regulatory framework for expansion, including by considering how costs are assessed, managed and, where appropriate, recovered. The CAA’s primary duty is to protect the interests of consumers, and affordability will be important.

Hon. Members mentioned the consultation period. We believe that a consultation period of more than 10 weeks was proportionate for reviewing amendments to an existing national policy statement, rather than a brand-new statement. The consultation period was designed to take into account the summer holiday period. It was carried out in accordance with section 7 of the Planning Act 2008 and in line with the Cabinet Office consultation principles, which require consultations to last for a proportionate amount of time.

Hon. Members also mentioned the Climate Change Committee, which has identified one potential pathway and important conditions that it considers necessary. We are considering that advice alongside the wider evidence and will set out the Government’s conclusions in our formal response.

I thank all Members for attending today’s debate. As noted, the Government will give due regard to the recommendations of the Transport Committee, alongside the responses received during the consultation, before determining the next steps on Heathrow expansion. Without wishing to prejudge the process, any finalised HENPS will be subject to parliamentary consideration, including a debate and vote in this House, before it can have legal effect, giving hon. Members the opportunity to consider the proposal and exercise their right to vote either for or against it.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call Fleur Anderson to wind up the debate, let me say that the Minister has stepped in for the Aviation Minister, who I appreciate is on other ministerial business and has committed to writing to a number of colleagues to deal with specific issues. I want to put it on the record that that commitment has been made, and I expect it to happen.

15:52

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the Minister for stepping in. I recognise that he is a very responsible Minister in answering the local transport questions that have been raised time and again in this debate. I look forward to hearing answers about what the strategy will be. There is a huge hole in this project, although that is not the only thing to be concerned about.

I say to all those listening and to those who will be responding to the consultation, which will start on 27 October and continue until 22 December, that there are some concerns for those of us who live in London; we have heard the concerns about the noise and air pollution, and the very serious concerns about health. I welcome the respite information given by the Minister and the commitment to listen carefully to my constituents in Putney and others about the impact that any change to night flights would have, as well as the impact of all the proposed changes throughout the day. Although we do not yet know where the flightpaths will be, we know that far more people across London will be affected, so everyone who lives in London should respond to the consultation.

Those people who do not live in London should also respond and should look at the promises that are being made but not delivered—promises for economic growth across the country. There will not be “hope in every heart” or increased “growth in every postcode” from this development, although there will be a huge number of promises being made by Heathrow. Heathrow asked the Government whether it could increase its funding from airlines by £340 million to fund the promotion of this project, so people across the country should expect to be lobbied very hard about it. They should also expect huge figures to be discussed, but they should look into the assumptions behind them. To passengers, I say that there will be increased fares from this highly indebted company, because it will not be footing the bill.

I thank the Minister for looking into this—

[John McDonnell]

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

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that this debate has lifted the lid on some aspects of Heathrow as a company and that it is a highly indebted company and a very thin company with not a lot of financial backing to it. That puts at risk this whole project, which would come to the Government’s door if it fails, but it also puts jobs at risk, in addition to all the fear and worry of our constituents about the project going ahead. Will it just run into the sand and be a millstone around the Government’s neck?

This debate has also lifted the lid on the four tests. Can they really be met? That is a question that, as MPs concerned about the issue, we have asked many times. Unless the goalposts are being moved through the Heathrow expansion national policy statement so that they are so wide that anyone could meet the requirements, then, if the four tests are really going to be strong and serious tests, I cannot see how they can be met and how this project can go ahead. But I welcome the consultation that is coming up, and I encourage as many people as possible to get involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Heathrow airport expansion.

15:57

Sitting suspended.

Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I will call Melanie Onn to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am really pleased to have secured this debate, and I am grateful to the colleagues who have come to participate in it. Statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers is an important and pressing matter, not only to those in the Chamber but to thousands of households, and it goes to the heart of the Government’s aim to support families and ensure that no child is left behind.

When a child can no longer live with their parents, it is often grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or close family friends who step forward to offer them a loving home. Across the UK, more than 150,000 children are growing up in kinship care, and many have experienced trauma, loss or significant upheaval. At precisely the moment they need stability and reassurance, the people offering them that security can find themselves facing an impossible choice between caring for a child they love and keeping their job. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care, I have heard numerous accounts from young people and carers of just how much of a difference a family safety net can make to a child’s life outcomes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, a record 4,287 children are in the care system. Some 83% of those are in foster care, and a large proportion are placed in kinship arrangements. Because there is no statutory paid leave, nearly 30% of local kinship carers have been forced to give up their jobs entirely, pushing families into financial hardship. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should be pressing the Minister to introduce a statutory right to paid leave for every kinship carer across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Member makes an incredibly important point on behalf of his constituents. Over 40% of those foster care placements are kinship arrangements. That is a significant number of families, and they should not be forced to decide between continuing to work or looking after a child. The decision is not a difficult one—their decision will always be to look after a child who comes to them in traumatic circumstances. We should not rely on kinship carers taking unpaid leave, which can put in jeopardy their career, their household finances and the security with which the child moves into their home. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

rose—

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

rose—

[Melanie Onn]

We are very popular! I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the Lady.

[Perran Moon]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us this debate. Does she agree that, with over a thousand children in kinship care in Cornwall, kinship carers play a vital role in keeping vulnerable children in loving family networks, and that when 45% of kinship carers lose their job after taking on the care of a child, we must do more to ensure that those carers receive the support that they need?

[Melanie Onn]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The concern for kinship carers is that they either have to give up work voluntarily or fall foul of their employer’s terms and conditions merely by taking on the moral duty of caring for a child. Introducing statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers would send a signal in society that we recognise the importance of family arrangements and that those family arrangements extend not just to birth parents, adoptive parents or foster parents, but to kinship families as well.

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Earlier this month I attended a kinship event in Whitton in my constituency for Kinship Care Week. I met a local woman who had worked as a probation officer in the Ministry of Justice for 20 years. She stepped up suddenly—overnight—to take care of her best friend’s daughter when her best friend was no longer able to do so. The Ministry of Justice had no policy on kinship leave. It was only thanks to her very sympathetic boss that she was able to take a combination of sick leave and annual leave, which allowed her to have some paid and some unpaid time off. Does the hon. Lady agree that both the public and private sectors need to offer statutory paid leave for kinship carers, as a number of leading employers wrote in a letter to the Business Secretary last week?

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Member makes a powerful point. She is right—as she so often is—that we should not expect these carers to rely on the good will of their employers. The Government have made good strides in having the term “kinship” recognised across Government. We now have the ambassador and pilots across the country, which I will come to later. Strides have been made, but to have this codified and recognised legislatively would spread the word.

There have been good examples of private sector employers offering paid leave for kinship carers, which is incredibly welcome, but they need to be as aware as they can be. It is much easier to notify the public sector of changes through Government, but the private sector might not always be so aware. There is a big opportunity if the Government are prepared to consider this closely and bring forward the outcome of the review that they are undertaking.

We celebrated Kinship Care Week earlier this month. I was pleased to welcome the Minister for children and families—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister)—to Blundell Park in Cleethorpes to meet some of our remarkable and dedicated local kinship carers and impressive council staff from the children’s services team. I am proud to have secured north-east Lincolnshire as one of the seven areas selected for the Government’s new kinship zones programme. We have already seen more than 450 children in north-east Lincolnshire benefit from a pilot of wraparound, integrated social services support and a financial package on a par with foster carers.

The conversations I had that day remind us how much more there is to do. Kinship care arrangements often happen with little or no warning. Families can be given as little as an hour to decide whether they can take in a child—or several children—with whom they may not have the closest of relationships. They may have children of their own or other family responsibilities in the home. There is enormous emotional pressure and often a sense of guilt when the alternative may be sending a child formally to enter the care system.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for being such a powerful champion for kinship carers across the country. Those crucial early moments are vital for any parent but, unlike with traditional parental leave, kinship carers often have to understand the caring responsibilities they are taking on at incredibly short notice, and likely against a much more traumatic backdrop than most parents have to wrestle with. It cannot be right that they do not have any access to paid leave, so they can be there for the child’s formative moments. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s parental leave review is a powerful opportunity to put that injustice right?

[Melanie Onn]

My hon. Friend is right that this is a real opportunity—a pivotal moment, really—for the Government to put right a long-standing inequity in provision for different family arrangements. I look forward to the Minister setting out in more detail how far the Government have got with looking at that review, and when we can hope to see an outcome.

Once a decision is made by the carer, children can arrive with little more than the clothes they are wearing. Carers may have no knowledge of their medical or dietary needs. Suddenly, they find themselves navigating school arrangements. It could be a grandmother navigating school arrangements, when the difference in systems is vast, and coping with new appointments and the needs of a traumatised child, often with little practical support.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument and is a powerful advocate for kinship carers and the children they care for. When the Education Committee took evidence on this issue during our special educational needs and disabilities inquiry, Kinship stated that 47% of all children in kinship care have some sort of special educational need. That underlines that we should be giving kinship carers statutory paid leave so that they can meet the child’s complex needs.

[Melanie Onn]

I was not aware that the Education Committee did that inquiry. It goes very well with an inquiry that the APPG on kinship care did recently on the SEND needs of children in kinship care. Across Parliament, Members who have connections with kinship care communities recognise that children often arrive with additional needs, and that families often have no experience of managing or dealing with that. If a person in work, regardless of what their job is, is suddenly expected to provide for the needs of a child—it could be a physical need, or a mental, emotional or cognitive need—they have to figure it out, and in this day and age we should not expect them to take unpaid leave to navigate their way through that. They are stepping forward to provide safety and stability—the same level of care that we expect foster carers to provide. If the state provides foster care for a child in need, we make available all the necessary support, including the right to paid leave, but kinship carers are not currently entitled to that.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is a tremendous advocate for kinship carers up and down this country. On more than one occasion, she has mentioned the circumstances that ordinary people find themselves in when faced with relations, close friends or potentially their own kids going into care. It is very emotional.

Lots of people who accept kinship carers, such as Linda Watson in my constituency, feel the need to ensure that their children are not taken into care. They need to give them the best possible start in life, or the best way in life, at whatever age they are. A lot of kinship carers believe that a pat on the back, a rub on the back of the neck, a pat on the head and a big thank you are not enough. They need financial support so that they can give these kids, who are already in a difficult position with their family life and all the rest of it, a good start in life. In order to do that, kinship carers need the right support; they need adequate financial support.

[Melanie Onn]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful contribution. To build on that, eight in 10 kinship carers who leave their work never return to paid employment. This is not just a short-term problem; it can lead to lifelong issues.

The Government have pledged to ensure that people are in work for the long term, and they are setting an example of what work means, but providing sufficient flexibility in our employment law is the right way to go to ensure that these families can be self-sufficient while providing support and love for the child. They should be able to earn a living without being penalised. My constituent Lucy was in the same position as the constituent of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson): she had to take a mix of sick leave and compassionate leave, which her employer very kindly jumbled together. She said, “Why should my kids be disadvantaged because the system doesn’t recognise them and doesn’t really work for them?”

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

What my hon. Friend is pointing out, but has not quite said yet, is that we are also thinking about the long-term costs for society. Families that step forward stop a child going into care, which is much more expensive and much more traumatic for the young person. A phased period of going back to work before going back fully stops a carer having to call on the state for support over their lifetime. The Government ought to think about this not as a potential extra cost burden somewhere, but as an investment and a genuine preventive measure that saves money while improving outcomes. What is not to like?

[Melanie Onn]

I could not agree more. Independent analysis commissioned by the Family Rights Group says that paid kinship leave could return over £2 into the economy for every £1 invested, so double the support provided to these families goes back into the local economy.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. I want to go further on the point about investment and the comparison between kinship care and foster care that she mentioned earlier. One of my constituents has been a kinship carer for three children for nine years. She is also a foster carer for her grandson. She reports that because of his legal status, it has been easier for her to access the support she needs for him than for the three children she cares for as a kinship carer. Does my hon. Friend agree that introducing paid employment leave for kinship carers is not about special treatment, but about equal treatment?

[Melanie Onn]

I do. We should hold that in our minds as we go forward and look into the review in more detail. We are looking at the issue of equal treatment for all families and making sure that some are not treated differently to others.

I am aware of my time coming to a close; the Minister will want to respond to the many points that have been made. There have been some good examples of private companies, including Tesco and B&Q, two really big retail employers, that have already recognised the need for change ahead of the curve and offer paid kinship leave. Around 76%—three quarters—of employers support a Government-funded statutory entitlement. It is clear that there is more to be done to help kinship families to contribute economically and realise financial security.

There are some practical questions about how a statutory entitlement would work, particularly when caring arrangements happen suddenly. There are credible proposals and we have a real opportunity to make meaningful progress. We can give kinship carers a statutory right to paid employment leave akin to that of adoptive and other working parents. That would keep thousands of carers out of the welfare system, helping to reduce strain on it. It would return economic benefits through carers remaining in employment with higher tax revenue and better outcomes for children. Most importantly, it would give children the protected time they deserve to heal from trauma and settle into their new homes. It is therefore crucial that the Government’s parental leave and pay review finally closes this unfair gap in the law and delivers the first ever statutory right to pay and leave for kinship carers.

A great deal has been achieved. The Government deserve recognition for already having taken some important steps, but we can do much more, not least ensuring that carers have the time and financial security to be able to provide kinship care.

16:19

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) for securing this important debate. Since she was elected to this place, she has done incredible work to champion the voices and issues of kinship carers in every room and at every opportunity. I also thank colleagues across parties for all their work in raising the important issue of kinship carers at every opportunity, with me directly and with colleagues across Government.

I begin by recognising that, as we have heard, kinship carers often step forward at extremely short notice and in immensely difficult circumstances. Many of the children involved will be experiencing some of the most turbulent and crucial days or weeks of their lives, and may have experienced bereavement, family breakdown, separation, instability or trauma. At precisely that moment, a grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling, other relative or family friend may be asked to make a lifechanging commitment.

I also acknowledge the brilliant work of kinship advocacy organisations, such as Kinship and the Family Rights Group, which continue to campaign and work diligently to raise awareness of the role of kinship carers, many of whom might not even recognise themselves as kinship carers. Those organisations continue to engage constructively with me and the Government to bring forward important evidence and insights into the experience of kinship families. Their work is incredibly appreciated, and helps us to understand not only the scale of kinship care but the practical realities facing carers and children.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes for inviting me to a recent meeting of the APPG that she chairs, where I had the opportunity to hear directly from a kinship carer about their experiences. Their contribution was moving, was instructive to the requirements from Government moving forwards, and underlined the importance of listening to and putting at the forefront the voices of kinship carers. Their real-life experiences are exactly what the Government are considering in our review.

Kinship carers provide love, stability and continuity at what can be an incredibly difficult time. Colleagues raised stories that they have heard directly from their constituents; I have heard stories from mine too. Amanda, who is a kinship carer in my constituency, took the time to meet me at my surgery recently. She provides incredible support to kinship carers across my constituency, and talks so openly about her experience. I know that colleagues have also heard from their constituents, and I thank them for raising those experiences today. I want people’s experience in the workplace, and their reflections on when they have unfortunately not experienced that, to shape not only this issue but my wider brief.

Of course, taking on the responsibility of being a kinship carer can mean significant emotional, practical and financial pressures, often with very little notice. I recognise not only their importance and contribution, but the challenges they face. At the APPG meeting, we talked a lot about the Family Rights Group data showing that eight in 10 kinship carers who left work have never returned to paid employment. That is a really stark statistic. I cannot even imagine the difficult position that kinship carers will be in of, as my hon. Friend alluded to, having to make the impossible decision between looking after a child who needs them at such an important time in their life, and their job. That insight is particularly valuable as we consider the evidence in the parental leave and pay review, and in wider work to support kinship families.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on her years of hard work on this issue and on securing this debate. The Government’s core mission is to provide stable, loving homes for every child. That policy happens to have come out of the Department for Education, but the issue we are discussing spans across the Department for Business, the Department for Work and Pensions, and so on. Does the Minister agree that this issue is a fantastic example of where proper cross-Government work, pulling in the same direction, could produce outcomes for young people that are greater than the sum of the different policy parts?

[Kate Dearden]

On that note, I pay tribute to the brilliant Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for all his incredible work on kinship carers. I absolutely recognise the importance of cross-Government and cross-Department work on the issue, and I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that our intention is to work in a joined-up way to support kinship carers throughout their lives, and to look at where we need to go further and do better. That is why this debate is welcome and important, as we consider the parental leave and pay review.

Of course, colleagues will be fully aware of the significance of the work being undertaken in the Department for Education, from the kinship allowance pilot, which will provide kinship carers with a weekly allowance equivalent to the fostering national minimum allowance for each eligible child, to the work being done in the light of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. I thank colleagues for welcoming that work.

I also want to use this opportunity to update colleagues on the parental leave and pay review, which sits in my Department and is cross-working with the Department for Work and Pensions. There are, rightly, lots of Departments involved with this, because it is not just one part of life that is impacted for kinship carers—it is across everything. We recognise that support for the carer and support for the child cannot be easily separated. Giving a carer the time and support needed to help a child settle may contribute to the stability of that arrangement. That is why it is right that we are considering the experiences of kinship families across departmental boundaries—social care, employment policy, education and the wider support available to families.

We are committed to reviewing the wider system. Colleagues will know that the review was launched in July 2025, and that is why we are considering all the current parental leave and pay entitlements, as well as the experiences and needs of working families who do not qualify for existing leave and pay entitlements, including kinship carers.

We are jointly leading the review and engaging with a broad range of stakeholders. Again, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has fed into the review for their patience, as we are taking the time to go through as much evidence as possible, including roundtables and bilateral meetings, as well as meetings with me, other colleagues who are in the Chamber today and parental advocacy groups that represent kinship carers. The review will conclude in early 2027 with a set of findings that outline the next steps for implementing any reforms. I know there is significant interest in what the review will conclude.

[Gareth Snell]

When I hear talk of an end to a review my heart sinks because, in Government time, these reviews can take forever. Although it may conclude in 2027, can the Minister give the House an indication of how quickly after that point the Department and the Government will feel able to publish the outcomes of the review and the next steps, so that we will not need to wait a year or so to know what its conclusions are.

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend is right to push me and my colleagues on this issue. I am unable today to pre-empt recommendations, as he knows. But I know how important this is and will keep him up to date with timelines and progress. He has my firm commitment today that we are moving at pace.

We are taking our time to review the evidence, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are considering the issue and how best we can assure kinship carers holistically and across departmental boundaries. I hope that people watching today, including kinship carers, feel my commitment and determination. I know how importance this is; a week and a day can make such a difference to kinship carers’ lives.

That is why it has been really important for us to engage with as many people as possible and acknowledge the wider campaigns outside this room from trade unions, business representatives and employers, who are already going above and beyond. I thank them for it, as well as for highlighting the case for the current position and joining the calls that have been made in the Chamber today.

To conclude, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes for raising the issue and giving us the opportunity to have this debate today. I also thank everyone for their engagement, here and outside this room, as well as our kinship carers, who are absolutely incredible people.

I am so moved and grateful every time I meet with them, and I know other colleagues are too. I hope they hear my commitment and determination to support them today and ensure that future support is practical, sustainable and focused on improving the outcomes for children and families. With that, I conclude my remarks and hand back over to my hon. Friend.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I do not think you get a chance to wind-up, Melanie, in half-hour debates, but as we have extra time, you can have 30 seconds.

16:29

[Melanie Onn]

Thank you! I think it is favouritism. I thank the charities Kinship and the Family Rights Group for their campaigning on this issue. If the Government want people to remain economically active and financially stable, to provide that stability necessary for the child or children, we have to take this forward. I am grateful to the Minister for her generosity in hearing everybody.

We have had lots of contributions from Members today, as well as the dreaded, famous “at pace” comment. We will continue to keep up the pressure from our side. We need to get this right for every child who will go through this process while we are waiting. There will be a huge number of such children between now and next year. We owe them, and they deserve for us to get it right.

Question put and agreed to.

House of Lords Reform

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered House of Lords reform.

It is a pleasure to bring this debate to Parliament as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on House of Lords reform. A few weeks ago, I showed a group of United States doctors around Parliament, which involved sitting in the Public Gallery of the House of Lords, looking at the King Charles throne, the Woolsack and a scattering of some quite elderly peers. One doctor said, “How do these guys get in here?”. When I answered that they were appointed by their mates, they all laughed—surely I was joking. Sadly, I was not joking.

Reform of the House of Lords has been on the cards for centuries. The House was actually abolished in 1649, but was reinstated a few years later, and it has been the subject of intense debate ever since. The idea of unelected peers having inherited access to Parliament alongside crony appointees controlling the laws that Parliament produces is clearly ridiculous. It is no wonder that the crisis of confidence in our political system is at an all-time high.

This Government have actually taken quite big strides—probably more than others—on the long overdue removal of hereditary peers. I also welcome proposals to impose a retirement age and a minimum participation requirement, but we cannot afford to push this constitutional necessity further down the road. I will take this opportunity to set out the case for reform of the House of Lords and how we can go about implementing it.

The function of our second Chamber is to scrutinise and amend legislation passed by the elected Commons. There are many exceptional Lords who do a really good job at that, but their contribution is undermined by their complete lack of legitimacy. It is simply not right that our Parliament has more unelected lawmakers than lawmakers with a mandate from the people. During the Makerfield by-election, the Prime Minister called it “scandalous” and expressed support for an early change to the Lords.

One of the things that has most surprised me is learning that the House of Lords remains a self-governing institution. In the last session, we saw a handful of unelected peers, many of whom were rejected by the voters at the last election, abuse that fact to stall the progression of legislation passed by the elected Commons.

The other place is also deeply unrepresentative of our country. Over 55% of peers live in London and the south-east. I know that our Prime Minister is very concerned with that, and that he has called for a senate of nations and regions to replace the Lords, so that every corner of our country is properly represented in both of our Chambers.

The public also want change. Only 16% support the current status quo; 70% have little or no confidence in the institution, and a majority want an entirely elected upper Chamber. The voters gave a very clear mandate for a Labour manifesto that included a commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber, more representative of the regions and nations.

What could a second Chamber look like? That is a complex issue; we should convene a commission of citizens and experts to decide on its role and make-up. It should still absolutely be possible to retain the expertise that we have there, and that is exactly what our manifesto has committed us to.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has made a good start on setting out his case. However, does he not see the irony in calling for an appointed committee of the public and experts to look at how democratic the House of Lords is?

[Dr Opher]

I would say that we need experts to look at how our democracy works and to devise a better way of doing it.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Does he agree that such a consultative process might well come about from a Bill that my noble Friend, Baroness Smith of Llanfaes, has introduced to the second Chamber? It should indeed be for the experts to provide some ideas, and for us and members of the public to consult on the best way forward for the second Chamber.

[Dr Opher]

I have been working with Baroness Smith on her Bill. We need to get the great minds of this country to devise a good political system, one that reflects our country and gives us our best government.

I suggest that we need a commission to look into the matter. That commission could take many experts. How it is actually constituted remains something we can debate. The Government have announced a commission on electoral reform; maybe that could be extended to examine the composition of the second Chamber, because that would be a holistic approach to the system. I see some hon. Members shaking their heads.

I will briefly touch on an issue that many hon. Members care about: the lack of transparency in the other place. According to research by Transparency International UK, 128 peers hold paid political advisory roles that risk breaching parliamentary rules. We must strengthen the House of Lords code of conduct to put beyond doubt that legislators who serve in the House of Lords should not be lobbyists. Since 2013, almost a quarter of all nominations from political parties have been political donors—that is the ultimate cronyism.

I know many hon. Members wish to speak, so in conclusion I ask the Minister to meet with the APPG on House of Lords reform to discuss how the Government intend to fulfil their manifesto commitment to consult the public on an alternative second Chamber. Will the Minister consider expanding the remit of the commission on electoral reform to cover the role and composition of the other place? It is time—to quote someone who I do not normally agree with— to “take back control.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they want to be called to speak. I see that a number of Members are bobbing, so I will give priority to those who applied early to speak in the debate.

16:37

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir John. I have been a Member of Parliament for 25 years, probably longer than anyone else in this debate, and I believe that the House of Lords, for all its faults over the years, provides a balance to an elected Chamber. I am afraid to say that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) misses the point of the House of Lords. We do not want another elected Chamber to rival the House of Commons. We need a house of experts—or elders, if you like, Sir John—people with knowledge, expertise and experience who have served this country over many decades in different walks of life.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

In a moment. We need also those who represent continuity. Sir John, you will know better than most that continuity is the foundation of the success of this nation. To ignore what has gone on in the past and to lose all that continuous wisdom from the ages is pure vandalism. We do not want another elected set of politicians who we know will be, effectively, appointed by party headquarters—the leader’s favourites will be put on some list and put into the House of Lords, even though many of them would prefer to be in the House of Commons—as a second set of politicians.

I want a House of Lords that is depoliticised in many ways, so I am not keen on the fact that Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have put so many people into the Lords who were friends of the leader at the time, or special advisers to Ministers and suchlike. What I want to see is more people who are truly representative of the whole country but can provide knowledge, expertise and experience to make our parliamentary democracy stronger and better.

It cannot be right that a political party that came third at the last general election has zero representation in the House of Lords. There are 80 Lib Dem peers, yet their party received 600,000 fewer votes than Reform UK. The Greens, I believe, have three representatives—

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Two.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Two? Okay. Plaid Cymru also has representatives. The Democratic Unionist party has six, but only five MPs. The thing is disproportionate. There should at least be representation of all political parties. Based on the votes at the last election, there certainly need to be a number of Reform UK Members of the House of Lords.

[Mike Martin]

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?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Member will know that the way it works in the House of Lords is that it is based on party appointments. The Prime Minister will make nominations; so will the Leader of the Opposition; so will the leader of the Liberal Democrats; so will the leader of the Greens. They will nominate a sprinkling of new peers every so often, usually once a year. Well, where was the invitation for the leader of Reform UK to nominate a number of Reform UK Members of the House of Lords? The hon. Member must surely accept that that is very wrong when we consider that Reform UK was the third largest party in terms of votes at the last election.

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will in a moment. I go back to my original argument: we are getting this wrong. We will regret the day that we become just one of two elected Chambers. We will regret that day. It will create a rivalry between two sets of elected politicians, who will both claim to be truly representative of the people who have put them there, instead of having the primacy of the elected House of Commons—ultimately, we are elected by the people of this country and we can make the final decision through the Parliament Acts. At the end of the day, we do not actually have to be obedient to the House of Lords.

What I do know is that, within the House of Lords, there is an opportunity to have people with enormous knowledge and expertise, whether they are former Cabinet Ministers, former ambassadors or high commissioners, heads of industry, heads of trade unions or representatives of the different faith groups. It is good to have people like that. It is right that we still have the established Church of England represented through the bishops; although, these days, they are rather more to the left than I would like, they still represent the established Church of this country.

[Dr Opher]

I thought that, in Reform’s manifesto, it was going to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a much smaller, more democratic second Chamber.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Well, I did not stand on that manifesto. I joined Reform UK after that manifesto. I can tell the hon. Member now that that is not our policy today. We are not going to abolish the House of Lords. We are not going to engage in constitutional vandalism.

Throughout the ages, we have evolved our constitutional and parliamentary democracy in a way that has given us strength and continuity, and has allowed us to change not in some radical direction, whereby minorities and people with vested interests can finish up controlling the institutions of this country, but in a way that is evolution rather than revolution. There is no requirement to abolish the House of Lords. There should not be an elected second Chamber.

New Zealand got rid of its second Chamber, so it has only one elected Chamber. I would prefer that, frankly, to a second load of politicians in the House of Lords who wish that they were MPs, but could not get there, so they were put in place by their friends in party headquarters. We do not want that. If we eventually do abolish the upper House, frankly it would be better just to have one Chamber than to have a second elected Chamber, because there would be rivalry between the two.

Look at it like this: if we choose carefully, change the system and make it more meritocratic in terms of experience, knowledge and the kind of people who we really want in the House of Lords, we will be buying in expertise at low cost. Otherwise, we will be paying consultants and experts that work for companies to do an effective job of scrutinising legislation. What is the point of that when we can give someone a peerage? That could be someone with vast knowledge, perhaps someone who has been an ambassador to another country, headed up an important institution or contributed to the establishment of an amazing charity, and who has vast knowledge from that. It could be someone like Sebastian Coe, the Olympic gold medallist who went on to run the London Olympics in 2012. Those people have value, but they will not stand for election, so we would lose all of them—[Interruption.] Well, they would not stand for election to the Lords.

As I say, we would lose good people. The great and the good would go and we would finish up, as I said earlier, with people who want to be politicians but would have to settle for being second-best. That is not good enough. We should do what we have always done in this country and allow our constitution and our parliamentary democracy to change—yes, change by all means—in a gentle and evolutionary way, so that we do not get rid of a tried and tested system that has lasted for generations and, with all its faults, done this country rather well over the centuries.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I shall call the Front Benchers from 5.10 pm. As you can see, a lot of people are standing, which gives you a feel for how long you have got. So, it is three or four minutes each, I am afraid.

16:46

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.

First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this critical debate. He has been a champion in pursuing long overdue reform to the upper Chamber.

Let me start by saying, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, that I have had the privilege of working with a number of excellent peers who are deeply committed to legislative scrutiny and improving our legislation. There are many members of the Lords who perform a vital public service. But good people can still be trapped in a bad system, and the public can see that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has said, why is it acceptable in this country for lawmakers in the upper House to work as lobbyists at the same time? How can the public be expected to trust the system when those shaping legislation can also be paid to influence it? In my old life as a compliance officer, that would not have passed the most basic conflict of interest test and it should not pass such a test in Parliament. Transparency International UK has gone so far as to call the House of Lords:

“a lobbying network for hire.”

If that does not set alarm bells ringing—Transparency International UK is the true expert—I do not know what will.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

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

[Phil Brickell]

I welcome that intervention from my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right to talk about kangaroo courts in Hong Kong and to say that UK lawmakers should not be complicit in supporting them.

While we are asking difficult questions, here is another one: why is it possible to be appointed to the legislature of the United Kingdom and then barely show up? I can think of no other workplace where someone can disappear for months, sometimes even years, and still retain the right to walk back in and take part in making decisions that affect millions of people. An honour should come with responsibilities; membership of Parliament should not be a lifetime pass with no expectation of participation.

Then there is the size of the place. With about 800 peers— 800—the House of Lords is larger than almost every comparable second chamber in the democratic world. When people talk about a bloated state, perhaps they should start by walking through Westminster Hall and turning right at Central Lobby. Nobody seriously believes that adding more peers automatically leads to better scrutiny; what it does lead to is a system that looks increasingly detached from the public it serves.

Also, who gets to participate? The overwhelming majority of working peers are based in London and the south-east, and it is not right that, for example, the north-west— my region—is so under-represented. However, it is hardly surprising, given that the accommodation allowance is £125 a night. That sounds reasonable, but try finding somewhere to stay in central London at that rate. The result is obvious: those with substantial means, or those who live close enough to commute, have a built-in advantage. We should not have a legislature that prices out talents from the nations and regions.

Then there is the transparency. Why do peers not have to declare how much time they spend on outside employment compared with their parliamentary duties? Why do they not have to declare how much they are paid for those jobs? The public are entitled to know where lawmakers are earning their money, and who could be influencing them.

Elsewhere on standards, the new legislation on disgraced peers, announced in the last King’s Speech, is long overdue. Will the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to that proposal? Elsewhere, what progress has been made on the Government’s three other manifesto commitments: first, introducing new participation requirements; secondly, delivering a national and regional balance for the upper Chamber; and finally, and most importantly, reforming the appointments process? Removing the worst offenders is not the same as fixing the system that allowed them through the door, which is why we need stronger suitability and propriety checks through the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The reforms should include putting HOLAC on a statutory footing and giving it an effective veto on demonstrably unsuitable appointments.

Let us tackle one final issue head-on: why should major party donors be rewarded with lifelong seats in the legislature? Public appointments should be earned through service and expertise, not purchased through cheque books. The House of Lords does important work, but many diligent and hard-working peers feel that they are having their reputations dragged through the mud by certain individuals who are exploiting, or who are sometimes actively enabled by, a broken system. We need a smaller House, a cleaner House and a more transparent House. That is not radical; surely it is just common sense.

16:51

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) not only on securing the debate, but on the manner in which he introduced it. I thank him for intervening on the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) to expose the case that he was making. Indeed, the hon. Member for Romford indicated that he was happy to join a party that proposed to abolish the thing that he wants to protect. He wants to depoliticise the thing that he wants to politicise further, and he wishes to maintain continuity of a body by changing it quite radically, according to his proposals.

One of the reasons we are here today is that a small number of Lords made a very eloquent and strong case for their own abolition through the manner in which they treated the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill earlier this year. They spent many months filibustering in order to effectively block that Bill, exceeding the powers that the House of Lords should have. I have often raised the question of why we want a second Chamber, and I think that most people, even the hon. Member for Romford, agree that it is there for sober, independent scrutiny of the legislation that we send down to the Lords. Their role is to encourage us to take a less tribal view on the legislation that we seek to take forward, and to provide expert scrutiny that is helpful for the processes we are engaged in.

However, as the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) put so articulately, the system of patronage is both corrupting and extremely corruptible. Clearly, that needs to be swept away in any reforms to the House of Lords, but the question is: what do we put in its place? I entirely understand the emotional response, which is to say that we should have an elected Chamber, but I want to challenge that idea. I have often said that we want to retain the best of the House of Lords Appointments Commission because it provides at least a template of a helpful function, particularly if we can attract the kind of people that the hon. Member for Romford described, so that a sliver—a proportion, a minority—of Members are selected according to the qualities that they can bring to the place. The rest of it should be on a jury service basis—or in other words, a citizens assembly. That has been proposed by a large number of people and organisations over time.

Of course, I can entirely understand the laudable and emotional response that one elects the Chamber, but there is a risk, which the hon. Member for Romford mentioned, that it becomes either a lapdog or a logjam to this Chamber. In those circumstances—we saw it with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—the Lords would argue that they have the democratic legitimacy to challenge the decisions of the primary Chamber. We do not, for example, say that because board members for the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Climate Change Committee or the Low Pay Commission have power and political influence over the decisions that are taken in our country, they should be elected. On that basis, I am sorry to say that the arguments for an elected Chamber evaporate away.

We need to find other ways of ensuring that we have the genuine and sober second-thought and independent scrutiny that this Chamber needs and deserves. Otherwise, quite frankly, it would be better to turn the place into a museum.

16:56

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate.

When I became an MP more than five years ago, I entered this place with a very open mind about most things, which is perhaps just as well, including about to the role of the House of Lords. I did not feel strongly about the other place one way or the other, but since I have been an MP, I have developed not only a greater understanding of what the Lords do and how they do it, but quite a deep respect for the important role that they play in our democracy. I am supportive of a second Chamber. I believe in an upper House. It scrutinises and revises. It brings fresh eyes, new ideas and, if I may be so bold, decades of experience and expertise. It can make our legislation stronger and our democratic process more robust.

There have been many examples of that over the years. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was strengthened in the Lords, where an amendment introduced a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, closing a gap that had let abusers escape charges. Similarly, Cross-Bench and Opposition peers spearheaded amendments to create a powerful new corporate criminal offence to prevent fraud in the Economic Crime Act and Corporate Transparency 2023, in a significant moment in the fight against economic crime. That is what good revision looks like. It is responsible lawmaking.

However, I come to this debate with direct experience of when the second Chamber has sadly not behaved responsibly or appropriately. As the sponsor of a private Member’s Bill—I think it is fair to say a reasonably well-known piece of legislation, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—I ended up spending a significant amount of time in the Lords.

Following months and months of hard work in the Commons, including countless meetings with outstanding civil servants from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice, a comprehensive Bill Committee that heard from nearly 50 witnesses, and powerful and emotional debates on Second and Third Readings, the Bill made its way to the Lords. It had had over 100 hours of scrutiny. It was examined line by line. It was amended and strengthened, and it passed the elected Chamber with a clear majority on both occasions. Yet despite a clear majority of elected MPs, having engaged at length with their constituents and taken the issue extremely seriously, voting to send the Bill to the other place, what happened next was not what most MPs, however they voted—and more importantly, the public—either expected or deserved.

I was very grateful to the peers who engaged in meaningful scrutiny and discussion about the Bill, and there were many of those. I was in awe at times of their experience and expertise, and it was a pleasure working with them. In some instances we disagreed, but we did so respectfully. Myself and Lord Falconer, the sponsor of the Bill in the other place, were open to making changes to strengthen the legislation. There were amendments that we were happy to accept, and we engaged with peers in good faith. However, nearly 1,200 amendments were tabled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, around half of them came from just seven peers. Looking at the content of many of those amendments, which were inappropriate and at times cruel, it was clear to many that some peers intentionally used every tool at their disposal to bring the legislative process to a standstill.

As we know, the other place, unlike the Commons, is self-regulating. There are no selection of amendments or time limits, so every amendment tabled is likely to be debated. There was seemingly a desire from some peers to slow the process down and disrupt the usual legislative process. In the House of Commons we did our job, but given the shocking example of the amendments tabled in the House of Lords, the same simply cannot be said of the other place.

One peer spoke for four hours and 41 minutes. That is longer than “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” extended edition—a great film, but not the most succinct piece of cinema. I say that not to be disrespectful to the other place, but to ask a simple question: was that responsible behaviour and were Members there fairly and professionally carrying out their role as the second Chamber? I think not.

Then there is the cost. The Lords debate on the Bill cost the taxpayer over £1.7 million in attendance allowances—public money spent so that a Bill could go nowhere. The public have every right to expect good value from their institutions because we work for them. I do not think that anyone can say with a clear conscience that that was a good use of taxpayers’ money.

We also have to look at the make-up of the Chamber: 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords. I have no problem with religion per se, but nobody elected them. They sit solely because of the position they hold. The only other country in the world that gives clerics seats in its legislature in that way is Iran. In a modern, multi-faith, increasingly secular society, is that fit for purpose? We need a second Chamber that supports and challenges.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Is the hon. Lady also calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England? Is she asking that the cross be taken off the Crown so that the Christian foundations of this country are no longer part of our constitutional arrangements?

[Kim Leadbeater]

If I may say so, it is quite a leap of faith to go from the comments I was making about the unelected Chamber to the Church of England, for which I have the utmost respect. I have worked with many people of faith on an agenda around cohesion and the need to bring our communities together—something that I am sure the hon. Member would fully support.

In a multi-faith and increasingly secular society, is it right to have unelected faith leaders in our second Chamber? The Prime Minister himself said:

“I don’t think we can justify half of our national legislature being unelected. I think this is something that is, in many ways, quite scandalous… If you want to cut the cost of politics, that’s the first place to look.”

He has also spoken about his desire to rewire how power works in this country, but we surely cannot do that without looking at the role of the House of Lords. I agree with the Prime Minister and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud: we need a national commission into the future of the House of Lords. I am pleased to speak in support of that today.

17:02

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this important debate.

I represent the Green party. For many years, we have supported the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a fully elected second Chamber. I am personally fairly agnostic about the exact format of how that should be done, but I fundamentally believe that a basic principle of democracy is that the legitimacy of the lawmakers comes from the trust put in them. I am talking about the authority entrusted in the legislature by the people, the voters—not by the people in charge of a political party who draw up a list from time to time, some of which is clearly related to the amount of money donated for years by some of the people who end up in the other place. It is not even through the legitimacy that an individual achieves within their specialised field of expertise because of many long years of practice in that field.

We should absolutely as a Parliament draw on expertise from across the full panoply of sectors in our country, but we need to ask ourselves who should be making the laws. It should be people who work on the basis of the trust given them by the voters, by the people, and on the basis of every vote having equal weight. That is why I am equally passionate about the importance of a proportionally elected Parliament. Fundamentally, we have a system in the House of Lords that is undemocratic and hugely unrepresentative in all sorts of dimensions and areas of demographics. It is untransparent because so much of the decision making about who becomes a Member is done behind closed doors. How can that be suitable for the 21st century? We have a huge problem with not only the composition but the functioning of the House of Lords.

It is, of course, important that legislation is properly scrutinised and that there are full opportunities to amend it. We have questions to ask ourselves in the Commons about how well we do those things and how well our system enables us to, but we do not fix them with an institution such as the House of Lords—no matter how effective individual Members of the Lords may be. Like colleagues here, I pay tribute to the work of so many Members of the Lords who take their role seriously, bring expertise and pay attention to the job that they are there to do. However, as the hon. Member for Stroud has pointed out, there has been a huge failure in the functioning of the House of Lords because, effectively, the will of a few of its Members has overridden the will of the House of Commons. That cannot be right, so we desperately need reform.

I welcome the proposal from the hon. Member for Stroud of a national commission on reform of the House of Lords. To address a point raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), I should say that I would strongly favour the inclusion of a citizen’s assembly as part of that process. I fundamentally believe that a representative sample of the British people, representing all demographics and engaging in the detail and questioning of how we construct our political system, so that the people’s voice is heard, must be a fundamental part of any reform process. We cannot continue as we are—with an undemocratic, unrepresentative, untransparent second Chamber. We must have reform.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. We have time for only one more Back Bencher from the Government side.

17:06

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir John; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this debate.

I am glad that our new Prime Minister has referred to the importance of rewiring the state. We should absolutely rewire this place, and I offer a solution. I, too, have my doubts about an elected upper Chamber, for reasons that hon. Members have already rehearsed. I think we can preserve the best elements of the other place and also improve on its deficiencies. The best elements are obviously its expertise and its ability to scrutinise and revise—although I must note that the behaviour of a minority of peers during the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was absolutely shameful. The deficiencies are its patchy expertise, an opaque selection process, a lack of legitimacy and democracy, and its unrepresentative nature when it comes to demography, geography and ethnicity.

I would rename the other place and call it a senate. Fifty per cent. of its Members would be experts, the other 50% being citizen senators—a point already made by the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). The House of Lords Appointments Commission does a good job in difficult circumstances, but we need a more transparent and open system. I would recommend that experts are appointed from across the range of sectors in our society and given a limited 10-year tenure in office. If the President of the United States can get a lot done in eight years then I am sure that expert senators would be able to do a lot in 10.

The more interesting half of the upper Chamber, as I am envisioning it, would be citizen senators. They should be selected by sortition, which is a form of democracy. They would serve under the same principles as juries: they forgo their political and other biases and serve in the national interest to scrutinise legislation that comes to them from the elected Chamber, which must have primacy.

Let us rewire this place, starting with the other place. Let us inject more expertise, fairly and transparently appointed, and bring people into the heart of this Parliament through a system of citizen senators to improve, not block, legislation, through the lens of national, not party, interest.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call Kit Malthouse. Kit, I can give you a minute if you want.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

In that case, I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Lisa Smart.

17:10

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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.

[Andrew Rosindell]

On that basis, would the hon. Lady abolish Royal Assent for Bills? Does she accept that our constitution is the King in Parliament—the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons? Is she actually arguing for the abolition of the monarchy?

[Lisa Smart]

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—

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady should wind up after this intervention.

[Gareth Snell]

I should declare an interest: my wife is the Deputy Government Chief Whip in the House of Lords. As the hon. Lady will know, the Taylor report is bringing in mandatory House of Lords retirement at age 80, so things are progressing.

[Lisa Smart]

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.

17:15

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The question of House of Lords reform is obviously not new; successive Administrations of all political colours have grappled with it for decades—indeed, for more than a century. They have discovered that constitutional upheaval tends to be far easier to promise in opposition than to deliver successfully in government.

The history reminds us of a fundamental truth: constitutional reform must always be approached with care, caution, balance and a clear understanding of the consequences. We would all agree that the House of Lords is far from perfect—certainly, no one from the official Opposition would suggest otherwise—but it performs a vital constitutional function. It provides thorough legislative scrutiny, brings into Parliament unmatched expertise from the law, science, business and public service, and holds Ministers to account.

Crucially, the House of Lords serves as a vital check on the Executive, ensuring that legislation is properly stress tested and challenging Governments when they get things wrong. Having been a member of the Government Whips Office before the last election, I can say that that is not always convenient for Governments, but it is a core constitutional function. Any sensible reform must preserve and enhance that scrutiny, and never dismantle it purely for political convenience or advantage. That is where we have serious concerns about the Government’s approach.

As has been said, in its 2024 manifesto Labour declared that the House of Lords was too large and promised to reduce its numbers; since then, the Government’s actions have told a rather different story. Even after expelling the hereditary peers, the House of Lords has about 800 Members—more than when the Government first declared that it was bloated. Apparently, the second Chamber is too big unless Downing Street happens to be the one packing the red Benches. I hope the Minister can explain that contradiction. Appointments must reflect the expertise that Parliament requires, not serve as a patronage machine to manufacture a compliant legislature.

There is then the Government’s more radical proposition: abolishing the Lords entirely in favour of an elected senate of the nations and regions. But ambition is no substitute for detail. What powers would such a body possess? How would it be elected? Critically, how would it relate to the democratically elected House of Commons? Those are not minor procedural queries. The fact that the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), the mover of the motion, seems to answer the question by saying that an unelected panel should decide highlights the fact that Labour had no idea what the radical Lords reform in its manifesto meant and had no plan to deliver it.

If an elected second Chamber can claim equal democratic legitimacy, we invite constitutional gridlock, competing mandates and perpetual legislative paralysis. Our parliamentary system works precisely because it respects the primacy of this elected House, and has done for a century and more, while giving the revising Chamber the freedom to scrutinise. We should not discard that balance for an untested experiment. When will the Minister launch the proposed public consultation? Or are the Government expecting Parliament to sign a blank cheque on Lords reform?

Let me turn to immediate measures. The Opposition engaged constructively with the House of Lords Retirement and Participation Committee. We agree that peers must actively contribute; however, we hold grave reservations about an arbitrary retirement age of 80. The distinct value of the other place lies in wisdom, institutional memory and lifetime service, so we should assess peers on the quality of their contribution, not the date on their birth certificate. Sensible reform is possible, just as previous Conservative Governments enabled voluntary retirement and expulsions for misconduct. We are ready to discuss appointments, size and standards, but the constitution belongs not to the Government of the day but to our nation.

[Andrew Rosindell]

On the question of appointments, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is only right that the third largest party in this country should have some representation in the House of Lords today?

[Mike Wood]

It is beyond me to decide who should and should not be in the House of Lords any time soon, but I note that last month the hon. Gentleman’s party leader was talking about flooding the House of Lords with hundreds of new Reform peers, and he said that if that did not work to get Reform’s legislative agenda through, he would have a referendum on abolishing the House of Lords. Reform’s position seems a little confused.

The second Chamber exists not to make life comfortable for Ministers but to hold power to account. The test of any reform is not whether it delivers a pliant Parliament, but whether it serves the British people. That is the test against which His Majesty’s Opposition will hold the Government to account.

17:21

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate, and I thank Members for their contributions to what has been, unsurprisingly, an interesting and enlightening discussion.

Before I respond to some of the specific questions raised, I will first set out the Government’s approach to reforming the House of Lords. The Government have a number of manifesto commitments in this space and are approaching reform of the second Chamber in stages. The first stage is already complete: in the previous Session, Parliament passed legislation to remove the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This important and historic step means that no peer can now be a Member of the House of Lords solely on the basis of birthright.

We are currently in the second stage, and are focused on implementing our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and a participation requirement, which I know Members from all parties are concerned about. For a long time there has been general agreement in both Houses that the second Chamber is too big. However, if we ask more Members of that Chamber to depart by introducing a retirement age, new talent will be required, and new people will need time to learn how to develop expertise and fulfil their duties effectively as Members of the other place.

[Kit Malthouse]

Does the Minister agree that more important than the number of people or how often they attend that House is that it has become clear that individual peers are much more powerful than individual elected Members of Parliament? They have greater privileges and less transparency, and are able to influence legislation to a much greater degree than we are in this elected House. That is fundamentally what lies at the heart of the problem. We can indulge ourselves with tweaks around the edges, as all Governments have done, but in the end, unless we address that fundamental problem, the dissatisfaction will continue.

[Mark Ferguson]

I know the right hon. Gentleman has strong views on this issue, and I am glad he has had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am sure he will continue to contribute. I take his point, but I do not entirely agree. I think the primacy of the House of Commons and of MPs is incredibly important, and I feel that view will, unsurprisingly, be shared in a room full of Members of the House of Commons.

Our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and a participation requirement will have a direct impact on Members of the other place; therefore, during the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026, the Leader of the House of Lords proposed to establish a dedicated Select Committee, to provide the opportunity for the second Chamber to shape how further reforms are delivered. The Retirement and Participation Committee published its report in July, and it was debated in the other place in September. The report was genuinely House-led, with over 100 Members submitting evidence to the Committee. The Government are carefully considering the Committee’s recommendations and will respond substantively later this year. I know that if Members are here for this debate, they will look out for that response.

The historical context of House of Lords reform tells us that an incremental approach is often quite effective. Throughout the 20th century there were various attempts to fully reform the second Chamber. Some passed, but some failed. Of course, there were the Parliament Acts of 1911 and of 1949, but there were also decades of stagnation and stalled attempts. The previous Labour Government managed to introduce the House of Lords Act 1999, reducing the number of hereditary peers from around 700 to 92.

In the 21st century, a royal commission and joint Committee of both Houses were established, alongside the publication of numerous White Papers during the Blair and Brown years. The coalition Government introduced a Bill that was voted down in the House of Commons. None of those attempts were able to bring about lasting reform to the second Chamber.

However, during that time it was possible to pass reforms on expulsion, attendance and resignation that held cross-party consensus. That is why the Government are focused on conducting a staged approach to House of Lords reform. We are focused on delivering outcomes and keeping promises. Rather than attempting to reform the whole House in a single go, our strategy is to implement important initial reforms that meet our objective of having a smaller second Chamber that better represents the country it serves.

The third stage of reform, which has taken up a large proportion of this debate—I will return to some specific points—focuses on the manifesto commitment to consult on proposals to replace the Lords with an alternative second Chamber. The Government recognise that previous public consultations and attempts to reform that House did not bring about lasting change. Nevertheless, the Government want to see a second Chamber that better represents the nations and regions—something I am personally very interested in—and I know that hon. Members share that vision. There are many ways of achieving that goal, and we owe it to the public to get the consultation right.

Let me address some of the specific points made by individual Members. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who referenced the abolition of the House of Lords in 1649. A lot of things happened in 1649, some of which we may not wish to repeat.

It was also enjoyable—and entertaining in a different way—to hear from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I was surprised to hear him say that he wants continuity, given that there has not even been continuity in the party he has represented within this Parliament. I think this country needs to change and I believe that, in his own way, he believes the country needs to change, too—otherwise his recent change of party is somewhat surprising. I enjoyed hearing him dabble in unicameralism; I was not necessarily expecting that point, which was often championed in this place by the former Labour Member Mike Gapes, a proud unicameralist. There are not many of them in the House, so it was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Romford make that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made a point, among many others, about the size and composition of the Lords. The Government believe that all peers should make an active contribution to the House of Lords. There is a general, albeit not universal, consensus that the second Chamber is too big. In addressing that, we should recognise that the pace of change in every field is increasing, which means we need new talent with up-to-date experience. The introduction of a participation requirement and a retirement age sit at the heart of this work. As the Leader of the House has said, we believe the second Chamber works best when it is full time with part-time Members.

My hon. Friend will get a lot of sympathy on the Government Benches for his point, which I will return to in a moment, about the number of representatives from the nations and regions. HOLAC is independent, and vetting for propriety includes checks with Government Departments, agencies and other organisations, including the Electoral Commission. It plays a vital role in vetting all peers and nominating Cross Benchers to the Lords.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) spoke passionately about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, and I know her frustrations on that matter. It is obviously a sensitive and delicate subject matter that should be dealt with seriously. The Government were and remain neutral on that specific Bill and the issue of assisted dying, and it was up to the other place to determine how that Bill was scrutinised, as with other legislation.

I enjoyed the reference to Kellie from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—although I always warn against weighing the mailbag to find out how important an issue is, as I am sure all Members would agree. I was interested to hear the Lib Dem position with regard to the monarch. That said, the loss of trust in politics comes, alas, at least as much from the Commons as from the Lords. It is unacceptable that disgraced peers can retain their peerages regardless of circumstances. Legislation to enable peerages to be removed was included in the King’s Speech. The Government will announce further details in due course.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), talked about care, caution and balance; I am disappointed that was not the position the Conservatives took with regard to the abolition of the hereditary principle. I once again thank right hon. and hon. Members for this thought-provoking debate on the second Chamber.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered House of Lords reform.

17:30

Sitting adjourned.