Westminster Hall
Tuesday 20th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 12 hours, 39 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:29
09:29
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Move that this house is considered manufacturing skills. Thank you, chair. And may I say what a sublime pleasure it is to serve under your superb chairmanship. I must begin by thanking my hon. Friend the member for Derby South, who, due to his giddy elevation to PPS, has allowed me to hijack his debate and talk about the Isle of Wight. Derby is also, quite rightly received a lot of focus. So now it is our turn. While 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. Now indeed, I will.
It is a city that demonstrates the value of bringing together industry skills and investment to drive growth. Now indeed, I will.
09:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
As an MP for Derby or as our Prime Minister called it, the great city of Derby. We have a city that is famous for its advanced manufacturing and engineering skills, and our largest employers like 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. But would my hon. Friend agree with me that what we need is even more government focus on enabling and supporting smaller manufacturers to invest and train up new apprenticeships to address the skills shortages that we have across the country.
09:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and the great city of Derby has two great MPs, and I agree entirely with her point that the more we can do for small businesses to encourage them to take apprentices. But anything that takes people that wouldn't go down the university route through a set of skills and good paid work is absolutely ideal. I will indeed.
09:31
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Giving way. We see a challenge in my region where foreign direct investment comes in, builds a big factory, hoovers up the existing skilled workforce from local SMEs and there isn't the pipeline there to replace them. So does he agree with me that it's really important that regional government takes on a role working with the Fe sector and employers to ensure that there's a proper joined up skills system. So we're not just bringing in new businesses, but we're supporting our existing SMEs as well.
09:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my hon. Friend for intervention. It's a really good point. On the Isle of Wight, we have we send 25% of our school leavers to university, but also exactly 25% end up as NEETs. Now, the amount of effort that goes in the structure and support around getting to university, you can see you can see how to get to university from the moon. But we don't put the same structure around those that would end up going to university. So it's a very good point that we need to encourage home grown skills. Now, I know some of you will be used to hearing me complain about the everyday inequalities islanders face.
Don't worry, I'm not going to mention ferries. However, today is a welcome opportunity to celebrate an area where the island truly punches above its weight and that is in the advanced manufacturing sector per capita. The Isle of Wight is one of the highest concentrations of technology and advanced manufacturing businesses in the country relative to our population. 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 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 and yet again is an industry in which the island excels. At white shipyard aluminium welding skills are among the best in the world, while diverse marine combines that craftsmanship with cutting edge design and innovation to produce vessels vessels that are lighter, more space efficient and use less fuel. That success is built on the achievements of island businesses who 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 aerospace and BAE continue to continues the island's proud tradition of high value engineering and world class aerospace tease. 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 Limited, a company whose design innovation reaches millions of people every year. If you've ever sat in an aircraft cabin and plugged your headphones or device into into an in-seat power module, there's a good chance you've experienced a piece of Isle of Wight manufacturing without even realising it.
These businesses demonstrate that the Isle of Wight is not just preserving industrial heritage, it is helping to define the future of advanced manufacturing and innovation in the UK.
Don't worry, I'm not going to mention ferries. However, today is a welcome opportunity to celebrate an area where the island truly punches above its weight and that is in the advanced manufacturing sector per capita. The Isle of Wight is one of the highest concentrations of technology and advanced manufacturing businesses in the country relative to our population. 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 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 and yet again is an industry in which the island excels. At white shipyard aluminium welding skills are among the best in the world, while diverse marine combines that craftsmanship with cutting edge design and innovation to produce vessels vessels that are lighter, more space efficient and use less fuel. That success is built on the achievements of island businesses who 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 aerospace and BAE continue to continues the island's proud tradition of high value engineering and world class aerospace tease. 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 Limited, a company whose design innovation reaches millions of people every year. If you've ever sat in an aircraft cabin and plugged your headphones or device into into an in-seat power module, there's a good chance you've experienced a piece of Isle of Wight manufacturing without even realising it.
These businesses demonstrate that the Isle of Wight is not just preserving industrial heritage, it is helping to define the future of advanced manufacturing and innovation in the UK.
09:34
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
He 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 has recently announced 93 early careers opportunities, including 29 apprenticeships, 15 graduate positions and 1449 industrial placements. And that shows that they're investing directly in the skills of the next generation of workers. I wonder if my hon. Friend would agree with me that employers like Bentley are demonstrating the kind of long term commitment to skills that we need to see across the country.
09:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my hon. Friend, his intervention is entirely correct. Companies like Bentley offer really good, hands on skills that can be transferred anywhere, and if they need someone to test drive one of their vehicles on the Isle of Wight for, say, for a while, I'm your person. And across the Isle of Wight, manufacturers are developing specialist composites, marine technologies and precision engineered products that are exported all around the world. These businesses do not just create jobs, they create highly skilled careers, drive innovation, and demonstrate that world class manufacturing can thrive in the UK and especially on the Isle of Wight.
Indeed, earlier this year, I was proud to welcome the Climate Minister, the Honourable member for Leeds North West, to the Isle of Wight, where we visited Vestas and saw first hand the world leading manufacturing taking place on our doorstep, and how the island can help lead the way as the country makes the green energy transition. But 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 of this goes far beyond the investment itself. If we want Britain to remain a leader in advanced manufacturing, we need a pipeline of highly skilled engineers, technicians, fabricators, composites, specialists who can turn innovation into commercial success. Indeed I will.
Indeed, earlier this year, I was proud to welcome the Climate Minister, the Honourable member for Leeds North West, to the Isle of Wight, where we visited Vestas and saw first hand the world leading manufacturing taking place on our doorstep, and how the island can help lead the way as the country makes the green energy transition. But 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 of this goes far beyond the investment itself. If we want Britain to remain a leader in advanced manufacturing, we need a pipeline of highly skilled engineers, technicians, fabricators, composites, specialists who can turn innovation into commercial success. Indeed I will.
09:36
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and making an excellent contribution to this debate and indeed for taking on the debate. In Derby, apprentices at Alstom, as we've heard, are making a huge difference, not just for their own futures but for the rail industry across the UK. But when I speak to manufacturers, over half tell me that the shortage in the skills pipeline is their biggest limiting factor for growth. So what? Do you agree with me? That having more apprentices throughout their early years is a key way of building or reducing that skills gap and helping economic growth?
09:37
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my honourable friend for the great city of Derby for his intervention, and he's a very good point. Back to the point about university, not university. I think even just before apprenticeships, work experience and getting people to cross the threshold of these employers is an important step to providing the skills we need for the future. We have facilities such as the Isle of Wight's Ceacam Centre, at the heart of that effort, giving young people and adult learners the chance to develop the cutting edge manufacturing and engineering and technical skills that employers need. The Isle of Wight is further proof that advanced manufacturing is not just part of our economy, it is a cornerstone of our future, creating highly skilled jobs and providing opportunities for the next generation.
And for me, that is one of the most important parts of this debate . Our skills, future matters. We must ensure that no young person is left behind or constrained by that outdated assumption that university or academia is the only viable route forward. Just 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 we ensure that local people have the skills needed for the jobs being created on their doorstep, because there is little value in securing new investment and new manufacturing opportunities if young people are not equipped to take advantage of them.
But we need to make sure 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 can't access the training they need. That is why this 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 they want 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 that they do not have to leave the island to build a highly skilled, rewarding career. And that is what makes this government's emphasis on investing in manufacturing and vocational education so exciting, but is also why we must move further and faster. After 14 years of chronic underinvestment in 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. Access to the training, apprenticeships and technical education needed to get there. Because I will and then I will. Yeah, I really appreciate the honourable member for giving way, especially as he is making a very powerful speech. Does he agree with me that the skills shortage can sometimes start with the lack of procurement? So, for example, factories in my constituency of Leicester South were used to clothe the world and the second most prosperous city in Europe, because of its textile industry, has gone from 1500 factories to 96.
Because we are we don't have the procurement, and they don't want the investments into the factories, then giving opportunities for skilled workers. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I couldn't agree more. I think the idea that we can move everything offshore because it's cheaper, we're forgetting what value looks like. And if you look at models of community wealth building around the country, around the world, procurement is where you start.
And for me, that is one of the most important parts of this debate . Our skills, future matters. We must ensure that no young person is left behind or constrained by that outdated assumption that university or academia is the only viable route forward. Just 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 we ensure that local people have the skills needed for the jobs being created on their doorstep, because there is little value in securing new investment and new manufacturing opportunities if young people are not equipped to take advantage of them.
But we need to make sure 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 can't access the training they need. That is why this 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 they want 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 that they do not have to leave the island to build a highly skilled, rewarding career. And that is what makes this government's emphasis on investing in manufacturing and vocational education so exciting, but is also why we must move further and faster. After 14 years of chronic underinvestment in 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. Access to the training, apprenticeships and technical education needed to get there. Because I will and then I will. Yeah, I really appreciate the honourable member for giving way, especially as he is making a very powerful speech. Does he agree with me that the skills shortage can sometimes start with the lack of procurement? So, for example, factories in my constituency of Leicester South were used to clothe the world and the second most prosperous city in Europe, because of its textile industry, has gone from 1500 factories to 96.
Because we are we don't have the procurement, and they don't want the investments into the factories, then giving opportunities for skilled workers. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I couldn't agree more. I think the idea that we can move everything offshore because it's cheaper, we're forgetting what value looks like. And if you look at models of community wealth building around the country, around the world, procurement is where you start.
09:40
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Gordon and Duncan told me that they often have to spend 2 to 3 years on a course before they can even think about being considered for an apprenticeship, and make UK reports that 39% of manufacturers don't think our education system can deliver the skills that they need. So does he agree that we need to make apprenticeships more accessible and flexible, so that people aren't held back from skilled jobs, and so that manufacturers can get the workers that they desperately need?
09:40
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank the honourable member for intervention. I think, you know, the Isle of Wight and the North share a lot in common is that we don't often get the focus we've needed. And I think the point of back to my point about we know how to get to university, that's a very structured route. Even if you don't get your grades, we'll get you into university. The whole school will get you into university. The other side of it is like your options are just go off to a further education college if you're lucky. So I agree entirely with her point.
Our challenge now is to ensure that every young person across the country can see a pathway into those careers. Access to training, apprenticeships and technical education needed to get there. Because investing in manufacturing is only half the job. Investing in the skills that power is what turns ambition into long term economic success.
Our challenge now is to ensure that every young person across the country can see a pathway into those careers. Access to training, apprenticeships and technical education needed to get there. Because investing in manufacturing is only half the job. Investing in the skills that power is what turns ambition into long term economic success.
09:41
09:41
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
A real pleasure to serve on your ship. A special thanks to the honourable gentleman for that of Right West, for raising the Vietnam, for setting the scene incredibly well, as he often does. And I wish him well. And the work that he does for his constituents, I think they can say honestly that his constituents are very fortunate to have him as their MP, and I wish him well. Yeah. The manufacturing is a cornerstone of the United Kingdom. This may be in jeopardy of crumbling, as young people are not entering the sector in sufficient numbers as against workers leaving the industry.
So that's the the the background to the debate. I always give a perspective of of Northern Ireland, and hopefully it adds to the debate on where we are. And I ask of the Minister as well, employment in the advanced manufacturing sector is set to rise, with projected growth of 13% between 2025 and 2035. This is in addition to an estimated 101,000 workers expected to leave manufacturing priority occupations, bringing the total demand to around 148,000 workers. A lot of people to to get trained and get prepared for for work. And part of this is because the manufacturing sector has a largely aging workforce when compared with a wider working population.
Reports found that some in 2026 found that some 50% of engineering and manufacturing small to medium enterprises report experiencing skills gaps and or shortages. This comes despite government support efforts, as nearly three quarters of businesses surveyed felt support to address skills shortages were lacking. This is largely unsurprising. There has been no increase in funding for engineering apprenticeships since 2020, and no government in the last few days has indicated so perhaps you can tell us more about what's happening. There's a very the very definition of unsustainable and the quality of products will undoubtedly be happy to give way.
So that's the the the background to the debate. I always give a perspective of of Northern Ireland, and hopefully it adds to the debate on where we are. And I ask of the Minister as well, employment in the advanced manufacturing sector is set to rise, with projected growth of 13% between 2025 and 2035. This is in addition to an estimated 101,000 workers expected to leave manufacturing priority occupations, bringing the total demand to around 148,000 workers. A lot of people to to get trained and get prepared for for work. And part of this is because the manufacturing sector has a largely aging workforce when compared with a wider working population.
Reports found that some in 2026 found that some 50% of engineering and manufacturing small to medium enterprises report experiencing skills gaps and or shortages. This comes despite government support efforts, as nearly three quarters of businesses surveyed felt support to address skills shortages were lacking. This is largely unsurprising. There has been no increase in funding for engineering apprenticeships since 2020, and no government in the last few days has indicated so perhaps you can tell us more about what's happening. There's a very the very definition of unsustainable and the quality of products will undoubtedly be happy to give way.
09:43
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I'm extremely grateful to the honourable gentleman for giving away. Would. Would my hon. Friend agree that in terms of developing those engineering courses, colleges need more support at the present, they. They receive no funding at all to develop a new course as University College of Somerset have found to cater for the new aggregates factory and. They have to find their own investment to develop courses and receive no no funding until those courses are actually started, which really hampers innovation, hampers new training and hampers new skills being developed.
09:43
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I thank the honourable gentleman for for the intervention and the Minister is listening intently. I'm sure the Minister will be able to respond to the honourable gentleman and encourage him and indeed encourage us all, because that's the purpose of being here. The issue is not unique to Northern Ireland. To speak about Northern Ireland now, however, skills shortages will be felt particularly acutely there. Northern Ireland boasts of major manufacturers such as the Spirit Air System, Wrightbus, Harland and Wolff and Telus, and Telus is one of the defense sectors that the honourable member for Belfast East and myself and go to at least once every year, primarily because the majority of the workers at Telus come from Strangford, from my constituency, and I ensure that the that they're there, but they also are encouragement from us has been that when it comes to encouraging apprenticeships, that every year they set a target of apprenticeships and they're always oversubscribed when it comes to that.
09:44
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
We thank the honourable member for giving way. Would he agree with me that the issue is just touching on now in terms of apprenticeships? That's an issue that has to be key going forward. We have to increase the number of apprentices, increase the skills base and also increase the productivity, which is a problem that has beset successive governments for many years.
09:45
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
And I thank my honourable friend and colleague for for that intervention. And on the the the work at do with students, they pay their students fees and they give them a good wage, an incredible wage. And some of the young boys that I know from Cumber, for instance, are young men now who have taken their apprenticeships there across over the world within the corporation are working incredibly hard. There is a network of smaller engineering firms to supply the specialist services. Many of these skilled suppliers operate in the constituency of Strangford, making the local economy particularly vulnerable to the manufacturing skills shortages.
Harland and Wolff , at this moment time, are looking for 500 new workers. They've recruited some 500 already, and they're hoping to recruit another 500. So there's a demand in Northern Ireland for skilled, skilled workers. And within that they also offer apprenticeships as well. 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 at some just shy of 900,000. Further strengthening and investing in our manufacturing skills could help expand employment opportunities. My question to the minister.
Of course, I welcome the minister to her place and look forward to to her response. And what discussions has the Minister had with a relevant Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the policy and the strategy that is happening here can be one that we can enjoy as well. So I join other members and those who speak out to me to call on government, to take urgent action to address the skills shortages across the manufacturing sector. The manufacturing and engineering skills gap is estimated to cost businesses over £5 billion each year, so now's the time to act and ensure that apprenticeships that can take 3 to 4 years to actually learn those skills and then add into the companies that they're employed with.
I finish with this, Mr. Chairman, ever mindful that there are some 12 other members who wish to speak to act now, will leave the next generation without the technical skills employers need. Action must be including improving women's access. I ask that the minister. Women's access to manufacturing careers. I'm blessed to see and pleased to see that in Harland and Wolff and Spirit that that young ladies are getting the opportunity to have engineering skills and they're taking that opportunity. But we could do more to encourage young women in particular, to get into manufacturing careers and creating more opportunities for young people to gain practical industrial skills.
By widening the talent pool, government can help secure the future of manufacturing in Northern Ireland and indeed across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and beyond, protecting skilled manufacturing businesses. That's the purpose of government. That's the purpose of the honourable member for Strangford. Let's see what we can do together. Thank you.
Harland and Wolff , at this moment time, are looking for 500 new workers. They've recruited some 500 already, and they're hoping to recruit another 500. So there's a demand in Northern Ireland for skilled, skilled workers. And within that they also offer apprenticeships as well. 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 at some just shy of 900,000. Further strengthening and investing in our manufacturing skills could help expand employment opportunities. My question to the minister.
Of course, I welcome the minister to her place and look forward to to her response. And what discussions has the Minister had with a relevant Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the policy and the strategy that is happening here can be one that we can enjoy as well. So I join other members and those who speak out to me to call on government, to take urgent action to address the skills shortages across the manufacturing sector. The manufacturing and engineering skills gap is estimated to cost businesses over £5 billion each year, so now's the time to act and ensure that apprenticeships that can take 3 to 4 years to actually learn those skills and then add into the companies that they're employed with.
I finish with this, Mr. Chairman, ever mindful that there are some 12 other members who wish to speak to act now, will leave the next generation without the technical skills employers need. Action must be including improving women's access. I ask that the minister. Women's access to manufacturing careers. I'm blessed to see and pleased to see that in Harland and Wolff and Spirit that that young ladies are getting the opportunity to have engineering skills and they're taking that opportunity. But we could do more to encourage young women in particular, to get into manufacturing careers and creating more opportunities for young people to gain practical industrial skills.
By widening the talent pool, government can help secure the future of manufacturing in Northern Ireland and indeed across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and beyond, protecting skilled manufacturing businesses. That's the purpose of government. That's the purpose of the honourable member for Strangford. Let's see what we can do together. Thank you.
09:47
09:47
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you, Sir Christopher. It's an honor to serve under your chairmanship. And I'd also like to thank my honourable friend for Isle of Wight, Isle of Wight West 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. But manufacturing skills are fundamental to places like mine, and it calls for policy makers, for industry, for schools and colleges to come and work together to rise to this government's ambition to reindustrialize our country. As the MP for Wolverhampton North East, I represent a constituency with a proud industrial heritage and a thriving manufacturing base today who form an industrial ecosystem that supports skilled jobs, innovation and economic growth.
While the industries have have evolved, the principle remains the same success depends on having skilled workforce to innovate, can compete and grow. Yet employers across the country continue to report shortages in the technical skills they need to grow and innovate. So I want to commend Collins Aerospace, who chose Wolverhampton to host their 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 the City of Wolverhampton College secured technical excellence, college status for advanced manufacturing. Now that's a rubber stamp of confidence in places like Wolverhampton, who are now among the national leaders in technical education and helping to develop future engineers, technicians and skilled manufacturing workers at 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. For far too long. As a former school leader, I know that technical routes have been treated as a second choice. Apprenticeships start have begun to move in the right direction, increasing in 2024 to 25, up more than 13,000 on the previous year. It is encouraging progress after years in which apprenticeship starts consistently failed to recover to the levels needed by our economy and manufacturing sector. While many training providers report that funding bands no longer reflect the real cost of delivering high quality technical training, employers and colleges continue to face additional costs in training.
Welders, fabricators, CNC machinists and engineering technicians. Despite these being precisely the skills 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 give manufacturing communities in places like 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. So I ask the Minister, when will the government conclude its review of apprenticeship funding bands, and will engineering and manufacturing apprenticeships at level two and three be prioritised to address critical skills shortages?
And will the government work with Richard Parker, the mayor of the West Midlands, 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 high skilled jobs that will drive Britain's Reindustrialisation Amos.
While the industries have have evolved, the principle remains the same success depends on having skilled workforce to innovate, can compete and grow. Yet employers across the country continue to report shortages in the technical skills they need to grow and innovate. So I want to commend Collins Aerospace, who chose Wolverhampton to host their 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 the City of Wolverhampton College secured technical excellence, college status for advanced manufacturing. Now that's a rubber stamp of confidence in places like Wolverhampton, who are now among the national leaders in technical education and helping to develop future engineers, technicians and skilled manufacturing workers at 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. For far too long. As a former school leader, I know that technical routes have been treated as a second choice. Apprenticeships start have begun to move in the right direction, increasing in 2024 to 25, up more than 13,000 on the previous year. It is encouraging progress after years in which apprenticeship starts consistently failed to recover to the levels needed by our economy and manufacturing sector. While many training providers report that funding bands no longer reflect the real cost of delivering high quality technical training, employers and colleges continue to face additional costs in training.
Welders, fabricators, CNC machinists and engineering technicians. Despite these being precisely the skills 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 give manufacturing communities in places like 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. So I ask the Minister, when will the government conclude its review of apprenticeship funding bands, and will engineering and manufacturing apprenticeships at level two and three be prioritised to address critical skills shortages?
And will the government work with Richard Parker, the mayor of the West Midlands, 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 high skilled jobs that will drive Britain's Reindustrialisation Amos.
09:52
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I'm grateful she caught me somewhat by surprise. Is there a pleasure to serve with you in the chair? However, I congratulate the honourable member for Isle of Wight for on securing this debate and on shining a light on this really important part of our economy, both locally and nationally. Specialist manufacturing is critical to my Taunton and Wellington constituency, as well as to growth across the United Kingdom. The agri task factory being constructed just outside my constituency will employ 4000 people and have a huge impact on the whole South West economy. Many of my constituents work there already.
Many local suppliers are involved in the supply chain, so the regional economy will be greatly affected in a positive way. That is what specialist manufacturing can do for regional economies, but only if we get the skills right in to to support that sector. When I spoke in this hall last November, I raised the work of University Centre Centre, Somerset College Group, which is based not only in my Taunton constituency but across Somerset on different campuses. It's the largest college provider of apprenticeships in England. UCS has had to develop a first of its kind programme to meet demand, which barely existed just a couple of years ago when battery manufacturing was barely a mainstream concept in the UK.
It's not an easy task, but it's exactly the kind of innovation required to build skills the skills base that can support the new specialist manufacturing sectors that we need, such as battery production. So the government's credit, some things have moved on since then. I genuinely welcome those. In April, the government announced a £380 million grant for the factory itself, and UCS was named a Clean Energy Technical Excellence College last year. I also called on Skills England to invest in partnerships that deliver, rather than just producing consultation papers that plan and devise, and in March it produced a battery manufacturing apprenticeship unit in just three months, which was fantastic progress.
But there is a great deal still to do. The first pilot course this summer trained nine staff and around 1600 people will be needed just to start battery cell production. In a written answer last month, the government said they are supporting UK's work with Akritas and I welcome that. But I'm afraid the basic problem I raised last year has not gone away. A college, developing a curriculum and hiring specialist trainers in a completely new industry will only receive funding from the government or other sources once the course starts, and a further education college as a further education college is not allowed to borrow against potential future funding.
The current Fe model, therefore, simply does not support the upfront investment that is required and specialist skills will suffer as a result. Colleges are also no longer allowed to borrow in order to invest in student accommodation they need, even though that would generate income, help to regenerate towns and deliver housing, which is a priority of this government in a particular sector and relieve pressure on local family housing. We cannot expect colleges to shoulder all the risk of these investments and initiatives. While the government takes credit only for the positive outcomes, the issue is not just about specialist manufacturing skills.
Sites such as Akritas require an enormous amount of construction skills , and labour aggregates own figures show that in the peak year building, the first factory alone will support more than 3000 jobs in the south west, equivalent to around a fifth of all construction jobs in Somerset, coming on top of Hinkley Point C, also close to my constituency, which needs many of the same skilled workers. If we are serious about boosting regional growth through specialist manufacturing, we need to be equally serious about training the people who will build such facilities and work in them. Liberal Democrats have called for apprenticeships, apprentices to be paid at least the national minimum wage and for lifelong skills grants, so that adults can retrain for new industries like this one.
I ask the minister three things, four things in fact. First, when the government say say they will, they are supporting UK's work. Does any of that support cover? Does any of that support cover the upfront costs of developing courses that are innovative? Secondly, will the government make sure that colleges can set up apprenticeships and skills training in advance of factories being built? Thirdly, will the Minister thirdly, will the Minister agree that colleges should be able to forward fund student accommodation which would deliver much needed housing? And finally, would the minister meet with me and UCS College Group to discuss these points for Taunton and Wellington and indeed the whole South West?
The opportunity is right in front of us. Having backed the factory with £380 million, which I thoroughly welcome and congratulate the government on, the government now need to grab this opportunity with both hands and provide the support and the certainty on skills to turn it into a real success.
Many local suppliers are involved in the supply chain, so the regional economy will be greatly affected in a positive way. That is what specialist manufacturing can do for regional economies, but only if we get the skills right in to to support that sector. When I spoke in this hall last November, I raised the work of University Centre Centre, Somerset College Group, which is based not only in my Taunton constituency but across Somerset on different campuses. It's the largest college provider of apprenticeships in England. UCS has had to develop a first of its kind programme to meet demand, which barely existed just a couple of years ago when battery manufacturing was barely a mainstream concept in the UK.
It's not an easy task, but it's exactly the kind of innovation required to build skills the skills base that can support the new specialist manufacturing sectors that we need, such as battery production. So the government's credit, some things have moved on since then. I genuinely welcome those. In April, the government announced a £380 million grant for the factory itself, and UCS was named a Clean Energy Technical Excellence College last year. I also called on Skills England to invest in partnerships that deliver, rather than just producing consultation papers that plan and devise, and in March it produced a battery manufacturing apprenticeship unit in just three months, which was fantastic progress.
But there is a great deal still to do. The first pilot course this summer trained nine staff and around 1600 people will be needed just to start battery cell production. In a written answer last month, the government said they are supporting UK's work with Akritas and I welcome that. But I'm afraid the basic problem I raised last year has not gone away. A college, developing a curriculum and hiring specialist trainers in a completely new industry will only receive funding from the government or other sources once the course starts, and a further education college as a further education college is not allowed to borrow against potential future funding.
The current Fe model, therefore, simply does not support the upfront investment that is required and specialist skills will suffer as a result. Colleges are also no longer allowed to borrow in order to invest in student accommodation they need, even though that would generate income, help to regenerate towns and deliver housing, which is a priority of this government in a particular sector and relieve pressure on local family housing. We cannot expect colleges to shoulder all the risk of these investments and initiatives. While the government takes credit only for the positive outcomes, the issue is not just about specialist manufacturing skills.
Sites such as Akritas require an enormous amount of construction skills , and labour aggregates own figures show that in the peak year building, the first factory alone will support more than 3000 jobs in the south west, equivalent to around a fifth of all construction jobs in Somerset, coming on top of Hinkley Point C, also close to my constituency, which needs many of the same skilled workers. If we are serious about boosting regional growth through specialist manufacturing, we need to be equally serious about training the people who will build such facilities and work in them. Liberal Democrats have called for apprenticeships, apprentices to be paid at least the national minimum wage and for lifelong skills grants, so that adults can retrain for new industries like this one.
I ask the minister three things, four things in fact. First, when the government say say they will, they are supporting UK's work. Does any of that support cover? Does any of that support cover the upfront costs of developing courses that are innovative? Secondly, will the government make sure that colleges can set up apprenticeships and skills training in advance of factories being built? Thirdly, will the Minister thirdly, will the Minister agree that colleges should be able to forward fund student accommodation which would deliver much needed housing? And finally, would the minister meet with me and UCS College Group to discuss these points for Taunton and Wellington and indeed the whole South West?
The opportunity is right in front of us. Having backed the factory with £380 million, which I thoroughly welcome and congratulate the government on, the government now need to grab this opportunity with both hands and provide the support and the certainty on skills to turn it into a real success.
10:02
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you. Thank you. It is to serve under your chairmanship. Doncaster has an incredible history when it comes to manufacturing, particularly when it comes to transport. Everyone will know names like The Flying Scotsman and Mallard, both built in Doncaster, and the legacy of Nigel Gresley is still very much strong in our local culture. But right now all eyes are on. 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.
This is an incredible achievement that comes after a huge amount of work from all involved, and the DSA project isn't just about the airport itself. The deal also covers the adjacent Innovation Quarter, which has the potential to become a centre for advanced manufacturing innovation and ultimately reindustrialisation reindustrialization of our area Public control, Reindustrialisation and local. I got it right at that time. And localism. Three things that the Prime Minister has put at the very heart of his mission for this country, and Doncaster could not be a better case study for all three, both in terms of how badly it is needed and the enormous scope there is for the opportunity.
Huge parts of my constituency were left behind when the pits closed. Deindustrialisation changed the faces of Rossington, Hatfield, Thorne and Moorends and nothing has ever really come to fill that gap until now. Doncaster, as all the pieces in place to become a centre for manufacturing and industry once again, we have excellent logistical or logistical connections through road and rail, proximity to the Humber ports and soon the airport reopening itself. We have major distribution and logistics hubs, including the airport and the unity development. We have two Labour mayors and a proactive chamber of commerce who work tirelessly to bring jobs and growth to every single postcode in Doncaster, and we have the educational infrastructure in place with our existing UTC and a second one now approved in Doncaster and other wonderful Fe colleges like John Leggett, New College and North Lindsey, to name but a few.
All we need now is to make sure that we are developing the skills and the workforce to match those opportunities that lie ahead. Because we cannot wait. Because we cannot wait until factories are built and businesses are recruiting before we begin training the people that we will need. So I welcome the government's commitment to advance manufacturing through our industrial strategy and the reforms of the Growth and Skills levy, including new foundation apprenticeships in engineering and manufacturing. But we need to make sure that the skills we are teaching, matching matches the skills and the needs of the industries that we are trying to attract, and that we are providing 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 the jobs of the future. So I would welcome the Minister outlining how the government is working to ensure that investment in manufacturing skills is aligned with major regional development projects, such as South Yorkshire Airport City, because in Doncaster we've 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 the people and their families. But we have a chance now, a chance to regain lost pride and purpose, a chance for the places blighted by deprivation to flourish and prosper once again.
A chance to rebuild our industrial economy. And we must make sure that the people of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme have the skills to take advantage of it.
This is an incredible achievement that comes after a huge amount of work from all involved, and the DSA project isn't just about the airport itself. The deal also covers the adjacent Innovation Quarter, which has the potential to become a centre for advanced manufacturing innovation and ultimately reindustrialisation reindustrialization of our area Public control, Reindustrialisation and local. I got it right at that time. And localism. Three things that the Prime Minister has put at the very heart of his mission for this country, and Doncaster could not be a better case study for all three, both in terms of how badly it is needed and the enormous scope there is for the opportunity.
Huge parts of my constituency were left behind when the pits closed. Deindustrialisation changed the faces of Rossington, Hatfield, Thorne and Moorends and nothing has ever really come to fill that gap until now. Doncaster, as all the pieces in place to become a centre for manufacturing and industry once again, we have excellent logistical or logistical connections through road and rail, proximity to the Humber ports and soon the airport reopening itself. We have major distribution and logistics hubs, including the airport and the unity development. We have two Labour mayors and a proactive chamber of commerce who work tirelessly to bring jobs and growth to every single postcode in Doncaster, and we have the educational infrastructure in place with our existing UTC and a second one now approved in Doncaster and other wonderful Fe colleges like John Leggett, New College and North Lindsey, to name but a few.
All we need now is to make sure that we are developing the skills and the workforce to match those opportunities that lie ahead. Because we cannot wait. Because we cannot wait until factories are built and businesses are recruiting before we begin training the people that we will need. So I welcome the government's commitment to advance manufacturing through our industrial strategy and the reforms of the Growth and Skills levy, including new foundation apprenticeships in engineering and manufacturing. But we need to make sure that the skills we are teaching, matching matches the skills and the needs of the industries that we are trying to attract, and that we are providing 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 the jobs of the future. So I would welcome the Minister outlining how the government is working to ensure that investment in manufacturing skills is aligned with major regional development projects, such as South Yorkshire Airport City, because in Doncaster we've 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 the people and their families. But we have a chance now, a chance to regain lost pride and purpose, a chance for the places blighted by deprivation to flourish and prosper once again.
A chance to rebuild our industrial economy. And we must make sure that the people of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme have the skills to take advantage of it.
10:09
10:09
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
In the chair today and my thanks go to my honourable friend from Isle of Wight West for securing this debate to Westminster Hall. You know, we hardly make anything any more. For decades, Scotland has been the victim of industrial vandalism, with our manufacturing base hammered last year. Petroineos. That's 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, 2822 in the wider supply chain, the removal of a positive destination for local young people, over £400 million per annum lost from Scotland's national economy and Scotland's few security weakened.
Now, in my time in this place, I have been critical of both the Scottish and UK governments and 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 from the SNP to try and rewrite history on that, although, as everyone will see this morning, I do not need to do that as they couldn't be bothered to attend this debate. They are their passion for abstentionism and lack of participation in this place. They are taking to a new level and this year, yet more industrial devastation is Alexander Dennis.
Canadian owners NFA stopped bus manufacturing in Scotland 115 job losses. Another piece of Scotland's manufacturing base deemed disposable by international capital. And yet again, the SNP. Scottish Government abandoned workers. This time, 334 zero emission buses were to be built through the Scots EB three scheme. Alexander Dennis were awarded 123. The Chinese company Yutong were awarded 166. The truth is that in Scottish politics, it was the working class that propelled the SNP into generational power , and SNP have rewarded communities with buses from Beijing, Ferguson Marine redundancies, the creation and the promotion of the Tory idea of freeports that is international tax havens, all for private capital to extract resources and wealth from Scotland.
The SNP, make no mistake, are comfortable with all of that. Sir Christopher, regarding manufacturing, we are on the cusp of a green industrial revolution. What an opportunity we have with renewables. But what have the SNP Scottish Government done to create new manufacturing jobs in that sector? Well, they have had off the record meetings with corporations looking to get involved in Scotland's renewable industry. And the end result , 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, into 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. Now, in finishing, I do not hold the desire for independence against the SNP or anyone that identifies as a Scottish nationalist. No, not in the slightest. I respect their view. The reason I have no time for the Scottish National Party is because they have decimated Scottish manufacturing and waged war on Scottish working class.
Now, in my time in this place, I have been critical of both the Scottish and UK governments and 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 from the SNP to try and rewrite history on that, although, as everyone will see this morning, I do not need to do that as they couldn't be bothered to attend this debate. They are their passion for abstentionism and lack of participation in this place. They are taking to a new level and this year, yet more industrial devastation is Alexander Dennis.
Canadian owners NFA stopped bus manufacturing in Scotland 115 job losses. Another piece of Scotland's manufacturing base deemed disposable by international capital. And yet again, the SNP. Scottish Government abandoned workers. This time, 334 zero emission buses were to be built through the Scots EB three scheme. Alexander Dennis were awarded 123. The Chinese company Yutong were awarded 166. The truth is that in Scottish politics, it was the working class that propelled the SNP into generational power , and SNP have rewarded communities with buses from Beijing, Ferguson Marine redundancies, the creation and the promotion of the Tory idea of freeports that is international tax havens, all for private capital to extract resources and wealth from Scotland.
The SNP, make no mistake, are comfortable with all of that. Sir Christopher, regarding manufacturing, we are on the cusp of a green industrial revolution. What an opportunity we have with renewables. But what have the SNP Scottish Government done to create new manufacturing jobs in that sector? Well, they have had off the record meetings with corporations looking to get involved in Scotland's renewable industry. And the end result , 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, into 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. Now, in finishing, I do not hold the desire for independence against the SNP or anyone that identifies as a Scottish nationalist. No, not in the slightest. I respect their view. The reason I have no time for the Scottish National Party is because they have decimated Scottish manufacturing and waged war on Scottish working class.
10:18
10:18
10:18
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. For many growing up in Portsmouth, they saw a shipyard was a constant visual reminder that we were a city and a country that made things. Not only that we made not only that we made things, but 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, skilled jobs, men and women who took pride in their work, proud of what they produced, and proud of the contributions they were making to their communities. There was a clear connection between effort, skill and opportunity, and 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, Sir Christopher, 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 do not see the same opportunities that previous generations had. But it's not just the challenge of young people, it is also the challenge of British business. Manufacturers repeatedly tell us 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.
They. 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. But if we truly want to reindustrialize Britain, we must first rebuild the pipeline of skills that make the industrialist success possible. And that is why this government's reform 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 and maths and science with high quality vocational subjects.
They will be able to spend more time with employers and 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 and that connection matters enormously. The local connection for young people means opportunity, and for employers it means confidence. It means confidence 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 needs to be more flexible and more responsive to the needs of the different sectors, so I am pleased that this government has taken those steps to manufacturing, to fixing.
The skills shortage is not about filling vacancies, it's about building our national capability. And nowhere, Sir Christopher, is that more evident than a sector that's extremely important to my constituency, the space sector. The next iteration of the Skynet satellite program is currently out of procurement. This is a crucial decision for our national security, our sovereignty, space capability and industrial
They could look around the city and see where hard work and talent could take them. Unfortunately, Sir Christopher, 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 do not see the same opportunities that previous generations had. But it's not just the challenge of young people, it is also the challenge of British business. Manufacturers repeatedly tell us 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.
They. 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. But if we truly want to reindustrialize Britain, we must first rebuild the pipeline of skills that make the industrialist success possible. And that is why this government's reform 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 and maths and science with high quality vocational subjects.
They will be able to spend more time with employers and 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 and that connection matters enormously. The local connection for young people means opportunity, and for employers it means confidence. It means confidence 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 needs to be more flexible and more responsive to the needs of the different sectors, so I am pleased that this government has taken those steps to manufacturing, to fixing.
The skills shortage is not about filling vacancies, it's about building our national capability. And nowhere, Sir Christopher, is that more evident than a sector that's extremely important to my constituency, the space sector. The next iteration of the Skynet satellite program is currently out of procurement. This is a crucial decision for our national security, our sovereignty, space capability and industrial
10:24
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Program is currently out of procurement. This is a crucial decision for our national security, our sovereignty, space capability and industrial future and my city's future at Airbus. In Portsmouth, highly skilled workers manufacture the payloads. The brains of the satellites, and Airbus remains the only company capable of building large spacecraft end to end in the kingdom. The Skynet program sustains 3000 highly skilled jobs directly and supports 18,000 jobs across the supply chain. These are skills and capabilities built over decades and cannot be easily created if lost. And if we are serious about Reindustrialization, we must be serious about protecting the skills and industrial capabilities we already have.
We can't just create shiny new jobs. We must protect the ones that we already have. It is not enough to talk about creating skilled jobs if we only 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. And that includes my city. So I ask the minister to impress upon colleagues in the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence about the importance of protecting and sustaining these world class space manufacturing skills in Portsmouth, because whilst we know that rebuilding British manufacturing strength begins with investment in skills, it must continue with supporting the skills and the industry that we already have.
For me, ultimately, it's about ensuring 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 even.
We can't just create shiny new jobs. We must protect the ones that we already have. It is not enough to talk about creating skilled jobs if we only 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. And that includes my city. So I ask the minister to impress upon colleagues in the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence about the importance of protecting and sustaining these world class space manufacturing skills in Portsmouth, because whilst we know that rebuilding British manufacturing strength begins with investment in skills, it must continue with supporting the skills and the industry that we already have.
For me, ultimately, it's about ensuring 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 even.
10:27
10:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
A pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Christopher. I want to begin by thanking my honourable friend, the member for the Isle of Wight West, for securing this important debate today. At a time when our economy is undergoing transformation. Excuse me. AI, robotics and automation are changing how we manufacture and the skills that our businesses need. And for me, if we're serious about Reindustrialisation, we have to make sure that our workforce is ready to seize that opportunity, that those changes will bring. And for places like my constituency of Mansfield, this means, I think, rebuilding the connections between education and local employees and employers and skilled employment, further education providers, including colleges like West Notts College in my constituency, I think are really critical to delivering this on constituency visits.
I've been fortunate enough 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, Glen air, who have recently took on 60 new apprentices in Mansfield. I think often people consider apprenticeships as an option for school leavers, but actually what I find in my area is that these opportunities exist equally for adults, adults who want to retrain or change careers or develop new skills. And I'm therefore very encouraged that Mansfield recorded 680 new apprenticeship starts in 2024 2025, with more than half of those being taken up by people over the age of 25.
And so the backdrop to this discussion is as make UK as reported, there are almost 50,000 live vacancies across UK manufacturing. 3 in 5 manufacturing SMEs identifying a lack of the right type of technical skill as a key barrier to recruitment. But I think this apparent weakness can also be seen as an opportunity, and for areas like mine, Reindustrialisation and the ideas around that 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're young people starting their careers or those adults who are looking to retrain and learn something new and skills for a new economy.
I think if we get that right as a government and as a country, we can make sure that the industries of the future bring investment and opportunity and prosperity to places like Mansfield, and that local people are properly equipped to play their full part in sharing our economic future.
I've been fortunate enough 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, Glen air, who have recently took on 60 new apprentices in Mansfield. I think often people consider apprenticeships as an option for school leavers, but actually what I find in my area is that these opportunities exist equally for adults, adults who want to retrain or change careers or develop new skills. And I'm therefore very encouraged that Mansfield recorded 680 new apprenticeship starts in 2024 2025, with more than half of those being taken up by people over the age of 25.
And so the backdrop to this discussion is as make UK as reported, there are almost 50,000 live vacancies across UK manufacturing. 3 in 5 manufacturing SMEs identifying a lack of the right type of technical skill as a key barrier to recruitment. But I think this apparent weakness can also be seen as an opportunity, and for areas like mine, Reindustrialisation and the ideas around that 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're young people starting their careers or those adults who are looking to retrain and learn something new and skills for a new economy.
I think if we get that right as a government and as a country, we can make sure that the industries of the future bring investment and opportunity and prosperity to places like Mansfield, and that local people are properly equipped to play their full part in sharing our economic future.
10:35
10:35
10:35
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you. And it is an honor to serve under your chairmanship. Sir Christopher and I thank the honourable member for the Isle of Wight West for securing this debate today. I am incredibly proud to represent Stoke on Trent South, part of which includes Stoke on Trent, a city with a proud heritage in craftsmanship and industry, Stoke is the birthplace of the Lunar Society, a group of amazing, innovative thinkers including the great innovator Josiah Wedgwood 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 high, high paid, specialist jobs.
That is why I first want to raise the excellent work underway by the My Futures Initiative, raised with me by Stoke on Trent Sixth Form and the Potteries Educational Trust and delivered in partnership with Keele University, the University of Staffordshire, the careers and enterprise company and local SMEs. This initiative is delivering an employer led skills framework from 10 to 19. Indeed, up to 25 years to over 63,000 students. They deliver a co-designed curriculum experience for 14 to 19 year olds with employer linked career gateways, helping teachers embed employer engagement activities into study and address local skills gaps.
My futures are seeking support from the Department for education to become a funded Pathfinder project, and I ask the minister whether she would work with colleagues in the DfE to support this proposal, where gateways align with manufacturing. And, of course, I could not speak in a debate on manufacturing without raising ceramics from iconic tableware manufacturers such as 1882 and Duchess China in my constituency to advance ceramics firms such as Mantech ceramics has shaped our local identity. While ceramics is best known for mugs and tableware products we all love, advanced ceramics are the hidden backbone of modern manufacturing.
They are essential components in the supply chain for high tech industries, including defence electronics 2 billion annually. 2 billion annually. Employs approximately 20,000 people and supports thousands more jobs through my chains. We are incredibly lucky that North Staffordshire is the hotbed for this activity. However, businesses repeatedly tell me that skills shortages are having a significant impact on businesses. 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. Indeed, I spoke recently 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, and 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 focus 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 master plan to replace this capability. As such, I was delighted to see the launch of the Craft Technician Apprenticeship earlier this year, led by Emma Bridgewater in my hon.
Friend's constituency of Stoke on Trent South Central and supported by ceramics UK Skills England and Creative Alliance. Initiatives like this 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. But while that funding is important, I would welcome the Minister's assurance that future funding will consider skills at the heart of our reindustrialisation plans. Since manufacturing in all its forms, it is the rock bed for our national economy, growth and our resilience. We must invest in the future, we must invest in our people and we must invest in skills.
That is why I first want to raise the excellent work underway by the My Futures Initiative, raised with me by Stoke on Trent Sixth Form and the Potteries Educational Trust and delivered in partnership with Keele University, the University of Staffordshire, the careers and enterprise company and local SMEs. This initiative is delivering an employer led skills framework from 10 to 19. Indeed, up to 25 years to over 63,000 students. They deliver a co-designed curriculum experience for 14 to 19 year olds with employer linked career gateways, helping teachers embed employer engagement activities into study and address local skills gaps.
My futures are seeking support from the Department for education to become a funded Pathfinder project, and I ask the minister whether she would work with colleagues in the DfE to support this proposal, where gateways align with manufacturing. And, of course, I could not speak in a debate on manufacturing without raising ceramics from iconic tableware manufacturers such as 1882 and Duchess China in my constituency to advance ceramics firms such as Mantech ceramics has shaped our local identity. While ceramics is best known for mugs and tableware products we all love, advanced ceramics are the hidden backbone of modern manufacturing.
They are essential components in the supply chain for high tech industries, including defence electronics 2 billion annually. 2 billion annually. Employs approximately 20,000 people and supports thousands more jobs through my chains. We are incredibly lucky that North Staffordshire is the hotbed for this activity. However, businesses repeatedly tell me that skills shortages are having a significant impact on businesses. 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. Indeed, I spoke recently 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, and 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 focus 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 master plan to replace this capability. As such, I was delighted to see the launch of the Craft Technician Apprenticeship earlier this year, led by Emma Bridgewater in my hon.
Friend's constituency of Stoke on Trent South Central and supported by ceramics UK Skills England and Creative Alliance. Initiatives like this 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. But while that funding is important, I would welcome the Minister's assurance that future funding will consider skills at the heart of our reindustrialisation plans. Since manufacturing in all its forms, it is the rock bed for our national economy, growth and our resilience. We must invest in the future, we must invest in our people and we must invest in skills.
10:44
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Whereas it is an honour to serve under your chairship. And I'd like to thank my hon. Friend from the Isle of Wight West for adopting this important debate. It won't 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 of Camborne-redruth and Hayle, we have neighbourhoods where child poverty rate is over 40%. Equally concerning is that the number of our young people claiming unemployment benefit 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, high skilled jobs that our young people and communities need, all the while strengthening the country's industrial resilience and supporting the transition to a green economy. But we will only realise that opportunity if young people are equipped with the skills that our local economy that our local businesses need. To that end, we are moving in the right direction. In September, the new Engineering and Mining Academy at the outstanding. The Ofsted outstanding Fe College, Cornwall College, in partnership with Cornish Metals at South Crofty tin mine was was was launched.
Its location could hardly be better. Moments around the corner from South Crofty, the UK's last tin mine, to close. Now on course to reopen after 30 years as projects like South Crofty or 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 also on the transferable skills which 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. These are the partnerships with industry that must champion, 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 to build their futures in Cornwall. I would therefore ask the Minister to consider what further steps can be taken to realise Cornwall as the UK's critical minerals skills hub.
But there is hope on the horizon for Cornwall. Our critical minerals sector offers an incredible opportunity to create well-paid, high skilled jobs that our young people and communities need, all the while strengthening the country's industrial resilience and supporting the transition to a green economy. But we will only realise that opportunity if young people are equipped with the skills that our local economy that our local businesses need. To that end, we are moving in the right direction. In September, the new Engineering and Mining Academy at the outstanding. The Ofsted outstanding Fe College, Cornwall College, in partnership with Cornish Metals at South Crofty tin mine was was was launched.
Its location could hardly be better. Moments around the corner from South Crofty, the UK's last tin mine, to close. Now on course to reopen after 30 years as projects like South Crofty or 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 also on the transferable skills which 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. These are the partnerships with industry that must champion, 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 to build their futures in Cornwall. I would therefore ask the Minister to consider what further steps can be taken to realise Cornwall as the UK's critical minerals skills hub.
10:50
10:50
10:50
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate with you in the chair this morning, and indeed one led by my hon. Friend, the UK spokesperson for ferries. And the government is quite rightly at the moment talking about Reindustrialisation, and I think we can see how well supported that is on this side of the House by the number of people wanting to contribute, never mind. But too often talk of Reindustrialisation can be thinking about what happened in the past and trying to go back to the past. And that's just not true anywhere in the country, but especially in the West Midlands, where, yes, we have a proud manufacturing tradition that has been depleted and many communities across the region are still scarred by that.
But actually, communities are also really looking forward to a brighter future where industrialisation can come back. Now, central to manufacturing in my part of the world in Staffordshire is ceramics, and I'm proud to follow a Stoke on Trent MP talking about the ceramics in the North Staffordshire. But in my part of the world it's a different type of ceramics, it's toilets and I think every single member in this House will have at some point spent a penny with Armitage Shanks, because it's been operating for over 200 years in the village of Armitage in my constituency, and it supports the ceramics industry as a whole, supports 20,000 skilled jobs, which does include toilets, plates, but also bricks, pipes and the technical ceramics that my hon.
Friend spoke about earlier. Those jobs are absolutely essential to the economic growth, the economic wellbeing of the entire country, but especially those communities in the North Midlands, where so much of the ceramics industry is based. And when we look at that, that's really important to those communities. But it's also really important to what the government is seeking to achieve. The government is quite rightly talking about ending the housing crisis that we have, and the need to really make sure that there is enough housing stock available for every single person in this country. I would wager that every single one of us would expect to see at least one toilet in every single one of those new houses, and the last volume producer of sanitaryware anywhere in the country is in a little village called Armitage, not far from Lichfield.
And the government has done huge things already to talk about the importance of industry, the importance of manufacturers like Armitage, Shanks and also to talk about the importance of the skills that those companies need. We've already seen the changes to the functional skills requirement to apprenticeships, something I wholeheartedly support, and something that has led to an increase in the number of young people taking up that opportunity. It's a great step in the right direction. Talk about vocational GCSE, a great step in the right direction. But as important as it is to need to see those skills coming through, we also need to make sure that those businesses are there to provide the jobs for those skills to be used in, which is why I'm so pleased that this government was able to support £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 push on and continue to drive that economic growth.
One of the things I would say, though, is that money, that funding is no good. Sitting in a bank account in Whitehall waiting to be delivered, we need to get that money out of the door faster so that we can make sure that both sides of this equation, the manufacturing skills, the manufacturers and the skills are working hand in hand. So the one thing I would ask the minister to do today is if she can have a conversation with her colleagues in Dbis to make sure that we are leaving absolutely no stone unturned to push that funding out of the door, get it into the ceramic sector so they can provide the jobs so that those skills that we're trying to build can be really pushed forwards into those companies and can help drive economic growth in every postcode in the country, but especially in WS50.
Thank you, Sir Christopher.
But actually, communities are also really looking forward to a brighter future where industrialisation can come back. Now, central to manufacturing in my part of the world in Staffordshire is ceramics, and I'm proud to follow a Stoke on Trent MP talking about the ceramics in the North Staffordshire. But in my part of the world it's a different type of ceramics, it's toilets and I think every single member in this House will have at some point spent a penny with Armitage Shanks, because it's been operating for over 200 years in the village of Armitage in my constituency, and it supports the ceramics industry as a whole, supports 20,000 skilled jobs, which does include toilets, plates, but also bricks, pipes and the technical ceramics that my hon.
Friend spoke about earlier. Those jobs are absolutely essential to the economic growth, the economic wellbeing of the entire country, but especially those communities in the North Midlands, where so much of the ceramics industry is based. And when we look at that, that's really important to those communities. But it's also really important to what the government is seeking to achieve. The government is quite rightly talking about ending the housing crisis that we have, and the need to really make sure that there is enough housing stock available for every single person in this country. I would wager that every single one of us would expect to see at least one toilet in every single one of those new houses, and the last volume producer of sanitaryware anywhere in the country is in a little village called Armitage, not far from Lichfield.
And the government has done huge things already to talk about the importance of industry, the importance of manufacturers like Armitage, Shanks and also to talk about the importance of the skills that those companies need. We've already seen the changes to the functional skills requirement to apprenticeships, something I wholeheartedly support, and something that has led to an increase in the number of young people taking up that opportunity. It's a great step in the right direction. Talk about vocational GCSE, a great step in the right direction. But as important as it is to need to see those skills coming through, we also need to make sure that those businesses are there to provide the jobs for those skills to be used in, which is why I'm so pleased that this government was able to support £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 push on and continue to drive that economic growth.
One of the things I would say, though, is that money, that funding is no good. Sitting in a bank account in Whitehall waiting to be delivered, we need to get that money out of the door faster so that we can make sure that both sides of this equation, the manufacturing skills, the manufacturers and the skills are working hand in hand. So the one thing I would ask the minister to do today is if she can have a conversation with her colleagues in Dbis to make sure that we are leaving absolutely no stone unturned to push that funding out of the door, get it into the ceramic sector so they can provide the jobs so that those skills that we're trying to build can be really pushed forwards into those companies and can help drive economic growth in every postcode in the country, but especially in WS50.
Thank you, Sir Christopher.
10:58
10:58
10:58
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
It's an honour to serve under your chairmanship. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the member for Isle of Wight West for securing the debate, much like in Yorkshire in the Isle of Wight, West is best. For too many, the vision of manufacturing is the dark satanic mills of the past. But in Calder Valley, that's not what it looks like. It's robotics, it's advanced materials, it's precision engineering. And how can we provide the skills workers for those industries without the proper training to. 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. 20 years ago it was 25%. But actually we can go the other way. When you look at manufacturing jobs, when you lose them, you lose skills and confidence in opportunities in an area. You lose the sense that a young person can build a good life, whatever they choose to do. A manufacturing wage is about 8% above that of 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 has workforce has aged faster than the rest of the workforce. The average age is over 50. It's not sustainable. One managing director in my constituency started at 16 on its. He joined me in 11 Downing Street last year. That's the kind of story of success that manufacturing skills jobs can bring, and that's what I want to see more of in Calder Valley. But manufacturing needs to feel like an option. Then Ford's engineering in my constituency, who make equipment for schools and run the international Stem racing competition, their chief executive said to me, why don't we have skill?
Why don't we have design and manufacturing rather than design and technology, which is less meaningful to people? And actually, is that kind of shift that we need to do to think about the future of manufacturing and think about it as an option. In Calder Valley, we have just secured the Yorkshire Robotics adopted Adoption Hub 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's those kind of innovations that can give us the skills of the future.
So I ask the minister, what more can we do to supply that confidence and build in business, and to build skills for the next generation? Thank you.
But in Calder Valley, Manufacturing employs about 16% of the workforce. 20 years ago it was 25%. But actually we can go the other way. When you look at manufacturing jobs, when you lose them, you lose skills and confidence in opportunities in an area. You lose the sense that a young person can build a good life, whatever they choose to do. A manufacturing wage is about 8% above that of 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 has workforce has aged faster than the rest of the workforce. The average age is over 50. It's not sustainable. One managing director in my constituency started at 16 on its. He joined me in 11 Downing Street last year. That's the kind of story of success that manufacturing skills jobs can bring, and that's what I want to see more of in Calder Valley. But manufacturing needs to feel like an option. Then Ford's engineering in my constituency, who make equipment for schools and run the international Stem racing competition, their chief executive said to me, why don't we have skill?
Why don't we have design and manufacturing rather than design and technology, which is less meaningful to people? And actually, is that kind of shift that we need to do to think about the future of manufacturing and think about it as an option. In Calder Valley, we have just secured the Yorkshire Robotics adopted Adoption Hub 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's those kind of innovations that can give us the skills of the future.
So I ask the minister, what more can we do to supply that confidence and build in business, and to build skills for the next generation? Thank you.
11:03
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr.. Sorry. Thank you, Sir Christopher. And I thank my honourable friend for bringing this debate. And I'm particularly fond of this discussion because, in a slightly tenuous link, my late granddad, Bill Dibley, was born and raised on the Isle of Wight, went on to be went on to become an electrical engineer and when I was about five, made me my first circuit board to play with, which ignited my love of innovation. So I'm sure he'd be delighted that we're here supporting the great legacy of technical skills out of Isle of Wight and the whole of the UK.
I'm grateful to private companies in my constituency, like BAE systems, who built the Academy for Skills and Knowledge, which trains apprentices for both its own organisation and the surrounding supply chain. But there are two key quick points I'd like to make is that while areas like mine in Lancashire were previously one of the biggest beneficiaries under the EU of skills support and funding, now , where schemes like apprenticeship brokerage service only goes to mayoral areas, which Lancashire is not, we risk losing so much of our progress. So while I've been encouraged by the Prime Minister's focus on Reindustrialisation and this government's commitment to growth in every postcode, we need to make sure that it means exactly that.
My second quick point is that I also have a lot of food manufacturing in my heavily rural constituency. One of those is Baxi, and typically Baxi would look to take on around 30 apprentices each year. But this year, because of wider financial pressures, they've not been able to take on any. So we must address skills shortages, not just by encouraging more young people into manufacturing, but making sure businesses have the means to invest in them. So I'm grateful that this government believes deeply in technical education, and we know that the public is with us because 93% of people believe manufacturing is important for growing the UK economy.
But we have to make sure that the cost of doing business isn't too high to develop those skills. And we have to make sure that all parts of the UK are supported to contribute to building our skills base here.
I'm grateful to private companies in my constituency, like BAE systems, who built the Academy for Skills and Knowledge, which trains apprentices for both its own organisation and the surrounding supply chain. But there are two key quick points I'd like to make is that while areas like mine in Lancashire were previously one of the biggest beneficiaries under the EU of skills support and funding, now , where schemes like apprenticeship brokerage service only goes to mayoral areas, which Lancashire is not, we risk losing so much of our progress. So while I've been encouraged by the Prime Minister's focus on Reindustrialisation and this government's commitment to growth in every postcode, we need to make sure that it means exactly that.
My second quick point is that I also have a lot of food manufacturing in my heavily rural constituency. One of those is Baxi, and typically Baxi would look to take on around 30 apprentices each year. But this year, because of wider financial pressures, they've not been able to take on any. So we must address skills shortages, not just by encouraging more young people into manufacturing, but making sure businesses have the means to invest in them. So I'm grateful that this government believes deeply in technical education, and we know that the public is with us because 93% of people believe manufacturing is important for growing the UK economy.
But we have to make sure that the cost of doing business isn't too high to develop those skills. And we have to make sure that all parts of the UK are supported to contribute to building our skills base here.
11:06
11:06
11:06
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and I thank my hon. Friend the member for the Isle of Wight West on securing this debate. I meet regularly with fantastic employers in Glasgow who want to employ young people, but there aren't the college places available to train the people in the skills those businesses need. This is an absolute failure and is making Glasgow poorer, despite the fact we have fantastic opportunities in manufacturing in Glasgow. Glasgow has a city deal through the Glasgow City region, something to build on for regional devolution because it's local employers, local businesses, local colleges who 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 carrying out in Scotland. At the minute the SNP are making a complete mess of it. The Prime Minister was right in Scotland on Friday when he spoke about the need to get power out of Edinburgh and into the city regions and the regions of Scotland, so that we can help businesses thrive and give young people the opportunities we want and seize the great future Scotland has.
But we have an absolutely botched reform of local government carrying out in Scotland. At the minute the SNP are making a complete mess of it. The Prime Minister was right in Scotland on Friday when he spoke about the need to get power out of Edinburgh and into the city regions and the regions of Scotland, so that we can help businesses thrive and give young people the opportunities we want and seize the great future Scotland has.
11:08
11:08
11:08
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. And I congratulate the honourable member for the Isle of Wight West on securing this very important debate. Sir Christopher, I'll start with some numbers. We should celebrate. UK manufacturing produces £220 billion of output and supports 2.6 million jobs, paying on average 8% more than the rest of the economy. It accounts for 42% of our exports and almost half of all business R&D. It's a sector of skilled, well-paid careers that we are rightly proud of, but it's also a sector that could do more if it had more of the skilled people that it needs.
Skills England identifies advanced manufacturing as having the third highest proportion of skill shortage vacancies of any sector, and projects that 84% of the additional jobs in its priority occupations to 2035 will need qualifications at level four or above. The businesses from Cambridgeshire that kindly shared their insights with me in advance of this debate describe problems that I suspect members from every part of the country will recognise. One electronics firm told me that although electronics is the largest manufacturing subsector in our region, the county is a dead spot for the sort of technical education they need with travel outside the county needed for training, and there is no occupational standard for much of the work they do.
As they put it, you cannot fund a course for a job the system does not recognise. Now that's a national problem for Skills England. But the lack of local provision is something places could fix for themselves. And I hope that the Prime Minister's well known enthusiasm for devolution extends to giving areas like ours the skills, powers and capital funding to do it. Zeiss, another manufacturer in my constituency who make electron microscopes, make a related point about the future. Advance 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, but in 2020 425, there were over 46,000 starts in engineering and manufacturing in England. But level two manufacturing starts fell by 80% in the five years to 23. 24 and that's a significant problem in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Now, the Liberal Democrats have long called for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced. So we welcome the government's move to to more flexible growth and skills levy. But we do recognise that progress has been slow. Apprenticeship units have been available since April, yet the skills charity ingenuity found a fifth of manufacturing SMEs had never heard of them, and only 1 in 10 think that they will fill their skills gaps.
And 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 for a firm of 20, they can't easily release a young employee for 2 or 3 days per week, sometimes to a college that might be miles away, and it's difficult for them to carry the paperwork that comes with it as well.
Another manufacturer in my constituency, Domino Printing Services, has pointed out employers pay into the levy but cannot use it to cover much of the real cost of employing and developing an apprenticeship. Funding bands for many engineering apprenticeships simply don't cover the cost of delivering them, so we have employers with skills gaps, young people who need good routes into careers and apprenticeship funding that is not fully used. Now. There's a lot here the government could take from Liberal Democrat policy, as you might expect me to say. We would like to introduce skills tax credits with enhanced relief for priority sectors to reflect the fact that skills are an investment, and we would also establish the structures for skills cooperatives.
And I know the Prime Minister likes a cooperative so that smaller firms can pool training resources and even rotate apprenticeships apprentices between them. We would also expand higher technical routes such as Hncs and Hnds, foundation degrees and higher apprenticeships. Building on the investment already made in Fe Colleges and Institutes of Technology. And we would like to see Skills England as a truly independent body with employers at its heart. In its short life skills, England has already been moved from the Department for education to the Department for Work and Pensions, and it remains an executive agency inside that department, not the independent voice for skills that employers really need.
And I would urge the government to look again at giving it genuine independence. But I do have three questions for the minister. First, levy receipts are forecast at £4.5 billion this year, but after the devolved nations share and England's £3.3 billion budget, around £700 million is not returned to the skills system. It stays with the Treasury and on the government's own spending projections, that rises to about £1 billion next year. So will the Minister commit that money raised for skills is spent on skills and not clawed back by the Treasury? Second, will the review of funding bands address the shortfall of up to £8,000 per apprenticeship apprentice that employers face in engineering and manufacturing.
And third, will the Minister press skills England to develop occupational standards for a wider variety of manufacturing roles, such as PCB assembly, that the system currently cannot see. NaOH. Bolt, 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, are multi-year long horizon decisions. What industry needs from government is a long term, stable plan, and I hope the minister can tell us today that that's what's coming.
Skills England identifies advanced manufacturing as having the third highest proportion of skill shortage vacancies of any sector, and projects that 84% of the additional jobs in its priority occupations to 2035 will need qualifications at level four or above. The businesses from Cambridgeshire that kindly shared their insights with me in advance of this debate describe problems that I suspect members from every part of the country will recognise. One electronics firm told me that although electronics is the largest manufacturing subsector in our region, the county is a dead spot for the sort of technical education they need with travel outside the county needed for training, and there is no occupational standard for much of the work they do.
As they put it, you cannot fund a course for a job the system does not recognise. Now that's a national problem for Skills England. But the lack of local provision is something places could fix for themselves. And I hope that the Prime Minister's well known enthusiasm for devolution extends to giving areas like ours the skills, powers and capital funding to do it. Zeiss, another manufacturer in my constituency who make electron microscopes, make a related point about the future. Advance 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, but in 2020 425, there were over 46,000 starts in engineering and manufacturing in England. But level two manufacturing starts fell by 80% in the five years to 23. 24 and that's a significant problem in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Now, the Liberal Democrats have long called for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced. So we welcome the government's move to to more flexible growth and skills levy. But we do recognise that progress has been slow. Apprenticeship units have been available since April, yet the skills charity ingenuity found a fifth of manufacturing SMEs had never heard of them, and only 1 in 10 think that they will fill their skills gaps.
And 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 for a firm of 20, they can't easily release a young employee for 2 or 3 days per week, sometimes to a college that might be miles away, and it's difficult for them to carry the paperwork that comes with it as well.
Another manufacturer in my constituency, Domino Printing Services, has pointed out employers pay into the levy but cannot use it to cover much of the real cost of employing and developing an apprenticeship. Funding bands for many engineering apprenticeships simply don't cover the cost of delivering them, so we have employers with skills gaps, young people who need good routes into careers and apprenticeship funding that is not fully used. Now. There's a lot here the government could take from Liberal Democrat policy, as you might expect me to say. We would like to introduce skills tax credits with enhanced relief for priority sectors to reflect the fact that skills are an investment, and we would also establish the structures for skills cooperatives.
And I know the Prime Minister likes a cooperative so that smaller firms can pool training resources and even rotate apprenticeships apprentices between them. We would also expand higher technical routes such as Hncs and Hnds, foundation degrees and higher apprenticeships. Building on the investment already made in Fe Colleges and Institutes of Technology. And we would like to see Skills England as a truly independent body with employers at its heart. In its short life skills, England has already been moved from the Department for education to the Department for Work and Pensions, and it remains an executive agency inside that department, not the independent voice for skills that employers really need.
And I would urge the government to look again at giving it genuine independence. But I do have three questions for the minister. First, levy receipts are forecast at £4.5 billion this year, but after the devolved nations share and England's £3.3 billion budget, around £700 million is not returned to the skills system. It stays with the Treasury and on the government's own spending projections, that rises to about £1 billion next year. So will the Minister commit that money raised for skills is spent on skills and not clawed back by the Treasury? Second, will the review of funding bands address the shortfall of up to £8,000 per apprenticeship apprentice that employers face in engineering and manufacturing.
And third, will the Minister press skills England to develop occupational standards for a wider variety of manufacturing roles, such as PCB assembly, that the system currently cannot see. NaOH. Bolt, 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, are multi-year long horizon decisions. What industry needs from government is a long term, stable plan, and I hope the minister can tell us today that that's what's coming.
11:22
11:22
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you, thank you, Sir Christopher. It is a pleasure to be responding on behalf of His Majesty's Opposition and to serve under your chairmanship. And I thank the honourable member for the Isle of Wight for securing time in this House for this really important topic. And I heard a lot of good speakers, and I agree with the sentiment of many of those speakers, although we may not always agree on every policy issue, I do agree that there are best years are ahead of us, and having previously been a director of the Local Enterprise Partnership in the West Midlands before I was a Member of Parliament, I remember my first ever meeting where I spoke to a chair of a Fe college who told me about how the time before, between what his college could deliver and what businesses said they wanted was around three years.
And that told me two things as a small business owner, that the skills landscape was incredibly complex and difficult for businesses to navigate, but also that demand played a huge role and I'll cover demand in a bit. The UK's manufacturing sector is hugely important. The sector accounts for roughly 8.5% of total economic output across the country, and employs roughly 2.6 million people, and I was delighted that the member for Stoke on Trent South mentioned the Lunar Society because a modern day lunar society I was a member of. In fact, I helped write the Constitution for.
So I'm a. I was pleased to see that put on record and as a 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 sector, and Jaguar Land Rover is right at the heart of that, contributing £10.4 billion, the region that is, and employing over 200,000 people. Just recently I visited Rolls-Royce, the shadow Chancellor, which has a huge facility in the West Midlands, and I invite the minister to come and visit Rolls-Royce because they do a huge amount of work.
And I know it was said that the UK doesn't manufacture anything anymore. I actually reject that context, actually, because I don't think that is true. I saw first hand the engines, the control control panels that were being built for some of our most important and sensitive projects as well. And I got to meet a number of apprentices as well who just showed how important apprenticeships are. And I'm proud that the previous government, over 14 years created over 5.2 million apprenticeships. And as a shadow Minister for state, Shadow Minister of State for education, I regularly hold meetings with businesses, Fe colleges and others who are very concerned about skill shortages and the manufacturing sector.
In July, I hosted a round table with ingenuity, which has already been mentioned, and we held that in Parliament. It's a charity that was focused on closing skills gaps in the UK's engineering and manufacturing sector. And it was it was very clear from the businesses that we met that they are expect the government to do so much more to help support manufacturing and help engineering businesses
And that told me two things as a small business owner, that the skills landscape was incredibly complex and difficult for businesses to navigate, but also that demand played a huge role and I'll cover demand in a bit. The UK's manufacturing sector is hugely important. The sector accounts for roughly 8.5% of total economic output across the country, and employs roughly 2.6 million people, and I was delighted that the member for Stoke on Trent South mentioned the Lunar Society because a modern day lunar society I was a member of. In fact, I helped write the Constitution for.
So I'm a. I was pleased to see that put on record and as a 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 sector, and Jaguar Land Rover is right at the heart of that, contributing £10.4 billion, the region that is, and employing over 200,000 people. Just recently I visited Rolls-Royce, the shadow Chancellor, which has a huge facility in the West Midlands, and I invite the minister to come and visit Rolls-Royce because they do a huge amount of work.
And I know it was said that the UK doesn't manufacture anything anymore. I actually reject that context, actually, because I don't think that is true. I saw first hand the engines, the control control panels that were being built for some of our most important and sensitive projects as well. And I got to meet a number of apprentices as well who just showed how important apprenticeships are. And I'm proud that the previous government, over 14 years created over 5.2 million apprenticeships. And as a shadow Minister for state, Shadow Minister of State for education, I regularly hold meetings with businesses, Fe colleges and others who are very concerned about skill shortages and the manufacturing sector.
In July, I hosted a round table with ingenuity, which has already been mentioned, and we held that in Parliament. It's a charity that was focused on closing skills gaps in the UK's engineering and manufacturing sector. And it was it was very clear from the businesses that we met that they are expect the government to do so much more to help support manufacturing and help engineering businesses
11:28
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
She's recent Mind the Gap report and their research found that around half of surveyed SMEs reported skills related issues within the past year, with 36% experiencing skills gaps and difficulties recruiting workers. And they estimate that the lack of plugging of this gap and manufacturing skills cost the UK economy £5.2 billion. So clearly a really important area that we must all agree that we need to get on with fixing. And actually, I asked the minister if she's had about her relationship with the DfE and how she works to make sure that the advanced manufacturing workforce is skilled, not just at the Neet level, but as has also been mentioned around throughout people's careers and the lifelong learning element of that, because that is really, really important.
So, Christopher, I'm very 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 I do believe there are significant challenges coming manufacturers, ways that we are already seeing, and that is the result of government policy. Just yesterday, Prime Minister wrote in The times newspaper about the prospect of Britain facing economic catastrophe and moral failure because of a generation of young workers being written off to a life on benefits. I agree, because youth unemployment now is 16.4%. When the conservatives left office, it was 14.2%.
So a significant increase. And of course, there are currently 1,000,016 to 24 year olds not in education, employment or training. And I welcome the government's focus on getting this down for the right policies. We will support them. Unfortunately, it is the His Majesty's opposition's view that there are that their approach to tackling this grave injustice is still entirely wrong. The drastic shortage of jobs and I talked about demand in this sector. The drastic shortage of jobs in sectors like manufacturing is because of the government's policy platform. Not once did I hear members opposite talk about the impact of National Insurance, or the impact of tax, or the reduction in National Insurance threshold, or the fact that the cost of employing an apprentice has gone up so much more that it's become challenging for businesses to take on apprentices where they do, quote, apprentices being taken on Sir Christopher.
Actually, the opportunity cost is that fewer are being taken on as a result of these policies, and it is obvious to me and to the opposition that it is the government's tax policies that are really making it harder for young people to get into good jobs. That isn't just the view of the opposition, however. Hugh Pill, the chief economist of the Bank of England, agrees that higher National Insurance contributions and government increasing the national living wage and minimum wages has priced out many entry level workers. Many of them many, many of them are young people will do so.
So, Christopher, I'm very 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 I do believe there are significant challenges coming manufacturers, ways that we are already seeing, and that is the result of government policy. Just yesterday, Prime Minister wrote in The times newspaper about the prospect of Britain facing economic catastrophe and moral failure because of a generation of young workers being written off to a life on benefits. I agree, because youth unemployment now is 16.4%. When the conservatives left office, it was 14.2%.
So a significant increase. And of course, there are currently 1,000,016 to 24 year olds not in education, employment or training. And I welcome the government's focus on getting this down for the right policies. We will support them. Unfortunately, it is the His Majesty's opposition's view that there are that their approach to tackling this grave injustice is still entirely wrong. The drastic shortage of jobs and I talked about demand in this sector. The drastic shortage of jobs in sectors like manufacturing is because of the government's policy platform. Not once did I hear members opposite talk about the impact of National Insurance, or the impact of tax, or the reduction in National Insurance threshold, or the fact that the cost of employing an apprentice has gone up so much more that it's become challenging for businesses to take on apprentices where they do, quote, apprentices being taken on Sir Christopher.
Actually, the opportunity cost is that fewer are being taken on as a result of these policies, and it is obvious to me and to the opposition that it is the government's tax policies that are really making it harder for young people to get into good jobs. That isn't just the view of the opposition, however. Hugh Pill, the chief economist of the Bank of England, agrees that higher National Insurance contributions and government increasing the national living wage and minimum wages has priced out many entry level workers. Many of them many, many of them are young people will do so.
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
I reject the I reject the framing of the question because actually what is happening? What what it. I'm sure, I'm sure, I'm sure they don't find youth unemployment funny, but what is happening is that when there is a young apprentice being interviewed by a business owner and many business owners talk to me about this and they say, actually, if they've got a 25 year old with experience versus an 18 year old with no experience, that is really hindering their their prospects of hiring those people. And that is the reality. And I encourage you, I'm sure he's a very conscientious MP.
I will encourage him to go and speak to a small business owners and ask pose that question in the way that I framed it. When when I won't, I'm just going to carry on. When met with the reality, the government's plans on this space for far too short, and the government has made lots of noise on recruiting targets. In fact, I just saw that the government announced 40,000 new construction placements every single year. But can the minister confirm is this the same or a different version of the announcement that government made in August 25th, about the 40,000 future builders, bricklayers, electricians, carpenters and plumbers?
This was made. That was a directly quote from the press release in August 25th, because government by press release is one thing, Sir Christopher. But recycling old press releases as a whole thing, and I think those apprentices deserve better than that. And of course, there is no there's been no mention about the as I talked about the impact of the government's fiscal policies, just just as we were having this debate, I saw a headline job vacancies are at their lowest in 20 in in 12 years. That's 176,000 fewer jobs now from when Labour took office.
There was also mention about in the limited time that I've got left, there's also mention about the Education Secretary Secretary's ambition to offer a closed off academic options and offer much more vocational options from the 14 to 16 age group. And I have to say, I'm deeply skeptical of that policy. We are the opposition is are really calling for an evidence based approach. And the last time and it was a Labour government who did did these reforms. Fewer children from poorer backgrounds ended up getting going into academic subjects. They were funnelled into vocational work. And actually, there were plenty of people who we believe would have been able to get into higher quality jobs, but actually they were funnelled off at a lower age.
So we're deeply skeptical. And I know there's been it's been welcomed the policy announcement, but we are yet to see significant detail. And when I spoke to headteachers just last week, many of them talked about how they will be trained, their teachers will be trained to deliver these vocational subjects and also where the funding will come from. Of course, the previous conservative government is proud of the reforms that it instituted. That has meant that the Pisa rankings, that in the Pisa rankings, England is some of the best, has some of the best educational delivery in the world.
It's one of the most resilient. We're incredibly proud of that. And if you meet people from the advanced manufacturing sector, they will laud the fact that a knowledge rich curriculum has helped young people to create critical and analytical skills. That includes numerous skills, numeracy skills. And so we are really worried about the fact that some of the announcements from the current Education Secretary will undermine opportunities for young people. And it's not just from the opposition that this criticism comes. John White, chief financial officer at building materials firm Hughes Grace. And employers are struggling with the lack of incentives to hire younger people, pointing to the government narrowing the gap between the national minimum wage, as I've already alluded to, but also that the government should change the rules around how employers can spend the apprenticeship levy.
So I hope the minister can shed a bit of light on some of the questions around the apprenticeship levy that are there. We are really clear that actually making it easier for employers to hire young people is really important. That's why we pledged to halve employers National insurance for young people aged 21 to 24 to help them get into work. We've offered much more incentives for small businesses to take on young people, because small businesses are often lauded as the lifeblood of the UK economy in the high street, but they are the greatest employers of young people across the country.
It's not actually big businesses. We believe our approach will free up the business sector and manufacturing to employ more young people. So I welcome the minister's response to that, Minister.
I will encourage him to go and speak to a small business owners and ask pose that question in the way that I framed it. When when I won't, I'm just going to carry on. When met with the reality, the government's plans on this space for far too short, and the government has made lots of noise on recruiting targets. In fact, I just saw that the government announced 40,000 new construction placements every single year. But can the minister confirm is this the same or a different version of the announcement that government made in August 25th, about the 40,000 future builders, bricklayers, electricians, carpenters and plumbers?
This was made. That was a directly quote from the press release in August 25th, because government by press release is one thing, Sir Christopher. But recycling old press releases as a whole thing, and I think those apprentices deserve better than that. And of course, there is no there's been no mention about the as I talked about the impact of the government's fiscal policies, just just as we were having this debate, I saw a headline job vacancies are at their lowest in 20 in in 12 years. That's 176,000 fewer jobs now from when Labour took office.
There was also mention about in the limited time that I've got left, there's also mention about the Education Secretary Secretary's ambition to offer a closed off academic options and offer much more vocational options from the 14 to 16 age group. And I have to say, I'm deeply skeptical of that policy. We are the opposition is are really calling for an evidence based approach. And the last time and it was a Labour government who did did these reforms. Fewer children from poorer backgrounds ended up getting going into academic subjects. They were funnelled into vocational work. And actually, there were plenty of people who we believe would have been able to get into higher quality jobs, but actually they were funnelled off at a lower age.
So we're deeply skeptical. And I know there's been it's been welcomed the policy announcement, but we are yet to see significant detail. And when I spoke to headteachers just last week, many of them talked about how they will be trained, their teachers will be trained to deliver these vocational subjects and also where the funding will come from. Of course, the previous conservative government is proud of the reforms that it instituted. That has meant that the Pisa rankings, that in the Pisa rankings, England is some of the best, has some of the best educational delivery in the world.
It's one of the most resilient. We're incredibly proud of that. And if you meet people from the advanced manufacturing sector, they will laud the fact that a knowledge rich curriculum has helped young people to create critical and analytical skills. That includes numerous skills, numeracy skills. And so we are really worried about the fact that some of the announcements from the current Education Secretary will undermine opportunities for young people. And it's not just from the opposition that this criticism comes. John White, chief financial officer at building materials firm Hughes Grace. And employers are struggling with the lack of incentives to hire younger people, pointing to the government narrowing the gap between the national minimum wage, as I've already alluded to, but also that the government should change the rules around how employers can spend the apprenticeship levy.
So I hope the minister can shed a bit of light on some of the questions around the apprenticeship levy that are there. We are really clear that actually making it easier for employers to hire young people is really important. That's why we pledged to halve employers National insurance for young people aged 21 to 24 to help them get into work. We've offered much more incentives for small businesses to take on young people, because small businesses are often lauded as the lifeblood of the UK economy in the high street, but they are the greatest employers of young people across the country.
It's not actually big businesses. We believe our approach will free up the business sector and manufacturing to employ more young people. So I welcome the minister's response to that, Minister.
11:42
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you, Sir Christopher. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Isle of Wight West 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 and businesses including Wight Shipyard, diverse Marine and aerospace demonstrate the breadth of modern British manufacturing, from shipbuilding and aerospace to clean energy, defence and precision engineering. He's right that this is not simply about preserving Britain's industrial heritage, it's about building the industry's supply chains and skilled careers of the future.
And I particularly welcome his focus on the new Large Structures Innovation Centre and the 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 friend was also right to recognise the strengths of Derby, from rail, automotive, aerospace to nuclear power alongside the Team Derby initiative. Those strengths demonstrate the benefits of bringing together industry skills and investment to support growth.
Now, as we've already 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 leaving the sector. And that is why skills are central to our our approach to growth. In every postcode. We're 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 sectors.
But my hon. Friend also made a wide and important wider point. As well as creating the skilled workforce, businesses need to grow. We also need to ensure that young people have the opportunities they need to start, stay and succeed in these high demand sectors. And the opposition spokesman talked about youth unemployment. I would remind him that between 2021 and 2024, the number of young people not in employment, education and training rose by a quarter of a million. And they did nothing. And that's why we're reforming vocational routes for young people, including apprenticeships and technical education, investing in technical excellence, colleges, strengthening careers education and expanding work experience to help young people move from education into skilled employment.
As my hon. Friend for Portsmouth North said, we need clear technical pathways beginning before young people make crucial choices and continuing into further education, apprenticeships and skilled work. And that starts with technical education from age 14 on an equal footing with academic education, helping more young people access technical qualifications alongside their GCSEs, careers guidance and relevant work experience. And we've. I won't because I'm very short on time. If I have time later I will. We've also announced new vocational GCSEs, giving young people greater choice and equipping them with practical knowledge and skills after GCSE. Young people need routes that are easy to understand and valued by employers.
This week is T-levels week and these qualifications in engineering and manufacturing combined specialist classroom learning with a substantial industry placement, giving students experience of the workplace and a route into skilled employment and apprenticeship or further study. And from 2028 V levels in engineering, Design and engineering manufacturing will provide a broader applied route, whilst occupational certificates will offer two year routes towards skilled roles such as engineering operative, autocare technician and welder and foundation certificates. I won't for a moment will help students who need additional preparation before progressing to level three study. Together, these reforms will provide greater choice and clearer progression into manufacturing careers, and we'll give way to my hon.
And I particularly welcome his focus on the new Large Structures Innovation Centre and the 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 friend was also right to recognise the strengths of Derby, from rail, automotive, aerospace to nuclear power alongside the Team Derby initiative. Those strengths demonstrate the benefits of bringing together industry skills and investment to support growth.
Now, as we've already 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 leaving the sector. And that is why skills are central to our our approach to growth. In every postcode. We're 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 sectors.
But my hon. Friend also made a wide and important wider point. As well as creating the skilled workforce, businesses need to grow. We also need to ensure that young people have the opportunities they need to start, stay and succeed in these high demand sectors. And the opposition spokesman talked about youth unemployment. I would remind him that between 2021 and 2024, the number of young people not in employment, education and training rose by a quarter of a million. And they did nothing. And that's why we're reforming vocational routes for young people, including apprenticeships and technical education, investing in technical excellence, colleges, strengthening careers education and expanding work experience to help young people move from education into skilled employment.
As my hon. Friend for Portsmouth North said, we need clear technical pathways beginning before young people make crucial choices and continuing into further education, apprenticeships and skilled work. And that starts with technical education from age 14 on an equal footing with academic education, helping more young people access technical qualifications alongside their GCSEs, careers guidance and relevant work experience. And we've. I won't because I'm very short on time. If I have time later I will. We've also announced new vocational GCSEs, giving young people greater choice and equipping them with practical knowledge and skills after GCSE. Young people need routes that are easy to understand and valued by employers.
This week is T-levels week and these qualifications in engineering and manufacturing combined specialist classroom learning with a substantial industry placement, giving students experience of the workplace and a route into skilled employment and apprenticeship or further study. And from 2028 V levels in engineering, Design and engineering manufacturing will provide a broader applied route, whilst occupational certificates will offer two year routes towards skilled roles such as engineering operative, autocare technician and welder and foundation certificates. I won't for a moment will help students who need additional preparation before progressing to level three study. Together, these reforms will provide greater choice and clearer progression into manufacturing careers, and we'll give way to my hon.
11:52
11:52
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Thank you, Sir Chris. I declare my interest as the governor of the City of Stoke on Trent College. Can I just say to the minister, on ve levels, the the last government decimated the BTec programme, which is where the gap came. The V levels are filling, but V levels are going to be short qualifications as opposed to large qualifications that mirror BTECs. I know the department are looking at the rollout for future V levels. Could she take back that a large qualification for V levels that can be studied independently, rather than being alongside A-levels, or requiring three for a university education, would be a way of making that breadth of opportunity.
Mirror what BTECs did. But still, with the values that V levels that the government are going to try and introduce.
Mirror what BTECs did. But still, with the values that V levels that the government are going to try and introduce.
11:53
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank my honourable friend for the point he makes, and the whole point is that we want to offer young people a range of different options and choices, and apprenticeships will remain central to that offer because they allow people to earn while they learn and help employers develop the skills they need. I know that there are calls for the maximum funding band levels to be reassessed in certain occupational areas, and we're working closely with the sector and with 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 respond more quickly to changing skills needs, and I'm grateful to the honourable member for Taunton and Wellington for recognising that apprenticeship units in battery manufacturing, mechanical fitting and assembly Mechanizing welding were developed by Skills England in just three months, following consultation with employers and sector experts, and I'm sure that the Skills Minister will be happy to meet with him 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 and apprentice under 25. And that support matters, particularly to small and manufacturers who are vital to local supply chains but can find it harder to meet the initial costs of recruiting and supporting an apprentice. Now, alongside clearer routes and stronger apprenticeships, colleges need the specialist facilities, equipment and teaching expertise required by modern manufacturing, and that's why we've established for advanced Manufacturing technical Excellence colleges, including, as my hon.
Friend for Wolverhampton North East highlighted in her city. They're part of a wider network of 29 technical excellence colleges, representing an investment of £295 million, expected to benefit more than 100,000 learners by the end of this Parliament, providing advanced facilities, expert teaching and training shaped by employer demand and through a hub and spoke spoke approach. They'll also share expertise with other providers, strengthening technical education beyond their own campuses. Now, a key part, very briefly.
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 respond more quickly to changing skills needs, and I'm grateful to the honourable member for Taunton and Wellington for recognising that apprenticeship units in battery manufacturing, mechanical fitting and assembly Mechanizing welding were developed by Skills England in just three months, following consultation with employers and sector experts, and I'm sure that the Skills Minister will be happy to meet with him 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 and apprentice under 25. And that support matters, particularly to small and manufacturers who are vital to local supply chains but can find it harder to meet the initial costs of recruiting and supporting an apprentice. Now, alongside clearer routes and stronger apprenticeships, colleges need the specialist facilities, equipment and teaching expertise required by modern manufacturing, and that's why we've established for advanced Manufacturing technical Excellence colleges, including, as my hon.
Friend for Wolverhampton North East highlighted in her city. They're part of a wider network of 29 technical excellence colleges, representing an investment of £295 million, expected to benefit more than 100,000 learners by the end of this Parliament, providing advanced facilities, expert teaching and training shaped by employer demand and through a hub and spoke spoke approach. They'll also share expertise with other providers, strengthening technical education beyond their own campuses. Now, a key part, very briefly.
11:59
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Very briefly, I do thank her for giving way. Much of the announcements that have been made over the last two months relating to post 14 skills have been largely targeted at mayoral combined authority or mayoral strategic authorities. 48% of the country is not in a combined authority, and Cornwall. We never will be in a combined authority. Does she? Does she agree that we need to ensure that that skills and that flexibility, the funding and the flexibility for post 14 skills needs to be spread across every postcode and not just in mayoral combined authorities.
11:59
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
He obviously has pre-empted what I was going on to talk about, which is that a key part of our approach is about shifting power, funding and accountability away from Westminster, and we will work with both mayoral and strategic authorities in shaping their local skill system and supporting economic growth in their regions. And I can assure him that that will apply in Cornwall, just as it applies with the opportunity to work with our mayors in the West Midlands, in West Yorkshire and in South Yorkshire, as colleagues asked. We want to design locally tailored, vocationally focused pathways for each region, and we know that strategic authorities are well placed to bring together employers, schools, colleges, strengthen the links between education and work, and help broker relevant work experience.
And as my hon. Friend from Mansfield 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 demands and the need of employers. And that really matters because the opportunities available on the Isle of Wight are not the same as those in Derby, Stoke on Trent, Mansfield, Litchfield, Cornwall, Doncaster, Portsmouth, Wolverhampton, Lancashire, Alloa and Grangemouth. Taunton and Wellington, Glasgow, Cambridgeshire or indeed Meriden and Solihull, and local leaders can shape delivery around the strengths and needs of their economies.
And in fact, I hope that the devolved government in Scotland is. Listen carefully to the points made by my honourable friend. I'll draw my remarks to a conclusion . Now, Sir Christopher, my hon. Friend rightly highlighted both the success of manufacturing on the Isle of Wight and the importance of investing in the workforce that will sustain it, and the businesses that honourable members across the country have described demonstrate that world class, advanced manufacturing can thrive and create skilled jobs across the country. But that's only half the job and investing in the skills that power. It is what turns ambition into long term economic success.
That's already visible on the Isle of Wight, showing what's possible, and 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 know there will be a number of questions raised by colleagues and I haven't had a chance to address, but I'm sure that my noble friend, the Minister for skills, will listen to their representations and perhaps write to them on any specifics.
And as my hon. Friend from Mansfield 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 demands and the need of employers. And that really matters because the opportunities available on the Isle of Wight are not the same as those in Derby, Stoke on Trent, Mansfield, Litchfield, Cornwall, Doncaster, Portsmouth, Wolverhampton, Lancashire, Alloa and Grangemouth. Taunton and Wellington, Glasgow, Cambridgeshire or indeed Meriden and Solihull, and local leaders can shape delivery around the strengths and needs of their economies.
And in fact, I hope that the devolved government in Scotland is. Listen carefully to the points made by my honourable friend. I'll draw my remarks to a conclusion . Now, Sir Christopher, my hon. Friend rightly highlighted both the success of manufacturing on the Isle of Wight and the importance of investing in the workforce that will sustain it, and the businesses that honourable members across the country have described demonstrate that world class, advanced manufacturing can thrive and create skilled jobs across the country. But that's only half the job and investing in the skills that power. It is what turns ambition into long term economic success.
That's already visible on the Isle of Wight, showing what's possible, and 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 know there will be a number of questions raised by colleagues and I haven't had a chance to address, but I'm sure that my noble friend, the Minister for skills, will listen to their representations and perhaps write to them on any specifics.
12:05
12:05
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Thank the Minister for her response, as well as the engagement from members across the House, with the exception of the shadow minister, who appears to be in cloud cuckoo land. I think the shared enthusiasm for growing and nurturing our manufacturing skills sector is something we should all be excited about, and I think the call to action today for all to make apprenticeships as exciting and as desirable as university and say it is okay to learn a trade. To conclude, I look forward to tutoring colleagues across the house so they too can find out how to create a powerhouse for manufacturing skills in their constituencies.
The world class businesses, the thriving skills support group from education establishments helping us 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.
The world class businesses, the thriving skills support group from education establishments helping us 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.
12:06
12:07
12:07
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I am very kind of. Mrs.. On is that on? I'm very glad to have been able to bring forward this debate on long duration energy storage systems, and I would like to take this opportunity to focus on pumped storage and the cost benefit of hosting this 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 defence AI, a tech sector or financial industry to rely on. Our major industry is tourism, which suffers from a short season and low pay in hospitality, an industry that is struggling now.
I wrote to Mr. Burnham recently and laid out some harrowing facts. Remote Scotland has a 30% higher cost of living and a 10% lower income than urban Scotland. While we have seen a dramatic drop in school rolls and a 71% increase in the number of people over the age of 75 now 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.
We have the wind on that point.
I wrote to Mr. Burnham recently and laid out some harrowing facts. Remote Scotland has a 30% higher cost of living and a 10% lower income than urban Scotland. While we have seen a dramatic drop in school rolls and a 71% increase in the number of people over the age of 75 now 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.
We have the wind on that point.
12:10
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
Just to give the honourable gentleman encouragement, we see the incredible potential for this in Northern Ireland, where £100 million joint venture in Islandmagee is set to build a massive 150 megawatt storage facility capable of powering 36,000 homes. So does the honourable member agree that government must aggressively, and I use the word aggressively, support those multi-day storage systems right across the United Kingdom, working hand in hand with devolved nations to modernize our grid infrastructure.
12:10
12:11
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I think you've hit the nail on the head. There is not enough in it for the communities to generate to to benefit from these. And this pumped storage seems to be as good a way of providing electricity than we could find. So in the Highlands we have the wind, the water, and the geography that make the Highlands so important to 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 as well. The Highlands already generates 12 times the amount of electricity it needs, but we have one of the highest level of fuel poverty in Britain.
Go figure. As my children would say, Alex Salmond, when he was First Minister of Scotland, 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, abroad and are often owned by overseas utilities from a multi-billion pound industry. Scotland's communities only got £30 million of community benefit last year, and the Highlands only got £7 million. That is just £30 per head of population in the Highlands. Now the Highlands already generates almost eight gigawatts of renewable electricity per year, roughly a third from hydroelectricity and two thirds from onshore wind.
So even before factoring in pumped storage, we play an important role in the electrification of the UK. I've said before in this House that I want the Highlands to benefit benefit properly from the enormous value of its natural resources. I was hopeful about onshore wind investment and the jobs and opportunities it could bring, but in practice it's been minimal. The proposed pumped storage projects are now the only remaining chance I can see to bring proper money into my left behind part of Britain. Now, why does electricity storage really matter? Well, long duration storage has an important role in our energy future, and the Highlands has a particular ability to help deliver it.
We need to be able to store electricity when there's plenty of it, and to use that when we need it. Now, batteries play an important role in managing shorter periods, but we need technologies capable of supplying electricity for much longer stretches. Pumped storage is a proven technology capable of providing large amounts of electricity for long periods. These are long life infrastructure assets expected to operate for more than a century. It uses electricity to pump water from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir. When electricity is required, water is released through the turbines. As you can imagine with our geography, the highlands is very well placed for this.
Our lochs, hills and mountains allow us to create the height differences that pumped storage require. The technical. Technical term is hydraulic head. In simple terms, the greater the height difference between the reservoirs, the more energy you can produce from the same amount of water. Now, this summer, Ofgem announced that they had provisionally approved three pumped storage sites in the Highlands Corrie Glacier, Invergarry, Loch Kemp near Loch Ness and Loch Arbour, quite near Newtonmore. These three sites will produce a collective four gigawatts of electricity that is three times as much as Greater Manchester uses. The development costs will be over £5 billion, by far the biggest infrastructure investment ever seen in the Highlands.
And there are three more pumped storage sites that are keen to get ofgem's go ahead, namely Loch near Invergarry and Loch Eric and Loch Carrick on Loch Ness.
Go figure. As my children would say, Alex Salmond, when he was First Minister of Scotland, 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, abroad and are often owned by overseas utilities from a multi-billion pound industry. Scotland's communities only got £30 million of community benefit last year, and the Highlands only got £7 million. That is just £30 per head of population in the Highlands. Now the Highlands already generates almost eight gigawatts of renewable electricity per year, roughly a third from hydroelectricity and two thirds from onshore wind.
So even before factoring in pumped storage, we play an important role in the electrification of the UK. I've said before in this House that I want the Highlands to benefit benefit properly from the enormous value of its natural resources. I was hopeful about onshore wind investment and the jobs and opportunities it could bring, but in practice it's been minimal. The proposed pumped storage projects are now the only remaining chance I can see to bring proper money into my left behind part of Britain. Now, why does electricity storage really matter? Well, long duration storage has an important role in our energy future, and the Highlands has a particular ability to help deliver it.
We need to be able to store electricity when there's plenty of it, and to use that when we need it. Now, batteries play an important role in managing shorter periods, but we need technologies capable of supplying electricity for much longer stretches. Pumped storage is a proven technology capable of providing large amounts of electricity for long periods. These are long life infrastructure assets expected to operate for more than a century. It uses electricity to pump water from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir. When electricity is required, water is released through the turbines. As you can imagine with our geography, the highlands is very well placed for this.
Our lochs, hills and mountains allow us to create the height differences that pumped storage require. The technical. Technical term is hydraulic head. In simple terms, the greater the height difference between the reservoirs, the more energy you can produce from the same amount of water. Now, this summer, Ofgem announced that they had provisionally approved three pumped storage sites in the Highlands Corrie Glacier, Invergarry, Loch Kemp near Loch Ness and Loch Arbour, quite near Newtonmore. These three sites will produce a collective four gigawatts of electricity that is three times as much as Greater Manchester uses. The development costs will be over £5 billion, by far the biggest infrastructure investment ever seen in the Highlands.
And there are three more pumped storage sites that are keen to get ofgem's go ahead, namely Loch near Invergarry and Loch Eric and Loch Carrick on Loch Ness.
12:14
12:14
12:14
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
I thank the honourable member for giving way. He mentioned Loch Herba, which is in my constituency, but the point he makes about the number that are included in the Ofgem list at the moment and the number that we we could actually build and get benefit from differs quite significantly. And as well as being in the Highlands, there are some in the lowlands as well, and Dumfriesshire and other in other areas that could benefit from a government investment of time and effort into into getting them on stream. Does he agree with me that we absolutely need to maximise the use of of extremely reliable and extremely well tested and known technology of of hydro?
12:14
12:14
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you very much. And thank you for that intervention. I think it's actually a far better source of electricity than wind. It is much less visual impact and it's available when we really need it. So we have quite a lot of wind, but it's very dependent on the wind blowing. Now, NASA's future energy scenario in 2025 suggested that Britain could need between 13.2 and 16.6 gigawatts of long duration storage by 2050. These sites, these six sites, will go a long way to provide that. Now, the second point I wish to make is the implication for the electricity market and the people paying their bills.
One aspect of this is the way the wholesale electricity market works. And excuse me for stating the obvious, but gas still sets the price of electricity when gas fired generation is needed. Even at a time when a great deal of electricity is coming from renewable sources. Now mains gas is eight per kilowatt at the moment, whereas electricity is 26 per kilowatt more than three times as much. Broadly speaking, people in rural areas do not have mains gas across the whole of the UK, and in my patch, only those in Inverness City and Dingwall get mains gas.
I would be delighted.
One aspect of this is the way the wholesale electricity market works. And excuse me for stating the obvious, but gas still sets the price of electricity when gas fired generation is needed. Even at a time when a great deal of electricity is coming from renewable sources. Now mains gas is eight per kilowatt at the moment, whereas electricity is 26 per kilowatt more than three times as much. Broadly speaking, people in rural areas do not have mains gas across the whole of the UK, and in my patch, only those in Inverness City and Dingwall get mains gas.
I would be delighted.
12:14
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
He raises a very valid point about his constituents who are off gas. I have a number, likewise in my Carlisle constituency and 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 install solar, but to save to to store the energy, the heat in a sand battery. Now, I don't know if my honourable friend has come across this, but does he agree with me that whatever the scale, be it pump, be it small sand batteries, that the government's long term storage strategy needs to be technology neutral.
So we maximise as many of these different technologies as possible.
So we maximise as many of these different technologies as possible.
12:14
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you. Until I got your email yesterday, I had certainly never heard of it. And sand is not one of the big features of my constituency. But thank you. And I do agree we should look at all sorts of technologies. The bottom line is that Britain will only transition to electricity, will not transition electricity when it costs three times as much as carbon fuel imported gas does. I think that is the bottom line.
I'd be delighted.
I'd be delighted.
12:14
12:14
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
I will make a brief attempt, but there's a much more eloquent gentleman over there who will add it. But but as as I as I understand it, the the, the tariffs and the the the distribution charges, etc. go on electricity, the, the home produced renewable electricity and not the carbon fuel, imported gas, which in my opinion is the wrong way round, but I'm sure the minister will will enlighten us in a bit more detail. There is another problem , which is constraint payments. When we are. 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 system's operator has to intervene.
And that means paying wind farms to reduce their output. The National Audit Office says transmission constraint costs reached 1.9 billion over the last year, with an expectation this could be as high as 8 billion by 2030. This is a shocking waste of taxpayers money and hopefully pumped storage will reduce this. Now. What is the opportunity for Scotland? Well, pumped storage is very expensive to build and historically it has been difficult for developers to secure private finance because future electricity market revenues are uncertain and the UK government has introduced a 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 market revenues fall below that agreed forward support is provided to cover the gap funded through consumer bills , and the cap limits the excess revenue. If a project earns above the agreed level, excess returns are returned to the consumer through a lower network charges. Now, there is an opportunity for Scotland to develop a serious industry around pumped storage. The benefits are not just electricity stored at the end of construction. There is a civil engineering the tunnel. The electrical equipment required billions of pounds worth.
But given this, can we ensure that a significant amount of this 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 multibillion pound infrastructures? I really don't believe we are. So 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 designers 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 there was legacy housing being built rather than Templar moderate constructions, and if the communities got significant community benefit or even better were shareholders, then I guarantee there would be much better support. When we ask communities to host major infrastructure, it should be beneficial to these communities, and this is particularly important to Highlands, where our fuel costs are prohibitive, where major developments can be very visible, where the costs of providing public sector services are high.
And that means paying wind farms to reduce their output. The National Audit Office says transmission constraint costs reached 1.9 billion over the last year, with an expectation this could be as high as 8 billion by 2030. This is a shocking waste of taxpayers money and hopefully pumped storage will reduce this. Now. What is the opportunity for Scotland? Well, pumped storage is very expensive to build and historically it has been difficult for developers to secure private finance because future electricity market revenues are uncertain and the UK government has introduced a 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 market revenues fall below that agreed forward support is provided to cover the gap funded through consumer bills , and the cap limits the excess revenue. If a project earns above the agreed level, excess returns are returned to the consumer through a lower network charges. Now, there is an opportunity for Scotland to develop a serious industry around pumped storage. The benefits are not just electricity stored at the end of construction. There is a civil engineering the tunnel. The electrical equipment required billions of pounds worth.
But given this, can we ensure that a significant amount of this 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 multibillion pound infrastructures? I really don't believe we are. So 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 designers 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 there was legacy housing being built rather than Templar moderate constructions, and if the communities got significant community benefit or even better were shareholders, then I guarantee there would be much better support. When we ask communities to host major infrastructure, it should be beneficial to these communities, and this is particularly important to Highlands, where our fuel costs are prohibitive, where major developments can be very visible, where the costs of providing public sector services are high.
12:14
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Major developments can be very visible where 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 needing to emigrate to the cities. I welcome the Scottish Government's recent proposal to bring pumped storage hydro within its updated community benefit, but making that guidance will result in an underwhelming consequence. Now to cover Glen Eric and I think this is a real model case study and it has not yet received Ofgems provisional approval. Glen Eric is an example of the scale of opportunity we have.
It has an expected operating life of approximately 125 years. It has 34 gigawatt hours of storage capacity of around 1.8GW gigawatt of generating capacity, and its hydraulic head of 500m makes good use of the geography of the site to store large amounts of electricity efficiently. It is committed to putting 5% of its annual gross margin into a community wealth fund. The estimate is that this fund could receive £20 million a year, and if you compare that to Scotland only getting the Highlands only getting 7 million. So 20 million from one project shows how significant that is.
The Highland Council has said that fund could be worth around £3 billion in today's money over the 125 year operating period. Glen Eric has bravely volunteered a model where its host community will share in its success, and I strongly urge the government to recognise this as a model that can be adopted by other developments.
It has an expected operating life of approximately 125 years. It has 34 gigawatt hours of storage capacity of around 1.8GW gigawatt of generating capacity, and its hydraulic head of 500m makes good use of the geography of the site to store large amounts of electricity efficiently. It is committed to putting 5% of its annual gross margin into a community wealth fund. The estimate is that this fund could receive £20 million a year, and if you compare that to Scotland only getting the Highlands only getting 7 million. So 20 million from one project shows how significant that is.
The Highland Council has said that fund could be worth around £3 billion in today's money over the 125 year operating period. Glen Eric has bravely volunteered a model where its host community will share in its success, and I strongly urge the government to recognise this as a model that can be adopted by other developments.
12:14
12:14
12:14
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a typically excellent, cogent argument for stronger community benefit from these projects. Would he agree with me that as well as pump storage, a cousin of that technology might be tidal range energy in the west of Scotland, as the west of England has the highest tidal range in the world, second highest tidal range in the world. And that is a missed opportunity not not to exploit tidal range energy as it is not to develop the community benefit programs that he's proposing.
12:14
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I have always believed that that tide is probably the single best energy source, because it's entirely predictable, and it operates well in the estuaries where our cities are. So we don't need to transform it. But I am not up to date, but I do think it's something we should really concentrate on. Good. Are you allowed to?
12:14
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
It's a quite odd debate, so it's. I would add to that geothermal. There's huge opportunity for geothermal in the Aberdeenshire area in particular, but also in other parts of Scotland. And I think geothermal and tidal stream is something that the. The government could focus more attention at the moment. Would you agree with that sentiment?
12:14
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. I think we will hopefully have all these different renewable energy sources coming through. But geothermal is a big a big one. So just to sum up, we have an enormous opportunity in rural Scotland to facilitate the electrification of Britain. 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's 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 multi-billion pound pumped storage sites will produce few local jobs, no legacy housing and minimal community benefit for the people of the Highlands. And that is completely unacceptable. Pumped storage sites are an essential part of our national energy portfolio. They are great for Britain. Let's make them great for the Highlands too. Thank you.
As things stand, these multi-billion pound pumped storage sites will produce few local jobs, no legacy housing and minimal community benefit for the people of the Highlands. And that is completely unacceptable. Pumped storage sites are an essential part of our national energy portfolio. They are great for Britain. Let's make them great for the Highlands too. Thank you.
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:14
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Can I thank the honourable gentleman for bringing this debate? He and I have talked about this many, many times, but I never tire of it because, as he has rightly said in his speech, it is an incredibly exciting opportunity for the Highlands and an important opportunity for the country. And I always know, Sir Christopher, that winter is coming because the honourable gentleman's jumpers make a reappearance, and I'm a big fan of them, and it's great to see him here today. He's also a great champion of his constituency, which is an enormous part of Scotland that he represents.
Although having run the Arisaig to Mallaig Half Marathon, I would say he does have a significant amount of very beautiful sand in his constituency. In fact, this has been an interesting debate, not least as I'll come on to on the points he raises about long duration energy storage. But we've heard of the cousins of of pumped hydro as well of batteries, which is an interesting idea about how we store energy through thermal through heat rather than in more conventional ways. But I think the wider point around the importance of storage and of being technology agnostic to the new technologies that are coming on all the time and becoming ever, ever more developed is really important.
We need in our system a significant amount of flexibility to be able to store and to utilise the the clean power we're generating when we need it most. And we should be open to, to a whole range of technologies. So I'm very happy to have more conversations about all of those. On the issue of long duration electricity storage, the honourable gentleman, I think, made the case very strongly for why this is so important. We have over decades now built a significant amount of renewable energy generation across the UK, 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 our electricity system is not being able to to get the full benefit of the clean, cheap, secure power that is being generated every single day.
In fact, we are having to, as the honourable gentleman himself said, spend significant amounts of money constraining that renewable capacity because we did not build the grid and we have not built the storage that is necessary. And so our transition to being able to deploy that clean power on the system when we need it does require much more flexibility. And that comes from long duration energy storage. Now pumped hydro projects. I visited Cruachan recently. This is a well-trodden path of of technology. We've deployed for a very long time that lasts for a very long time.
It is an important part of of how we deliver long duration energy storage. And it will play a critical role in balancing supply and demand. In June, Ofgem published its minded to list for wind oh, one of the cap and floor scheme, which is a significant milestone for the sector. I just say to the honourable gentleman from Moray, West, Nairn and Strathspey completing our double act of of long constituency titles. I agree with them 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.
7.5GW of capacity is not nothing. So we remain really ambitious. He is right to say that the future scenarios require even more long duration energy storage, but this is a remarkable turnaround from from a 40 year gap in building any of these projects anywhere in the country. 16 projects Ofgem has provisionally selected. Ofgem has made minded to decisions, but there has been a consultation process which has been running, and that will conclude three of these projects are pumped storage hydropower in Scotland, representing over half of the capacity that has brought forward, and Ofgem will announce its final decision on those projects by the end of this year.
These projects, when they are delivered, will reduce costs for consumers by being able to maximise our renewable energy generation to make it available when we need it at peak times and reducing our reliance on natural gas, which of course is the part of constraints that is often misunderstood in the press. The cost does not come from turning off wind. The cost comes from turning up gas somewhere else in the country. And if we deploy this in the way that we intend to, we will be able to reduce that dependency on costly gas generation. I understand the honourable gentleman agrees with me on the need for long duration energy storage, and we have had this conversation many times, but he also rightly wants to make sure that his community benefits from these projects being built.
The construction of these projects in themselves creates a significant number of jobs over a period of several years, expected to begin by next year and continue into the early 2030s. One project, which she mentions, Lochaber, will create approximately 600 jobs over its five year construction period, including at least 30 new apprenticeships. Another project, Loch Kemp, estimates 370 jobs in the Highlands at peak construction and has committed £7.5 million to a community fund, and they have also committed to investing in projects that the Caledonian Canal and local roads. He also. The honourable gentleman, makes the point, quite rightly, about local supply chains and about making sure we are delivering as much of the economic benefit of these projects in local communities.
This has been the single most important thing that my department has been driving in two and a half years in. The construction of these projects is to no longer be agnostic about where we build things as a country, because we actually do care about industrial strategy. And I have been very clear with all developers who expect to receive public money, that they should be looking at every single part of their procurement to make sure, even down to the smallest contracts, they are procuring as locally as much as possible. And I recognise that that is a shift from where we have been for a long time as a country, but it is critically important because that is where we get supply chain jobs right across this constituency.
Although having run the Arisaig to Mallaig Half Marathon, I would say he does have a significant amount of very beautiful sand in his constituency. In fact, this has been an interesting debate, not least as I'll come on to on the points he raises about long duration energy storage. But we've heard of the cousins of of pumped hydro as well of batteries, which is an interesting idea about how we store energy through thermal through heat rather than in more conventional ways. But I think the wider point around the importance of storage and of being technology agnostic to the new technologies that are coming on all the time and becoming ever, ever more developed is really important.
We need in our system a significant amount of flexibility to be able to store and to utilise the the clean power we're generating when we need it most. And we should be open to, to a whole range of technologies. So I'm very happy to have more conversations about all of those. On the issue of long duration electricity storage, the honourable gentleman, I think, made the case very strongly for why this is so important. We have over decades now built a significant amount of renewable energy generation across the UK, 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 our electricity system is not being able to to get the full benefit of the clean, cheap, secure power that is being generated every single day.
In fact, we are having to, as the honourable gentleman himself said, spend significant amounts of money constraining that renewable capacity because we did not build the grid and we have not built the storage that is necessary. And so our transition to being able to deploy that clean power on the system when we need it does require much more flexibility. And that comes from long duration energy storage. Now pumped hydro projects. I visited Cruachan recently. This is a well-trodden path of of technology. We've deployed for a very long time that lasts for a very long time.
It is an important part of of how we deliver long duration energy storage. And it will play a critical role in balancing supply and demand. In June, Ofgem published its minded to list for wind oh, one of the cap and floor scheme, which is a significant milestone for the sector. I just say to the honourable gentleman from Moray, West, Nairn and Strathspey completing our double act of of long constituency titles. I agree with them 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.
7.5GW of capacity is not nothing. So we remain really ambitious. He is right to say that the future scenarios require even more long duration energy storage, but this is a remarkable turnaround from from a 40 year gap in building any of these projects anywhere in the country. 16 projects Ofgem has provisionally selected. Ofgem has made minded to decisions, but there has been a consultation process which has been running, and that will conclude three of these projects are pumped storage hydropower in Scotland, representing over half of the capacity that has brought forward, and Ofgem will announce its final decision on those projects by the end of this year.
These projects, when they are delivered, will reduce costs for consumers by being able to maximise our renewable energy generation to make it available when we need it at peak times and reducing our reliance on natural gas, which of course is the part of constraints that is often misunderstood in the press. The cost does not come from turning off wind. The cost comes from turning up gas somewhere else in the country. And if we deploy this in the way that we intend to, we will be able to reduce that dependency on costly gas generation. I understand the honourable gentleman agrees with me on the need for long duration energy storage, and we have had this conversation many times, but he also rightly wants to make sure that his community benefits from these projects being built.
The construction of these projects in themselves creates a significant number of jobs over a period of several years, expected to begin by next year and continue into the early 2030s. One project, which she mentions, Lochaber, will create approximately 600 jobs over its five year construction period, including at least 30 new apprenticeships. Another project, Loch Kemp, estimates 370 jobs in the Highlands at peak construction and has committed £7.5 million to a community fund, and they have also committed to investing in projects that the Caledonian Canal and local roads. He also. The honourable gentleman, makes the point, quite rightly, about local supply chains and about making sure we are delivering as much of the economic benefit of these projects in local communities.
This has been the single most important thing that my department has been driving in two and a half years in. The construction of these projects is to no longer be agnostic about where we build things as a country, because we actually do care about industrial strategy. And I have been very clear with all developers who expect to receive public money, that they should be looking at every single part of their procurement to make sure, even down to the smallest contracts, they are procuring as locally as much as possible. And I recognise that that is a shift from where we have been for a long time as a country, but it is critically important because that is where we get supply chain jobs right across this constituency.
12:14
12:14
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Christopher, the intervention, and you mentioned one of the pumped storage sites and the amount of money, £7.5 million, that that proposal is a single one off payment now, for example, is offering 20 million a year for 125 years, inflation linked. So that's what we have to move to, I believe is a year after year agreed, controlled by government amount of money. What do you think of that?
12:14
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Yeah, let me come on to that point because we've discussed this before. And look, my my starting point here is that communities that host infrastructure should feel the benefit from that and it should be meaningful benefits. We consulted on how we will deliver community benefits and shared ownership opportunities for communities. And we have put £1 billion into Great British Energy to make sure that there is the financial capacity for communities to take up that shared ownership offer, and we will continue to push that. I have spoken before about the need for us to balance that, though, because ultimately, all of the costs of building these projects is borne by consumers across the country.
He and I share the objective to bring down bills as much as possible. And so there is a balance to be struck, and I do not pretend that that is easy because his community and his rightly to champion it will rightly want more and more of those community benefits. My job is to balance that against the cost of these projects, to make sure, first of all, their economic and will be built, because that is important for the national interest. But secondly, that they are built as affordably as possible so that we can bring down bills for everyone.
So I think there is a balance to be struck, as I have said to him before, and I know that he will always want us to go further. But I would just say that the cap and floor scheme is designed not to provide huge public subsidy to make these projects happen, but to provide just the right amount to make them viable. And that is the key thing. The cap and flow scheme is designed to be a viability mechanism, and 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. This very briefly.
He and I share the objective to bring down bills as much as possible. And so there is a balance to be struck, and I do not pretend that that is easy because his community and his rightly to champion it will rightly want more and more of those community benefits. My job is to balance that against the cost of these projects, to make sure, first of all, their economic and will be built, because that is important for the national interest. But secondly, that they are built as affordably as possible so that we can bring down bills for everyone.
So I think there is a balance to be struck, as I have said to him before, and I know that he will always want us to go further. But I would just say that the cap and floor scheme is designed not to provide huge public subsidy to make these projects happen, but to provide just the right amount to make them viable. And that is the key thing. The cap and flow scheme is designed to be a viability mechanism, and 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. This very briefly.
12:14
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Very briefly, I am raising these issues with colleagues in the Scottish Government as well. But whilst dizziness has a role in this and Ofgem have a role as well, I think it is helpful for every organisation to be pushing the developers to say, what are you doing about the roads infrastructure? What are you doing about, you know, about, you know, how you're getting people to and fro the sites because these are big influxes of people in areas and the local infrastructure can be laying in half roads and passing places and all of that. So will I commit to putting some putting some pressure on those companies to, to invest in that?
12:14
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I thought he was going to conclude by saying, well, I commit to putting some pressure on the Scottish Government, which should they would they unlike him? But I agree with him, and I have had a number of really productive conversations with with Stephen Gettins, the Scottish Energy Minister, on exactly this topic about how we can make these projects work for local communities. If we can bring that investment into local investment in roads and other infrastructure, it does leave that legacy that I think we all want to see in communities, and is also of benefit to the projects where where there will need to be some investment in road infrastructure anyway.
So just just in summing up, I do want to just pick out two, two issues. First of all, I really welcome the honourable gentleman's recognition of how important long duration energy storage is on our system. The truth of the past few years has been a recognition that for decades, we had a consensus in building renewables across Scotland, but across the rest of Great Britain. But we did not spend the investment that we should have in building the grid to connect that. We are now paying the cost for that. But equally, storage is absolutely central to how renewables can work on the system to give us the flexibility we need to deploy it when we need it most, and to make sure that we are genuinely bringing the power, the cleaner, cheaper power to homes and businesses when we need it, which is how we bring down bills.
But it also has to be the foundation of delivering economic growth. He 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 for over a century or more. There has to be some legacy for the 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 House 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. And community benefits and real investment is a critical part of that. The Scottish Government is clearly a key partner in this, given that planning decisions in Scotland are not for me but are for the Scottish Government, and I know that they have a shared ambition with me. On the importance of deploying long duration energy storage, but also of community benefits. And they have guidance in this matter and we are working together on this. So whether it is through community benefit funds, through the bill discounts, we have announced in terms of electricity infrastructure and on going work that we're doing to make sure that there is an industrial benefit from these projects.
I hope he recognises that while we might not get everything quite at the extent that he would like, these projects are an opportunity for communities to benefit from from construction and from community benefits and from a hope, a genuine, lasting legacy. But importantly for us as a country, this is how we deliver the secure, home grown, clean power that we need on the system, how we can bring down bills for people, and how we can importantly continue the transition to net zero, which is so important. And I commend the honourable gentleman again, and I look forward to what I am certain will be further conversations on this in due course.
So just just in summing up, I do want to just pick out two, two issues. First of all, I really welcome the honourable gentleman's recognition of how important long duration energy storage is on our system. The truth of the past few years has been a recognition that for decades, we had a consensus in building renewables across Scotland, but across the rest of Great Britain. But we did not spend the investment that we should have in building the grid to connect that. We are now paying the cost for that. But equally, storage is absolutely central to how renewables can work on the system to give us the flexibility we need to deploy it when we need it most, and to make sure that we are genuinely bringing the power, the cleaner, cheaper power to homes and businesses when we need it, which is how we bring down bills.
But it also has to be the foundation of delivering economic growth. He 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 for over a century or more. There has to be some legacy for the 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 House 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. And community benefits and real investment is a critical part of that. The Scottish Government is clearly a key partner in this, given that planning decisions in Scotland are not for me but are for the Scottish Government, and I know that they have a shared ambition with me. On the importance of deploying long duration energy storage, but also of community benefits. And they have guidance in this matter and we are working together on this. So whether it is through community benefit funds, through the bill discounts, we have announced in terms of electricity infrastructure and on going work that we're doing to make sure that there is an industrial benefit from these projects.
I hope he recognises that while we might not get everything quite at the extent that he would like, these projects are an opportunity for communities to benefit from from construction and from community benefits and from a hope, a genuine, lasting legacy. But importantly for us as a country, this is how we deliver the secure, home grown, clean power that we need on the system, how we can bring down bills for people, and how we can importantly continue the transition to net zero, which is so important. And I commend the honourable gentleman again, and I look forward to what I am certain will be further conversations on this in due course.
12:14
12:14
14:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
As betwixt a rock and a hard place, and this one, I suspect. But does the Minister not agree that we do have to have a forward thinking approach and support the infrastructure needed for future of the third runway for Heathrow as well? And the Minister, obviously, for air travel, because that's what we're trying to do, is the connectivity between Heathrow and Belfast. And I see the honourable member for Doncaster here who has ambitions for, for for for Doncaster Airport as well.
We must build. Absolutely, yes.
We must build. Absolutely, yes.
14:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Yesterday we had the amazing news that Doncaster Sheffield Airport. An agreement has been reached to bring that back into public ownership. That's going to create jobs and growth and be amazing for our area, particularly when you think about NEETs and the the challenges that we have around that and the opportunities that you can give for cabin crew and ground staff and and pilots potentially in the future. I just wonder if my hon. Friend agrees with me that when we're talking about expansion of Heathrow, we must also consider just the importance of those regional hubs and those regional airports, too, as we go forward as part of a strategy.
14:51
14:51
14:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, can I thank the honourable member for that, and the honourable member deserves some credit. In the time he's been in this House for the hard work that the honourable member has done to ensure that there's a there's a way forward for Doncaster Airport and and he can take some of the credit for that, because it's been one of his primary primary objectives in this House. We must build for the future. We must support economic growth, the UK as a whole. And the honourable gentleman has said that. And there is no better time to invest in these projects than right now.
Heathrow Airport expansion is not just a London issue, it's a vital national infrastructure project that is absolutely critical to strengthening our entire union. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland because we we we we. I want to promote that, concentrate upon it and help it to happen. The London to Belfast corridors are amongst the busiest domestic routes in the United Kingdom, yet our businesses and families face constant crippling flight cancellations, slot restraints that isolate Northern Ireland from global markets. They hope for us with this to happen. The third runway at Heathrow and the expansion of Belfast City Airport that the two can grow together and provide for our businesses and families who face the constant, crippling flight cancellations, but also the to and the slot constraints that isolate Northern Ireland from global markets.
There can be no doubt that a third runway is urgently required to guarantee and protect vital regional slots for Northern Ireland, for Scotland, for Wales, for Doncaster, and ensuring that every single corner of the United Kingdom benefits from global connectivity. The third runway. Mr. chairman, I finish with this. The third runway will ensure that connectivity remains throughout the UK and it is essential that this is a material consideration. Often it's talked about in terms of more holiday. It's not just holiday routes it's domestic connections as well from Belfast City to to London and those who want to go further in relation to holiday routes.
It's important. But those businesses based in Northern Ireland, connections from London to Belfast and reliable manner are the lifeblood and we cannot afford for this to be cut off. And for this reason , I say respectfully to honourable members in this room, right honourable and honourable members, that I do support this extension. I think it's beneficial for Northern Ireland. I see the the advantages coming through jobs, opportunities for connection, for building this United Kingdom where there is ability to grow it and supporting this and putting the needs for Northern Ireland very much before all of the honourable members here for their consideration.
Thanks so much.
Heathrow Airport expansion is not just a London issue, it's a vital national infrastructure project that is absolutely critical to strengthening our entire union. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland because we we we we. I want to promote that, concentrate upon it and help it to happen. The London to Belfast corridors are amongst the busiest domestic routes in the United Kingdom, yet our businesses and families face constant crippling flight cancellations, slot restraints that isolate Northern Ireland from global markets. They hope for us with this to happen. The third runway at Heathrow and the expansion of Belfast City Airport that the two can grow together and provide for our businesses and families who face the constant, crippling flight cancellations, but also the to and the slot constraints that isolate Northern Ireland from global markets.
There can be no doubt that a third runway is urgently required to guarantee and protect vital regional slots for Northern Ireland, for Scotland, for Wales, for Doncaster, and ensuring that every single corner of the United Kingdom benefits from global connectivity. The third runway. Mr. chairman, I finish with this. The third runway will ensure that connectivity remains throughout the UK and it is essential that this is a material consideration. Often it's talked about in terms of more holiday. It's not just holiday routes it's domestic connections as well from Belfast City to to London and those who want to go further in relation to holiday routes.
It's important. But those businesses based in Northern Ireland, connections from London to Belfast and reliable manner are the lifeblood and we cannot afford for this to be cut off. And for this reason , I say respectfully to honourable members in this room, right honourable and honourable members, that I do support this extension. I think it's beneficial for Northern Ireland. I see the the advantages coming through jobs, opportunities for connection, for building this United Kingdom where there is ability to grow it and supporting this and putting the needs for Northern Ireland very much before all of the honourable members here for their consideration.
Thanks so much.
14:54
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
O'Donnell. I almost feel like publishing one of the hansards from the dozen debates we've had on this over the last number of years. I we need to just get real. The reason we're having this debate is because the former chancellor, when developing a speech for growth, wanted an example, and she just went for the third runway. I can't find anyone in government at the moment. Seriously, who privately thinks this is going to go ahead? That's where we're at. We're going through this is a Monty Python statement. This is the dead parrot sketch all over again.
All right. And because we're in this debate, I, I'll as I always do, I'll just remind people what it means in human terms for my constituents, because that's my job. Okay. It's been mentioned. It's 4500 homes will be either demolished or rendered unlivable by noise and air pollution. We think now that's 17,000 people displaced to ensure the profits of a company owned by a whole range of foreign multinationals, basically a number of schools that be closed. I held my I held my first third runway meeting. I set up the third Runway action group in 1983 in Harlington School.
We had to demolish that and rebuild it elsewhere because it was impossible to teach in. Because the noise and air pollution. This will push the runway near to the school we actually built at some distance. So we're going to lose our schools. We're going to lose our whole community. Before anyone votes on this, come down to Harmondsworth, come and see the village. Don't vote on this unless you've been there , because you won't know what it's like. Devastating, beautiful villages. This Harmondsworth has just London in bloom. We've got a church a thousand years old, a barn, a medieval church again.
I think the biggest in Europe. We believe that will be 50 yards away from the airport runway. This is absolute devastation. Where are my constituents going to go? Where are those pupils going to be taught? And on top of that, on top of that, we've been breathing this air poisoned air for over a
All right. And because we're in this debate, I, I'll as I always do, I'll just remind people what it means in human terms for my constituents, because that's my job. Okay. It's been mentioned. It's 4500 homes will be either demolished or rendered unlivable by noise and air pollution. We think now that's 17,000 people displaced to ensure the profits of a company owned by a whole range of foreign multinationals, basically a number of schools that be closed. I held my I held my first third runway meeting. I set up the third Runway action group in 1983 in Harlington School.
We had to demolish that and rebuild it elsewhere because it was impossible to teach in. Because the noise and air pollution. This will push the runway near to the school we actually built at some distance. So we're going to lose our schools. We're going to lose our whole community. Before anyone votes on this, come down to Harmondsworth, come and see the village. Don't vote on this unless you've been there , because you won't know what it's like. Devastating, beautiful villages. This Harmondsworth has just London in bloom. We've got a church a thousand years old, a barn, a medieval church again.
I think the biggest in Europe. We believe that will be 50 yards away from the airport runway. This is absolute devastation. Where are my constituents going to go? Where are those pupils going to be taught? And on top of that, on top of that, we've been breathing this air poisoned air for over a
15:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Time and time again about its commitment to the four tests for tests, which I myself also share when answering the question about potential Heathrow expansion. No answers are coming back to those decade long problems the government has been in. Does it deliver economic growth in every region? Is it consistent with our climate change commitments? Will it not undermine air quality progress? And will we ensure that plans properly manage, limit and mitigate noise impact? And if expansion fails to meet these tests, it simply should not be allowed to go ahead. That was always my starting point, and I have been consistent to this day when looking at any proposals.
But to be frank, the numbers we've 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 by a factor of ten compared with earlier estimates. And in addition to this, modelling done by the Department, suggests that once monetized costs and benefits are considered, expansion could impose greater costs than benefits over 60 years, with a negative net present value of between 20 to £60 billion for the economy and for individual consumers. A colleague from Northern Ireland mentioned the benefits potentially to consumers as well.
Projections suggest that ticket prices could rise by 60 to £65, or £250 for a family of four, due to higher airline charges to fund the development with with charges passed on to passengers rather than extend air travel to more, it could price out ordinary families from travelling from Heathrow. And this is why major airlines themselves are concerned about the proposals and many members have heard from them themselves. The ethos of this new government is delivering growth in every postcode and it's one that I share. Yet the analysis shows that Heathrow would not be the silver bullet.
One would hope modelling suggests that around 72 to 92% of benefits of expansion would be concentrated in London and the South East, and researched by the New Economics Foundation, suggesting that up to 15,000 jobs could be displaced from regions outside London and the South east, harming regional airport capacity, which many members are rightly fighting for to see growth in their regions. And despite previous claims that expansion could be funded entirely from private investment, this just simply is not the case. And there are real concerns about burdens on taxpayers. Just last week, Heathrow told the Transport Select committee they do not intend to cover the full cost of rail infrastructure.
And time and time again, we're already seeing taxpayers in London and the UK pick up the price for Heathrow related travel. The new Elizabeth Line trains, which are now being built and rolling out soon, will not serve West Drayton and my constituents and constituents to Reading and Maidenhead , because the capacity is going to serve Heathrow with no no money being provided by the airport already today. So the headlines of expansion tell us one thing. Whilst Heathrow bosses admit to another, and I risk that pressing ahead with an incredibly expensive and financially dubious infrastructure project, not because we wish we were doing this, not because it offers a credible path to growth, but it's become a symbol of whether we are committed or not to growth in abstract form.
And we've seen this again with HS2. Whilst rail expansion and capacity capacity are undoubtedly needed in the country, we pushed ahead with a project that was poorly scoped, poorly costed, poorly specked and it led to decades of underperformance and cost inflation. And on the other tests, as. As members have already said today, the evidence also falls flat. Whether it's on noise impacts and the huge number of people that will be pulled in to increased noise and disruption across London, though the flight paths are still uncertain today, so the exact scope and extent of this can't be said, or the costs of mitigating those noise impacts from secondary glazing, from replacement housing, these costs are potentially exponential, and we still don't know how they will be paid for or who will pay for them.
And on our vital commitments to climate change. The Climate Change Committee's work, which was published last month, found that aviation emissions had more than doubled since 1990 and Heathrow currently accounted for half of all UK aviation emissions. And they conclude there is no credible pathway for Heathrow expansion to be compatible with the UK's climate commitments under current policies. Meanwhile, when it comes to air pollution, serious concerns remain about the reliability of modelling and whether the impact of latest expansion proposals have been sufficiently assessed. Quite frankly, there is no point us in us standing on a commitment to these four tests as criteria by which the future of Heathrow should be shaped.
If the moment they aren't met, we abandon them altogether. And quite frankly, it's not something that I can do and subsequently look my constituents squarely in the face. For many of us in this place, Heathrow expansion is a perennial issue that should be dealt with, so we don't have to keep talking about it. But for residents in Hillingdon and in London, the impacts will be profound and the case just as shaky now as it has ever been. This has been compounded by what we can only describe as an incredibly poor consultation process that failed to properly engage with the strength of feeling on the issue, with a consultations taking place in August over the summer months.
Despite multiple stakeholders, including myself, outlining the difficulty in securing proper engagement over the summer period. Heathrow Heathrow's own consultation, which is taking place now as we speak, will have no consultation events anywhere in my own constituency. Despite neighbouring being neighbouring constituency to the airport. Perhaps they don't want to hear the questions because as time and time again we've seen, they don't have the answer to how they will meet these four tests. So, Sir John, we must take our time. We must think fully about the implications of expansion. We must have access to proper and thought through data.
And I echo my friend from Putney's call that we must have a proper national
But to be frank, the numbers we've 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 by a factor of ten compared with earlier estimates. And in addition to this, modelling done by the Department, suggests that once monetized costs and benefits are considered, expansion could impose greater costs than benefits over 60 years, with a negative net present value of between 20 to £60 billion for the economy and for individual consumers. A colleague from Northern Ireland mentioned the benefits potentially to consumers as well.
Projections suggest that ticket prices could rise by 60 to £65, or £250 for a family of four, due to higher airline charges to fund the development with with charges passed on to passengers rather than extend air travel to more, it could price out ordinary families from travelling from Heathrow. And this is why major airlines themselves are concerned about the proposals and many members have heard from them themselves. The ethos of this new government is delivering growth in every postcode and it's one that I share. Yet the analysis shows that Heathrow would not be the silver bullet.
One would hope modelling suggests that around 72 to 92% of benefits of expansion would be concentrated in London and the South East, and researched by the New Economics Foundation, suggesting that up to 15,000 jobs could be displaced from regions outside London and the South east, harming regional airport capacity, which many members are rightly fighting for to see growth in their regions. And despite previous claims that expansion could be funded entirely from private investment, this just simply is not the case. And there are real concerns about burdens on taxpayers. Just last week, Heathrow told the Transport Select committee they do not intend to cover the full cost of rail infrastructure.
And time and time again, we're already seeing taxpayers in London and the UK pick up the price for Heathrow related travel. The new Elizabeth Line trains, which are now being built and rolling out soon, will not serve West Drayton and my constituents and constituents to Reading and Maidenhead , because the capacity is going to serve Heathrow with no no money being provided by the airport already today. So the headlines of expansion tell us one thing. Whilst Heathrow bosses admit to another, and I risk that pressing ahead with an incredibly expensive and financially dubious infrastructure project, not because we wish we were doing this, not because it offers a credible path to growth, but it's become a symbol of whether we are committed or not to growth in abstract form.
And we've seen this again with HS2. Whilst rail expansion and capacity capacity are undoubtedly needed in the country, we pushed ahead with a project that was poorly scoped, poorly costed, poorly specked and it led to decades of underperformance and cost inflation. And on the other tests, as. As members have already said today, the evidence also falls flat. Whether it's on noise impacts and the huge number of people that will be pulled in to increased noise and disruption across London, though the flight paths are still uncertain today, so the exact scope and extent of this can't be said, or the costs of mitigating those noise impacts from secondary glazing, from replacement housing, these costs are potentially exponential, and we still don't know how they will be paid for or who will pay for them.
And on our vital commitments to climate change. The Climate Change Committee's work, which was published last month, found that aviation emissions had more than doubled since 1990 and Heathrow currently accounted for half of all UK aviation emissions. And they conclude there is no credible pathway for Heathrow expansion to be compatible with the UK's climate commitments under current policies. Meanwhile, when it comes to air pollution, serious concerns remain about the reliability of modelling and whether the impact of latest expansion proposals have been sufficiently assessed. Quite frankly, there is no point us in us standing on a commitment to these four tests as criteria by which the future of Heathrow should be shaped.
If the moment they aren't met, we abandon them altogether. And quite frankly, it's not something that I can do and subsequently look my constituents squarely in the face. For many of us in this place, Heathrow expansion is a perennial issue that should be dealt with, so we don't have to keep talking about it. But for residents in Hillingdon and in London, the impacts will be profound and the case just as shaky now as it has ever been. This has been compounded by what we can only describe as an incredibly poor consultation process that failed to properly engage with the strength of feeling on the issue, with a consultations taking place in August over the summer months.
Despite multiple stakeholders, including myself, outlining the difficulty in securing proper engagement over the summer period. Heathrow Heathrow's own consultation, which is taking place now as we speak, will have no consultation events anywhere in my own constituency. Despite neighbouring being neighbouring constituency to the airport. Perhaps they don't want to hear the questions because as time and time again we've seen, they don't have the answer to how they will meet these four tests. So, Sir John, we must take our time. We must think fully about the implications of expansion. We must have access to proper and thought through data.
And I echo my friend from Putney's call that we must have a proper national
15:45
15:45
15:45
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I thank the gentleman for his intervention. I'm sure the Aviation Minister will be delighted to respond to that and would have heard his message today. Does any any promoter must evidence that expansion will deliver benefits across the country, not just locally? Analysis published alongside the draft NPS indicates that up to 40% of this estimated GDP growth is expected to accrue to regions outside of London and the South East. The draft. The draft I will for the final time.
15:45
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I thank the Minister for giving way. He is being very generous with his time. In his limited time he has. And many of my constituents in Ealing Southall will have responded to. The consultation and noise has been a particular concern, so I do hope that he will manage to make some remarks regarding how realistic a steeper landing approaches and new aircraft technology might be in addressing noise, but I want to talk about jobs. He talks about growth. Many of my constituents actually work at the airport, and their worry is that, in fact, if it does not go ahead, we lose our status as a hub airport and their jobs might be at risk in the future.
Is he able to say anything that would reassure the many workers in Heathrow Airport and good quality jobs from my constituency in Ealing, Southall?
Is he able to say anything that would reassure the many workers in Heathrow Airport and good quality jobs from my constituency in Ealing, Southall?
15:46
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Minister, once again, I am sure the Aviation Minister would have heard you today, and I will go on to to address some of those those issues in my remarks. The draft 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. Moving on to climate change, the draft contains a clear climate change requirement where 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 all 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 mitigation requirements set out in the draft. NPS on air quality. The draft NPS 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 this, the draft NPS sets out mitigations a potential promoter should consider to minimise the impact of the project on the environment and affected communities.
Last noise. Finally, the draft NPS sets out a noise test requiring overall aircraft noise to be limited and, where reasonably possible, reduced compared to 2024. Taking into account quieter aircraft and operating procedures while providing adequate and predictable respite for communities, these mitigations should include a runway alternation. I can't speak alternation scheme and scheduled night flight ban as part of this, the draft NPS currently requires that an applicant must propose a scheduled night flight ban of 6.5 hours between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., as part of their proposed mitigations of noise impacts of Heathrow expansion.
Expansion would increase capacity, which may provide greater operational flexibility, allowing aircraft to land more efficiently and potentially reducing reliance on extended holding patterns. This 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 the views across all four tests. However, I want to make clear that we recognise that noise and air quality are of particular importance to many local residents, and we are committed to ensuring that these concerns are fully considered as part of the process. The draft NPS also makes clear that Heathrow expansion must be supported by a credible surface access strategy that enables more journeys to be made by public transport and reduces pressure on the wider transport network.
The draft NPS defines clear passenger public transport mode share targets. However, the onus will be on any potential promoter to demonstrate through the DCO process that their proposed approach can credibly achieve these targets. Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, and the government has been consistently clear that it must be privately financed.
For expansion to proceed, it would need to align with the government's climate goals, including all 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 mitigation requirements set out in the draft. NPS on air quality. The draft NPS 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 this, the draft NPS sets out mitigations a potential promoter should consider to minimise the impact of the project on the environment and affected communities.
Last noise. Finally, the draft NPS sets out a noise test requiring overall aircraft noise to be limited and, where reasonably possible, reduced compared to 2024. Taking into account quieter aircraft and operating procedures while providing adequate and predictable respite for communities, these mitigations should include a runway alternation. I can't speak alternation scheme and scheduled night flight ban as part of this, the draft NPS currently requires that an applicant must propose a scheduled night flight ban of 6.5 hours between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., as part of their proposed mitigations of noise impacts of Heathrow expansion.
Expansion would increase capacity, which may provide greater operational flexibility, allowing aircraft to land more efficiently and potentially reducing reliance on extended holding patterns. This 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 the views across all four tests. However, I want to make clear that we recognise that noise and air quality are of particular importance to many local residents, and we are committed to ensuring that these concerns are fully considered as part of the process. The draft NPS also makes clear that Heathrow expansion must be supported by a credible surface access strategy that enables more journeys to be made by public transport and reduces pressure on the wider transport network.
The draft NPS defines clear passenger public transport mode share targets. However, the onus will be on any potential promoter to demonstrate through the DCO process that their proposed approach can credibly achieve these targets. Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, and the government has been consistently clear that it must be privately financed.
15:50
15:50
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
So, again, I'm sure that the aviation Minister will have more to say on this, but I know we have obviously been there's been lots in the media about the government looking at this area, and I'm sure the aviation minister will continue to engage with members regarding airport drop offs. Back to the affordability. This Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, as I said, and the government has been consistently clear that it must be privately financed. This includes surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport, as part of the Civil Aviation Authority is continuing to develop the future regulatory framework for expansion, including considering how costs are assessed, managed and, where appropriate, recovered.
The CAA is primary duty is to protect the interests of consumers and affordability will be an important point. There was some mention of the consultation period earlier on. We believe the consultation period of over ten weeks was proportionate for reviewing amendments to an existing national policy statement, rather than a brand new statement. The consultation period of over ten weeks was designed to take into account the summer holiday period. It was carried out in accordance with section seven 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.
There was also mention of the Climate Change Committee, the. That the C.c.c. has identified one potential pathway and important conditions that it considers necessary. Were considering that advice alongside the wider evidence, and will set out the government's conclusions in its formal response. I'd like to thank all members of the House for attending the debate today. As noted, the government will give due regard to the recommendations of the Transport Select Committee, alongside responses received during the consultation, before determining next steps on Heathrow expansion. Without wishing to prejudge this process, any finalised NPS would also be subject to parliamentary consideration, including a debate and vote in this House before it can have legal effect.
Giving honourable members the opportunity to consider the proposal and exercise their right to either vote for or against it.
The CAA is primary duty is to protect the interests of consumers and affordability will be an important point. There was some mention of the consultation period earlier on. We believe the consultation period of over ten weeks was proportionate for reviewing amendments to an existing national policy statement, rather than a brand new statement. The consultation period of over ten weeks was designed to take into account the summer holiday period. It was carried out in accordance with section seven 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.
There was also mention of the Climate Change Committee, the. That the C.c.c. has identified one potential pathway and important conditions that it considers necessary. Were considering that advice alongside the wider evidence, and will set out the government's conclusions in its formal response. I'd like to thank all members of the House for attending the debate today. As noted, the government will give due regard to the recommendations of the Transport Select Committee, alongside responses received during the consultation, before determining next steps on Heathrow expansion. Without wishing to prejudge this process, any finalised NPS would also be subject to parliamentary consideration, including a debate and vote in this House before it can have legal effect.
Giving honourable members the opportunity to consider the proposal and exercise their right to either vote for or against it.
15:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you. Just before I call for the minister has been has stepped in for the Aviation Minister. I appreciate on other ministerial business and is committed to write to a number of colleagues to deal with specific issues. I just want to put on record that that commitment has been made and I expect it to happen. So thank you very much, Fleur Anderson, to wind up Adobe.
15:52
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, chair, and I thank the Minister for stepping in, although I do recognise that he is a very responsible minister for the local transport questions that have been raised time and time in this in this debate. And so I look forward to hearing those answers about what will be the strategy. There's a huge hole in this whole project now, that's not the only thing to be concerned about. And I would say to to all those people listening in who will be responding to the consultation, which starts on the 27th of October and goes to the 22nd of December, that there are some concerns if you live in London.
We have heard the concerns about the noise and about air pollution and very serious concerns about health. We. I welcome the respite information given by the Minister. I welcome the commitment to listen really carefully to my constituents in Putney and others about the impact that any change to night flights would have in particular, but also all the changes that are being proposed through the day, although we don't yet know where the flight paths will be, we know that far more people across London will be affected. And so if you live in London, then I think that everyone who lives in London should be responding.
For those people who don't live in London, they should also be responding and looking 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 an increased growth in every postcode from this development, although there will be huge amount of promises being made by Heathrow, Heathrow asked the government if they could increase their funding from airlines by £340 million to fund the promotion of this project, so expect to be lobbied very hard across the country. Expect there to be huge amounts of figures, but please look into the assumptions behind them.
If you're a passenger, then I would say there will be increased fares, but from this highly indebted country company because they will not be footing the bill. And so I thank the Minister for looking into this. Yes, certainly.
We have heard the concerns about the noise and about air pollution and very serious concerns about health. We. I welcome the respite information given by the Minister. I welcome the commitment to listen really carefully to my constituents in Putney and others about the impact that any change to night flights would have in particular, but also all the changes that are being proposed through the day, although we don't yet know where the flight paths will be, we know that far more people across London will be affected. And so if you live in London, then I think that everyone who lives in London should be responding.
For those people who don't live in London, they should also be responding and looking 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 an increased growth in every postcode from this development, although there will be huge amount of promises being made by Heathrow, Heathrow asked the government if they could increase their funding from airlines by £340 million to fund the promotion of this project, so expect to be lobbied very hard across the country. Expect there to be huge amounts of figures, but please look into the assumptions behind them.
If you're a passenger, then I would say there will be increased fares, but from this highly indebted country company because they will not be footing the bill. And so I thank the Minister for looking into this. Yes, certainly.
15:54
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I just want to raise this issue of jobs again at the select committee inquiry, one of the representatives giving information with regard to jobs, there was a real concern that the company itself. Now, if it flounders on this project, as almost certainly will with regard to financing, it will come to government. And if government does send say no, then it will have an impact on the existing operation and put that existing operation in jeopardy. So those people who have constituents who work at Heathrow, like like I do, I think we're worried about the actual operation of the existing airport being threatened by the overreach with regard to the third runway.
And on that basis, that's why we've always argued for not a bigger but a better Heathrow.
And on that basis, that's why we've always argued for not a bigger but a better Heathrow.
15:55
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
So I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention. And I think this debate has lifted a lid on some of of Heathrow as a company, that it is a highly indebted company, a very thin company with not a lot of financial backing to it. And so it does put at risk this whole project, which would come to the government's door if it fails, but also it puts at risk jobs, it puts at risk all of the fear and worry that's been put onto our constituents about this project going ahead. And will it just run into the sand and be a millstone around the government's neck in the future?
And I think it's also lifted the lid on the fact that the four tests really can they be met? It's a question that we've been raising as MPs concerned about this issue many, many times. Unless the goalposts are being moved through the Heathrow expansion national Policy statement so that they they're so wide as that anyone could meet them if they are really going to be strong tests that are looked into seriously. I cannot see how those four tests can be met and how this project can go ahead, but I do I do welcome the consultation coming up, and I just encourage as many people as possible to get involved with it.
Thank you very much, chair.
And I think it's also lifted the lid on the fact that the four tests really can they be met? It's a question that we've been raising as MPs concerned about this issue many, many times. Unless the goalposts are being moved through the Heathrow expansion national Policy statement so that they they're so wide as that anyone could meet them if they are really going to be strong tests that are looked into seriously. I cannot see how those four tests can be met and how this project can go ahead, but I do I do welcome the consultation coming up, and I just encourage as many people as possible to get involved with it.
Thank you very much, chair.
15:56
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The question is, this House has considered Heathrow Airport expansion, as many of our opinions say. I. The contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order, order! The House is suspended until 4:00. Just a few minutes. Thank you. Minister. Minister. Snell. Order! Order! I call on to move the motion. I will then call the minister to respond. I remind members they may only make a speech with the permission of the member in charge of the debate. There will not be an opportunity for the member in charge to wind up, as the convention is for a 30 minute debate.
Order. Order to move the motion.
Order. Order to move the motion.
16:00
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hayes, and I'm really pleased to have secured today's debate. I'm grateful to the number of colleagues who have come to participate in it today. It is important. It is a pressing matter shown by those who have attended, and that is for us to discuss the potential merits of statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers. It is important not only to those in this room, but to thousands of households, and one that goes to the heart of this 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's often grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or close family friends who step forward to offer them a loving home. Across the whole of the UK, more than 150 150,000 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 or keeping their job. As chair of the all party parliamentary group on Kinship Care, I and other members in this room have heard numerous accounts from young people and carers on just how much a family safety net can make, how much of a difference it can make to a child's outcome in life.
I'm happy to give way.
When a child can no longer live with their parents, it's often grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or close family friends who step forward to offer them a loving home. Across the whole of the UK, more than 150 150,000 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 or keeping their job. As chair of the all party parliamentary group on Kinship Care, I and other members in this room have heard numerous accounts from young people and carers on just how much a family safety net can make, how much of a difference it can make to a child's outcome in life.
I'm happy to give way.
16:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
For Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes for bringing this forward. Spoke to her beforehand in Northern Ireland, where a record 4287 children in the care system, some 83% of those children, are in foster care. A large proportion are placed in kinship arrangements because there is no statutory leave paid leave. Nearly 30% of local kinship carers have been forced to give up their jobs entirely, pushing families into financial hardship. Does the honourable lady agree with me that we should be pressing the Minister to introduce a statutory right to paid leave for every kinship care across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
16:02
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
The honourable member for Strangford makes an incredibly important point on behalf of his constituents. It's over 40% of those foster care placements, I think, that are kinship arrangements. That is a significant number of families, and they shouldn't be forced to decide between continuing work or continuing to look after a child. I mean, really, the decision, it isn't a difficult one. It is always going to be to look after a child who comes to them in traumatic circumstances, and we shouldn't rely on them taking unpaid leave that can put their career in jeopardy, can put their household finances in jeopardy, and the security with which the child moves into that home.
So I thank him for making that point. Oh, we are very popular. I give way and I'll come to you.
So I thank him for making that point. Oh, we are very popular. I give way and I'll come to you.
16:03
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for bringing this this debate. But does she agree with me that with over a thousand kinship cared for children in Cornwall, kinship carers play a vital role in keeping vulnerable children within 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.
16:03
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I thank him for his intervention and yes, I mean he is right. The the concern for parents that either they have to give up work voluntarily or that they fall foul of their employers terms and conditions merely by taking on not only a duty but a moral duty with regard to the care of that child. And you know , what this issue really sends in terms of a signal in society is that we recognise the importance of family arrangements and that those family arrangements do not just extend to birth parents, adoptive adoptive parents or foster parents.
They also apply to kinship families as well. I give way to the honourable lady.
They also apply to kinship families as well. I give way to the honourable lady.
16:04
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank very much, the Honourable Lady, for giving way and for bringing forward this debate. Earlier this month for Kinship Care Week, I attended a kinship event in my constituency in the area of Witton, and I met a local woman who had worked as a probation officer in the Ministry of Justice for 20 years. She suddenly, overnight, stepped up to take care of her best friend's daughter when her best friend was no longer able to do so, and 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 that allowed her to have some paid, some unpaid time off.
Does the hon. Lady agree with me that both the public sector, but also the private sector, need to now offer statutory paid leave for kinship carers, as a number of leading employers said in a letter to the Business Secretary just last week.
Does the hon. Lady agree with me that both the public sector, but also the private sector, need to now offer statutory paid leave for kinship carers, as a number of leading employers said in a letter to the Business Secretary just last week.
16:05
16:05
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Are are the honourable member for Twickenham makes a very powerful point and of course she is right, as she so often is. She is right that we shouldn't have to expect these carers to rely on the goodwill of their employer. I would say that the government has made some good strides having the term kinship recognised across government. Of course we have the ambassador now. We have got pilots across the country. I will come on to that a little bit as we go into this debate. So there have been strides made, but to actually codify this, to have this recognised legislatively, I think, would really spread the word and ensure that the private sector, where there have been some good examples of private sector employers undertaking paid leave for kinship carers, which is incredibly welcome, that they are as aware as they can be.
It's much easier to kind of notify the public sector through government of these changes, but the private sector might not always be so aware. So I think that there is a big opportunity, if the government is prepared to consider this closely and bring forward the outcome of the review that they are currently undertaking. We celebrated Kinship Care Week earlier this month, and I was really pleased to welcome the Minister for Children and Families to Blundell Park in Cleethorpes to meet some of our remarkable and dedicated local kinship carers. An impressive council staff from the Children's Services team.
I'm really proud to have secured North East Lincolnshire as one of the seven areas selected for the government's new Kinship Zones programme, and already we've seen more than 450 children in North East Lincolnshire benefiting from the wraparound support that social services, integrated support and financial package on a par with foster carers as a pilot. But the conversations that I had that day remind us how much more there really 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 sometimes several children, who they may not have the closest of relationships with, and perhaps they already 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 that you are sending a child to enter the care system. Formally, I give way.
It's much easier to kind of notify the public sector through government of these changes, but the private sector might not always be so aware. So I think that there is a big opportunity, if the government is prepared to consider this closely and bring forward the outcome of the review that they are currently undertaking. We celebrated Kinship Care Week earlier this month, and I was really pleased to welcome the Minister for Children and Families to Blundell Park in Cleethorpes to meet some of our remarkable and dedicated local kinship carers. An impressive council staff from the Children's Services team.
I'm really proud to have secured North East Lincolnshire as one of the seven areas selected for the government's new Kinship Zones programme, and already we've seen more than 450 children in North East Lincolnshire benefiting from the wraparound support that social services, integrated support and financial package on a par with foster carers as a pilot. But the conversations that I had that day remind us how much more there really 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 sometimes several children, who they may not have the closest of relationships with, and perhaps they already 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 that you are sending a child to enter the care system. Formally, I give way.
16:08
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you for being such a powerful champion for kinship carers right across the country. Those crucial early moments are vital for any parent. But unlike with traditional parental leave, kinship carers are setting out often understand the caring responsibilities they might be taking on incredibly short notice, and likely do so against a much more traumatic backdrop than most parents have to wrestle with. It clearly can't be right, can it, that they don't have any access to paid leave to make sure that they can be there for their formative moments? So will she agree with me that the government's parental leave review is a really powerful opportunity to put this injustice right?
16:08
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I thank him, I thank him for his contribution. I mean, he is right. This is a a real opportunity, a pivotal moment, really, for the government to put right what has long been an issue that has has been marked out by its inequity in provision for different family arrangements. And I am looking forward to the government and the minister setting out in a little bit more detail, hopefully, how far they've got with looking at that review and when we can hope to see an outcome from it. Once a decision is made by the carer, children can arrive with little more than the clothes that they are wearing.
Carers may have no knowledge of their medical or dietary needs. Suddenly they find themselves navigating school arrangements, a grandmother navigating school arrangements. The difference in systems is vast. You know, new appointments, the needs of a traumatised child, often with really very little practical support, I give way.
Carers may have no knowledge of their medical or dietary needs. Suddenly they find themselves navigating school arrangements, a grandmother navigating school arrangements. The difference in systems is vast. You know, new appointments, the needs of a traumatised child, often with really very little practical support, I give way.
16:09
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you for giving way. She is making such powerful argument. She is a powerful advocate for kinship carers and the children they care for. The Education Select Committee took evidence on this point during our inquiry, and the organisation kinship stated that 47% of all the children in kinship care have some sort of special educational need. Surely this underlines the point that we should be giving these people statutory paid leave so that they can meet the child's complex needs.
16:10
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I thank the honourable member for Lee South West and Morley for raising that, and I hadn't been aware, actually, that the select committee had done that inquiry, because it works very well with the Kinship Care Appg, because we also recently did an inquiry into Send needs for children in kinship care, because I think across the across the whole of Parliament, actually, those who have got connections with kinship care communities recognise the additional needs that these children often arrive with. And for families that have no experience of managing or dealing with that. Actually, if you are in work, regardless of of what your job is, suddenly having the expectations to provide, and it could be a physical need, or it could be mental or emotional, cognitive, lots of different needs of this child.
And you're still trying to figure it out, really to be expected to take unpaid leave to manage and navigate your way through that, I think is a step too far and not one that we should accept in this day and age. They are stepping forward to provide some safety, stability at the same level of care, actually, that we would expect foster carers. So if the state were to provide foster care for a child in need, then all of the necessary support, including the right to paid leave, would be made available. And that is not something currently available to kinship carers.
I give way to the honourable gentleman.
And you're still trying to figure it out, really to be expected to take unpaid leave to manage and navigate your way through that, I think is a step too far and not one that we should accept in this day and age. They are stepping forward to provide some safety, stability at the same level of care, actually, that we would expect foster carers. So if the state were to provide foster care for a child in need, then all of the necessary support, including the right to paid leave, would be made available. And that is not something currently available to kinship carers.
I give way to the honourable gentleman.
16:11
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you very much. And can I just say what a tremendous advocate my honourable friend, is for kinship carers up and down this country. You've mentioned on more than one occasion the circumstances that ordinary people feel and find themselves in when faced with relations, close friends, potentially the kids going into care. It's a very emotional sort of thing. Lots of these people who accept these kinship carers like Linda Watson and my constituency, they feel they've got the need to make sure that this these children aren't taken into care, the feeling need that they need to give them the best possible start in life or the best way in life, at whatever age you are.
I think a lot of kinship carers, I'll conclude a lot of kinship carers believe that a pat on the back, in a robe, on the back of the neck and a pat on the head, a big thank you just quite simply isn't enough. A lot of these people need financial support to give these kids who are already in difficult and a difficult position and family life, and the rest of it, they need a good start in life. In order to do that. Kinship carers need the right support and they need adequate financial support as well.
I think a lot of kinship carers, I'll conclude a lot of kinship carers believe that a pat on the back, in a robe, on the back of the neck and a pat on the head, a big thank you just quite simply isn't enough. A lot of these people need financial support to give these kids who are already in difficult and a difficult position and family life, and the rest of it, they need a good start in life. In order to do that. Kinship carers need the right support and they need adequate financial support as well.
16:13
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I thank the honourable gentleman for his very powerful contribution. Just to build on that, you know, 8 in 10 kinship carers who leave their work never return to paid employment. So this isn't just a short term problem. It can lead to lifelong issues. And when we hear, you know, the government's pledge and determination to make sure that people are in work for the long term, for the long term, and that they are setting the example of what work means . Actually providing sufficient flexibility within our employment laws is the right way to go to make sure that those families can be self-sufficient, but provide the support and love for that child, as well as being able to earn a living without being penalised.
I mean, my constituent Lucy was in exactly the same position as John, member for Twickenham, having to take a mix of sick leave and compassionate leave, and all this jumbled together by the employer very kindly. But, you know, she just said, well, why should my children be disadvantaged? Why should my kids be disadvantaged? Because the system doesn't recognise and doesn't really work for them. I will give way.
I mean, my constituent Lucy was in exactly the same position as John, member for Twickenham, having to take a mix of sick leave and compassionate leave, and all this jumbled together by the employer very kindly. But, you know, she just said, well, why should my children be disadvantaged? Why should my kids be disadvantaged? Because the system doesn't recognise and doesn't really work for them. I will give way.
16:14
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you John. I mean, what my friend is also rightly pointing out, but hasn't quite sort of said so yet, is that we're also thinking about the long term costs on the society and this, you know, those families that step forward, stop a child going into care, which is a much more expensive and much more traumatic on the young person than being able to go back into work in a phased period that allows to go back into work fully stops that carer having to call on the state for support over their lifetime. So the government really ought to be thinking about this, not as a potential extra cost burden somewhere, but as an investment and and a genuine preventative measure that saves money whilst also improving outcomes.
So what is there not to like?
So what is there not to like?
16:15
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Well, I couldn't agree more with my hon. Friend. There is some independent analysis that family rights group have commissioned that says that pay kinship leave could return over £2 into the economy for every £1 invested. So you're doubling the amount that goes back into the local economy for the support that is provided to these families. I was just going to come a little bit to and I should I just give way to my hon.
Friend, before I move on to the next.
Friend, before I move on to the next.
16:15
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
My hon. Friend has been very generous with her time, and I just wanted to go a little bit further on this point about investment, but also draw the comparison, which I think my hon. Friend was mentioning earlier between kinship care and foster care. Now, one of my constituents has been a kinship carer for three children for nine years. She's also a foster carer for her grandson. And what she reports to me is that because of his legal status, it's been easier for her to access the support she needs for him than it has been for the three children she's cared for as kinship care.
So does my honourable friend agree with me that introducing paid employment leave for kinship carers isn't about special treatment, it's about equal treatment.
So does my honourable friend agree with me that introducing paid employment leave for kinship carers isn't about special treatment, it's about equal treatment.
16:16
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I do agree, and I think that we should hold that in our minds as we go forward and we start to look into this review in more detail, that we are looking at the issue of equal treatment for all families and making sure that some are not treated differently to others. So I thank her for that contribution. I just wanted to to say, because I am very aware of my time coming to a close, and the minister will want to respond to the many points that have been made. There have been some really good examples of private companies, including Tesco B and Q are two really big retail employers that are that have already recognised the need for change.
They're ahead of the curve and they are offering paid kinship leave, and we see that around 76%, three quarters of employers support a government funded statutory entitlement. So it is clear that there is more to be done in supporting kinship families and to help them contribute economically and realise financial security. I will come to the point because there were there are some practical questions about how a statutory entitlement would work, particularly when caring arrangements happen suddenly. I do think that there are credible proposals and we've got a real opportunity to make meaningful progress. We can make sure that we give kinship carers a statutory right to paid employment leave, akin to adoptive and other working parents that would keep thousands of carers out of the benefit system, helping to reduce strain on the welfare system.
It would return economic benefits through carers remaining in employment, with higher tax revenue and better outcomes for children, and most importantly, give children the protected time that they deserve to heal from trauma and settle into their new homes. Therefore, it is crucial the government's parental leave and pay review finally closes this unfair gap in the law and delivers a first ever statutory right to pay and leave for kinship carers. Mr. chairman, a great deal has been achieved. This government deserves recognition for taking some important steps already, but I do think that there is much more that we can do, and the least that we can do is ensure that those carers have the time and financial security to be able to provide it.
Thank you.
They're ahead of the curve and they are offering paid kinship leave, and we see that around 76%, three quarters of employers support a government funded statutory entitlement. So it is clear that there is more to be done in supporting kinship families and to help them contribute economically and realise financial security. I will come to the point because there were there are some practical questions about how a statutory entitlement would work, particularly when caring arrangements happen suddenly. I do think that there are credible proposals and we've got a real opportunity to make meaningful progress. We can make sure that we give kinship carers a statutory right to paid employment leave, akin to adoptive and other working parents that would keep thousands of carers out of the benefit system, helping to reduce strain on the welfare system.
It would return economic benefits through carers remaining in employment, with higher tax revenue and better outcomes for children, and most importantly, give children the protected time that they deserve to heal from trauma and settle into their new homes. Therefore, it is crucial the government's parental leave and pay review finally closes this unfair gap in the law and delivers a first ever statutory right to pay and leave for kinship carers. Mr. chairman, a great deal has been achieved. This government deserves recognition for taking some important steps already, but I do think that there is much more that we can do, and the least that we can do is ensure that those carers have the time and financial security to be able to provide it.
Thank you.
16:18
16:18
16:19
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you, Sir John Hayes, it's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair this afternoon. I want to thank my hon. Friend the member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes for securing today's really important debate, but for her incredible work for kinship carers since she was elected to this place, her championing their voices and their issues in every room and every opportunity. And to my colleagues here as well on our benches and cross-party for all your work, I know every opportunity. You two have raised the really important issue of kinship carers with me directly and at every opportunity with colleagues across government.
So thank you very much. And I want to begin by recognising that kinship carers, as we've heard, often step forward at extremely short notice and in immensely difficult circumstances. Many of the children involved will be experienced some of the most turbulent and crucial days and weeks of their lives. They may have experienced bereavement, family breakdown, separation, instability or trauma and at precisely that moment, a grandparent, an aunt, uncle, sibling and other relative or family friend may be asked to make a life changing commitment. And I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the brilliant work of kinship advocacy organizations like Kinship and Family Rights Group, who 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.
And these organisations continue to engage constructively with myself and the government, bringing forward important evidence and insights into the experience of kinship families and their work is incredibly appreciated and helps us understand not only the scale of kinship care, but the practical realities facing carers and children. I want to thank my hon. Friend too, for inviting me recently to the Appg that she chairs, and I had the opportunity to hear directly from a kinship carer at that meeting and about their experiences. That contribution and their contribution was both moving and instructive of the requirements of government going forwards, and underlined the importance in this debate to listening to their voices at the forefront and their experiences and their real life experiences, is exactly what we are considering as part of our review, because kinship carers providing that love, the stability and continuity of what can be such an incredible time, and colleagues have raised their constituents and the stories they've heard directly.
And mine too. And I want to touch on Amanda, who's a kinship care in my constituency who took time to meet me at my surgery recently, and she provides incredible support to kinship carers across the constituency and talks openly about her experience. And her colleagues have heard that from their constituents and have raised that today. And thank you for doing so, because every point, not only in this issue but in my wider brief, I want to be shaped by people's experiences in the workplace and their reflections when that's not unfortunately happened. And of course, taking on that responsibility can take such significant emotional, practical and financial pressures, often with that very little notice.
And I want to recognise not only their importance and their contribution, but also the challenges that they face and that data from family rights groups that we've talked a lot about at the Appg, 8 in 10 kinship carers who left work have never returned to paid employment. And that is a real stark statistic. And I can't even imagine that difficult position that kinship carers will be in where they have to decide, as my honourable friend perfectly alluded to, that really impossible and difficult decision of looking after a child who needs them at such an important time in their life, or having to choose between their job.
And that insight is particularly valuable as we consider the evidence through the wider parental leave and peer review, and its wider work to support kinship families, of course.
So thank you very much. And I want to begin by recognising that kinship carers, as we've heard, often step forward at extremely short notice and in immensely difficult circumstances. Many of the children involved will be experienced some of the most turbulent and crucial days and weeks of their lives. They may have experienced bereavement, family breakdown, separation, instability or trauma and at precisely that moment, a grandparent, an aunt, uncle, sibling and other relative or family friend may be asked to make a life changing commitment. And I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the brilliant work of kinship advocacy organizations like Kinship and Family Rights Group, who 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.
And these organisations continue to engage constructively with myself and the government, bringing forward important evidence and insights into the experience of kinship families and their work is incredibly appreciated and helps us understand not only the scale of kinship care, but the practical realities facing carers and children. I want to thank my hon. Friend too, for inviting me recently to the Appg that she chairs, and I had the opportunity to hear directly from a kinship carer at that meeting and about their experiences. That contribution and their contribution was both moving and instructive of the requirements of government going forwards, and underlined the importance in this debate to listening to their voices at the forefront and their experiences and their real life experiences, is exactly what we are considering as part of our review, because kinship carers providing that love, the stability and continuity of what can be such an incredible time, and colleagues have raised their constituents and the stories they've heard directly.
And mine too. And I want to touch on Amanda, who's a kinship care in my constituency who took time to meet me at my surgery recently, and she provides incredible support to kinship carers across the constituency and talks openly about her experience. And her colleagues have heard that from their constituents and have raised that today. And thank you for doing so, because every point, not only in this issue but in my wider brief, I want to be shaped by people's experiences in the workplace and their reflections when that's not unfortunately happened. And of course, taking on that responsibility can take such significant emotional, practical and financial pressures, often with that very little notice.
And I want to recognise not only their importance and their contribution, but also the challenges that they face and that data from family rights groups that we've talked a lot about at the Appg, 8 in 10 kinship carers who left work have never returned to paid employment. And that is a real stark statistic. And I can't even imagine that difficult position that kinship carers will be in where they have to decide, as my honourable friend perfectly alluded to, that really impossible and difficult decision of looking after a child who needs them at such an important time in their life, or having to choose between their job.
And that insight is particularly valuable as we consider the evidence through the wider parental leave and peer review, and its wider work to support kinship families, of course.
16:22
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Very much for giving way, and I congratulate my hon. Friend for her years of hard work on this and for securing today's debate. The government's core mission in this is to provide stable, loving homes for every child. That's a policy that happens to have come out of the Department for education. But what we're talking about today is something that crosses business, work, pensions and so on. Would the minister agree that this is another fantastic example of where proper cross-government pulling in the same direction could produce outcomes for our young people, which is greater than the sum of these different policy parts.
16:23
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. And on that note, I want to pay tribute to my brilliant hon. Friend for Whitehaven and Workington for all his incredible work in the Department for education, for Kinship Carers and absolutely recognise the importance of cross-government and departmental working on this issue for those kinship carers and reassure him that that is absolutely our intention and that joined up work of how we can support kinship carers throughout their lives and look where we need to go further and and do better. Which is why today's debate is is welcome and really important as we consider the wider pay and parental leave review.
Of course, lots of the work that we've taken in the Department for education, which colleagues will be fully aware of and the significance of them, and thank colleagues for for welcoming them, whether it's the kinship allowance pilot that will provide eligible kinship carers with that weekly allowance for each eligible child, equivalent to the fostering national minimum allowance to the work that's being done on the new guidance. In light of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, and I want to provide this opportunity to update colleagues on the parental leave and pay review that sits in my department and is cross working with the Department for Work and Pensions as well.
So lots of departments involved in this approach. And that is right, because it's not just one part of life that's impacted for kinship carers. It's absolutely across everything. And we do recognise that support for the carer and support for the child can't be easily separated. Given a carer at that time and support needed to help a child settle may contribute to the stability of that arrangement and I absolutely want to recognise that, and that's why it's right that we are considering the experiences of kinship families across departmental boundaries. So social care as well, employment policy, education and the wider support that's available to families.
We are committed to reviewing the wider system. Colleagues will know the review was launched in July 2025, and that's why we're considering all the current parental leave and pay entitlements and the experiences and needs of working families who don't qualify for existing leave and pay entitlements, including kinship carers. We are jointly leading the review, as I've said, and engaging with a broad range of stakeholders. And I again want to take this opportunity for everyone that's fed into review, for their patience as we are taking time to go through as many evidence and and hearings as we've had the roundtables, the bilateral meetings, the meetings with me and colleagues in this chamber today and with parental advocacy groups that represent kinship carers.
The review will conclude in early 2027 with a set of findings which outline the next steps for implementing any reforms, and I know the significant interest in what the review may conclude. It's of course.
Of course, lots of the work that we've taken in the Department for education, which colleagues will be fully aware of and the significance of them, and thank colleagues for for welcoming them, whether it's the kinship allowance pilot that will provide eligible kinship carers with that weekly allowance for each eligible child, equivalent to the fostering national minimum allowance to the work that's being done on the new guidance. In light of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, and I want to provide this opportunity to update colleagues on the parental leave and pay review that sits in my department and is cross working with the Department for Work and Pensions as well.
So lots of departments involved in this approach. And that is right, because it's not just one part of life that's impacted for kinship carers. It's absolutely across everything. And we do recognise that support for the carer and support for the child can't be easily separated. Given a carer at that time and support needed to help a child settle may contribute to the stability of that arrangement and I absolutely want to recognise that, and that's why it's right that we are considering the experiences of kinship families across departmental boundaries. So social care as well, employment policy, education and the wider support that's available to families.
We are committed to reviewing the wider system. Colleagues will know the review was launched in July 2025, and that's why we're considering all the current parental leave and pay entitlements and the experiences and needs of working families who don't qualify for existing leave and pay entitlements, including kinship carers. We are jointly leading the review, as I've said, and engaging with a broad range of stakeholders. And I again want to take this opportunity for everyone that's fed into review, for their patience as we are taking time to go through as many evidence and and hearings as we've had the roundtables, the bilateral meetings, the meetings with me and colleagues in this chamber today and with parental advocacy groups that represent kinship carers.
The review will conclude in early 2027 with a set of findings which outline the next steps for implementing any reforms, and I know the significant interest in what the review may conclude. It's of course.
16:26
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Sir John, when I hear the phrase that there will be the end of a review, my heart sinks because in government time those reviews can take forever. So although the review may conclude in 2027, is the minister able to give this House an indication of how quickly after that point, the Department and the government feel able to publish the outcomes of that review and the next steps, so that we're not waiting a year or so to know what those conclusions are.
16:26
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I thank my honourable friend. And he's right, of course, to push me and my colleagues on this issue. And today I'm unable to pre-empt recommendations as he knows, but know how important this is and keeping him up to date with the timelines and progress. And he has my firm commitment today that we will be moving absolutely at pace as we've taken our time to review the evidence. And I want I want us, but I want I want to assure him that the government is absolutely considering this issue and how best we can support kinship carers holistically and across departmental boundaries.
And I hope people watching today, kinship carers themselves, really hear that commitment and determination from me. I know how important this is. A week and a day can make such a difference to these people, to kinship carers lives. And I want to be clear that that's why it's been really important that we've engaged with as many people. And I hear the wider campaigns outside this room too, from trade unions, from business representatives, employers who are already going above and beyond. And I thank them for it. But just highlighting the case of the current position and joining the calls that have been made today in this chamber.
So I want to finish again by thanking my honourable member, my friend, for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, for raising this issue and gives us the opportunity to have this debate today. And also thank everyone for their engagement here and outside this room, but also thanks to our kinship carers who are absolutely incredible people. And I'm so moved and grateful every single time I meet with them. And I know colleagues are too. I hope they hear my commitment and determination to support them today and to support to ensure that future support is practical and that it's sustainable, and focus on improving the outcomes for children and for families.
So with that chair, I will conclude my remarks and hand back over to my honourable friend.
And I hope people watching today, kinship carers themselves, really hear that commitment and determination from me. I know how important this is. A week and a day can make such a difference to these people, to kinship carers lives. And I want to be clear that that's why it's been really important that we've engaged with as many people. And I hear the wider campaigns outside this room too, from trade unions, from business representatives, employers who are already going above and beyond. And I thank them for it. But just highlighting the case of the current position and joining the calls that have been made today in this chamber.
So I want to finish again by thanking my honourable member, my friend, for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, for raising this issue and gives us the opportunity to have this debate today. And also thank everyone for their engagement here and outside this room, but also thanks to our kinship carers who are absolutely incredible people. And I'm so moved and grateful every single time I meet with them. And I know colleagues are too. I hope they hear my commitment and determination to support them today and to support to ensure that future support is practical and that it's sustainable, and focus on improving the outcomes for children and for families.
So with that chair, I will conclude my remarks and hand back over to my honourable friend.
16:28
16:29
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Watch it. No, I just want to say a quick thank you to the charities Kinship and Family Rights Group for their research and 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 really take this forward. I'm very grateful to the minister for her generosity and hearing everybody. We've had lots of contributions from members today, but that dreaded famous at pace comment. We will continue to keep up the pressure on our side. We really do need to get this right for every child that will go through this process while we are waiting, because between now and next year, there will be a huge number of children and we we owe them and they deserve to get it right.
16:29
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
And it's a pleasure to bring this debate here to Parliament. As chair of the Lords Reform All Party parliamentary group, a few weeks ago, I showed a group of US doctors around Parliament. This involves sitting in the viewing gallery of the House of Lords, looking at the King Charles throne, the woolsack and a scattering of some quite elderly peers. And 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, but sadly I wasn't joking. The reform of the House of Lords has been on the cards for centuries.
It was actually abolished in 1649, but reinstated a few years later, and it has been the subject of intense debate ever since. The idea of an unelected peers having inherited access to parliament alongside crony appointees controlling the laws that Parliament produce, is clearly ridiculous. It is no wonder that there is a crisis of confidence in our political system, and that is at an all time high. This government has actually taken quite big strides, and probably more than others, about the long overdue removal of hereditary peers. And I 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 this. So 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 this, but their contribution is undermined by their complete lack of legitimacy. It is simply not right that our Parliament has more unelected lawmakers than those with a mandate from the people.
And during the Makerfield byelection, the Prime Minister called this 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, abused this 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, in the South East, and I know that our Prime Minister is very concerned with this and has called for a Senate of nations and regions to replace the Lords.
So every corner of our country is properly represented in both of our chambers. Also, the public want change. Only 16% actually support the current status quo. 70% have little or no confidence with the institution, and a majority actually want an entirely elected upper chamber. And the voters gave a very clear mandate for a Labour manifesto that had a commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and the nations. What could a second chamber look like? Well, it's a complex issue. We we should convene a commission of citizens and experts to decide the role and make up of the second chamber.
It should still absolutely be possible to retain the expertise that we have. And that is exactly what our manifesto has committed us to. Labour will consult on proposals. Yes, certainly.
It was actually abolished in 1649, but reinstated a few years later, and it has been the subject of intense debate ever since. The idea of an unelected peers having inherited access to parliament alongside crony appointees controlling the laws that Parliament produce, is clearly ridiculous. It is no wonder that there is a crisis of confidence in our political system, and that is at an all time high. This government has actually taken quite big strides, and probably more than others, about the long overdue removal of hereditary peers. And I 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 this. So 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 this, but their contribution is undermined by their complete lack of legitimacy. It is simply not right that our Parliament has more unelected lawmakers than those with a mandate from the people.
And during the Makerfield byelection, the Prime Minister called this 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, abused this 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, in the South East, and I know that our Prime Minister is very concerned with this and has called for a Senate of nations and regions to replace the Lords.
So every corner of our country is properly represented in both of our chambers. Also, the public want change. Only 16% actually support the current status quo. 70% have little or no confidence with the institution, and a majority actually want an entirely elected upper chamber. And the voters gave a very clear mandate for a Labour manifesto that had a commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and the nations. What could a second chamber look like? Well, it's a complex issue. We we should convene a commission of citizens and experts to decide the role and make up of the second chamber.
It should still absolutely be possible to retain the expertise that we have. And that is exactly what our manifesto has committed us to. Labour will consult on proposals. Yes, certainly.
16:34
16:34
16:34
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
And indeed congratulate him on securing this debate. Would you not agree that such a consultative process may well come about from a bill that my noble colleague, the noble Baroness, Baroness Smith, has introduced to the second Chamber? For indeed, it should be for the experts to provide some ideas and for then for us and other members of the public to consult on what is the best way forward for the second chamber.
16:35
16:35
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Good intervention. And, in fact, I have been working with Baroness Smith around her amendment, and I do think we need to get the great minds of this country to devise a really good political system that really reflects our country and gives us our best government. So let me find out where I was. I want so I'd like really to suggest that we need a commission to look into this and and that commission can take take many experts. How that's actually constituted remains something that we can debate. But I also would suggest that maybe they've announced that there's going to be a commission into electoral reform, and maybe this could also be extended to examine how the composition of the second chamber, because this is a holistic type approach to the system, I can see some members shaking their heads.
I want to briefly touch on an issue which I know many of you care about, the lack of transparency in the other place, according to Transparency International's UK research, 128 peers hold paid political advisory roles that risk breaching parliamentary rules, and 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. And since 2013, almost a quarter of all nominations from political parties were political donors. So that is the ultimate cronyism. So to conclude, because I know many people wish to say some words, I ask if the minister will meet with the Appg to discuss how the government intends to fulfil its manifesto commitment of consulting the public on alternative Second chamber, and will the Minister consider expanding the remit of the Commission on Electoral Reform to cover this role and composition of the other place?
It is time, Mr. Chair, to quote someone I do not normally agree with. It's time to take back control. Thank you.
I want to briefly touch on an issue which I know many of you care about, the lack of transparency in the other place, according to Transparency International's UK research, 128 peers hold paid political advisory roles that risk breaching parliamentary rules, and 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. And since 2013, almost a quarter of all nominations from political parties were political donors. So that is the ultimate cronyism. So to conclude, because I know many people wish to say some words, I ask if the minister will meet with the Appg to discuss how the government intends to fulfil its manifesto commitment of consulting the public on alternative Second chamber, and will the Minister consider expanding the remit of the Commission on Electoral Reform to cover this role and composition of the other place?
It is time, Mr. Chair, to quote someone I do not normally agree with. It's time to take back control. Thank you.
16:37
16:37
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you, Sir John, for calling me to speak in this debate this afternoon. I have been a member of Parliament for 25 years, I think probably longer than anyone else in this chamber today. And I can tell you that the House of Lords, for all its faults over the years, I believe, provides a balance to an elected chamber. And I think the honourable member proposing this debate, I'm afraid to say, misses the point about the House of Lords. What we do not want is another elected chamber to rival the House of Commons. What we need is a house of experts, a house of elders, if you like, of people with knowledge, expertise, experience that have served this country over many decades in different walks of life, and those in a moment, and those also who represent the 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 not to have that continuous wisdom throughout the ages. To lose all of that is pure vandalism. So we don't want another elected set of politicians, which we know will be effectively appointed by party HQ. The leaders favourites will be put on some list and get put into the House of Lords, many of whom would have preferred to be in the House of Commons. But they were put in the House of Lords instead.
A second set of politicians. I want a House of Lords which is depoliticized in many ways, so I'm not keen on the fact that both Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats have put so many people into the Lords who are friends of the leader at the time, or special special advisers to ministers and suchlike. What I want to see is more people who who are truly representative of the whole country but can provide knowledge, expertise and experience to make our constitutional or parliamentary democracy stronger and better. Now, I would like to to say, Sir John, that it cannot be right that that one political party that came third at the last general election has zero representation in the House of Lords.
There are 80 Lib Dem peers, 80 Sir John, and yet they received 600,000 less votes than reform UK. The Greens, I believe, have three representatives. The Prime. Did you say did you two two okay have representatives. The DUP have six, but they only have five MPs. The thing is disproportionate. At least there should be representation of all political parties. So there does need to be based on the votes at the last election.
Certainly a number of reform UK members of Parliament. Can I also say that. Okay, I will give way. Yes, certainly.
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 not to have that continuous wisdom throughout the ages. To lose all of that is pure vandalism. So we don't want another elected set of politicians, which we know will be effectively appointed by party HQ. The leaders favourites will be put on some list and get put into the House of Lords, many of whom would have preferred to be in the House of Commons. But they were put in the House of Lords instead.
A second set of politicians. I want a House of Lords which is depoliticized in many ways, so I'm not keen on the fact that both Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats have put so many people into the Lords who are friends of the leader at the time, or special special advisers to ministers and suchlike. What I want to see is more people who who are truly representative of the whole country but can provide knowledge, expertise and experience to make our constitutional or parliamentary democracy stronger and better. Now, I would like to to say, Sir John, that it cannot be right that that one political party that came third at the last general election has zero representation in the House of Lords.
There are 80 Lib Dem peers, 80 Sir John, and yet they received 600,000 less votes than reform UK. The Greens, I believe, have three representatives. The Prime. Did you say did you two two okay have representatives. The DUP have six, but they only have five MPs. The thing is disproportionate. At least there should be representation of all political parties. So there does need to be based on the votes at the last election.
Certainly a number of reform UK members of Parliament. Can I also say that. Okay, I will give way. Yes, certainly.
16:40
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I mean, there's just so much to feast upon their intervention. But just drawing out an inconsistency in his own speech, he likes experts in history. I like experts in history as well. Yet he says that we should have a chamber that's based upon the votes at the last election. So presumably that would be appointed by the party. So how do you balance those two? How does he intend to balance those two tensions?
16:41
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Well, he will know that the way it works in the House of Lords is that it is based on party appointments. So 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. And 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? He must surely accept that that is very wrong when you consider that reform UK was the third largest party in terms of votes at the last election.
But can I can I, can I go back to my. I will in a moment. Can I go back to my original argument? We're getting this wrong. We will regret the day that we become the only one of two elected chambers we are going to regret that day. You create a rivalry between two sets of elected politicians who will claim to be truly representative of the people that have put them in there, instead of having the primacy of the elected House of Commons, which ultimately we are the elect, we are elected by the people of this country.
We can ultimately make the final decision through the Parliament Act. We don't actually have to, at the end of the day, 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 there with enormous knowledge and expertise, whether they are former cabinet ministers, former ambassadors or high commissioners, heads of industry, heads of the trade unions. It's good to have people like that, representatives of the different faith groups. It's right that we still have the established Church of England and the bishops, although these days they're rather more to the left than than I would like, but they still represent the established church of this country.
Yes, I'll give way.
But can I can I, can I go back to my. I will in a moment. Can I go back to my original argument? We're getting this wrong. We will regret the day that we become the only one of two elected chambers we are going to regret that day. You create a rivalry between two sets of elected politicians who will claim to be truly representative of the people that have put them in there, instead of having the primacy of the elected House of Commons, which ultimately we are the elect, we are elected by the people of this country.
We can ultimately make the final decision through the Parliament Act. We don't actually have to, at the end of the day, 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 there with enormous knowledge and expertise, whether they are former cabinet ministers, former ambassadors or high commissioners, heads of industry, heads of the trade unions. It's good to have people like that, representatives of the different faith groups. It's right that we still have the established Church of England and the bishops, although these days they're rather more to the left than than I would like, but they still represent the established church of this country.
Yes, I'll give way.
16:43
16:43
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Well, I didn't stand on that manifesto. And I joined reform UK after that manifesto , and I and I can tell you now that that is not our policy today. We are not going to abolish the House of Lords. We're not going to engage in constitutional vandalism. We're going to, as we've always done throughout the ages. Sir John, as you will know, we have evolved, evolved our constitutional and parliamentary democracy in a way that has given us strength, 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 you do it in a way that that is evolution rather than revolution. So there is no requirement to abolish a House of Lords. There should not be an elected second chamber in New Zealand. They got rid of their second chamber, so they only have one elected chamber. Now. I prefer that , frankly, than I would a second load of of politicians in the House of Lords that wish they were MPs, but they couldn't get there. So they were put in by their friends in the party HQ into the House of Lords. We don't want that.
So if we do eventually abolish the upper House, frankly, it's better just to have one chamber than it is to have a second one also elected, because there will be rivalry between the two. And if you look at it like this, if you actually choose carefully change the system, make it, make it more meritocratic in terms of experience and knowledge and the kind of people we really want in the House of Lords. Actually, we're buying in expertise for very low cost. I mean, otherwise you're going to pay consultants and, and experts that will work for companies to do an effective job of scrutinising legislation.
So what is the point when you can actually give someone a peerage, someone with vast knowledge, who's perhaps been an ambassador to a country or has headed up an important institution, or has contributed to set up an amazing charity and has got vast knowledge of that. You know, people like Sebastian Coe, Olympic gold medalist, and he, of course, run the the Olympics in 2012. People like that have value, but they're not going to stand for election to lose all those people.
You're going to lose. You're
But you do it in a way that that is evolution rather than revolution. So there is no requirement to abolish a House of Lords. There should not be an elected second chamber in New Zealand. They got rid of their second chamber, so they only have one elected chamber. Now. I prefer that , frankly, than I would a second load of of politicians in the House of Lords that wish they were MPs, but they couldn't get there. So they were put in by their friends in the party HQ into the House of Lords. We don't want that.
So if we do eventually abolish the upper House, frankly, it's better just to have one chamber than it is to have a second one also elected, because there will be rivalry between the two. And if you look at it like this, if you actually choose carefully change the system, make it, make it more meritocratic in terms of experience and knowledge and the kind of people we really want in the House of Lords. Actually, we're buying in expertise for very low cost. I mean, otherwise you're going to pay consultants and, and experts that will work for companies to do an effective job of scrutinising legislation.
So what is the point when you can actually give someone a peerage, someone with vast knowledge, who's perhaps been an ambassador to a country or has headed up an important institution, or has contributed to set up an amazing charity and has got vast knowledge of that. You know, people like Sebastian Coe, Olympic gold medalist, and he, of course, run the the Olympics in 2012. People like that have value, but they're not going to stand for election to lose all those people.
You're going to lose. You're
16:45
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
Of people like that have value, but they're not going to stand for election. All those people you're going to lose, you're going to you're going to stand for election for the Lords. You're going to lose. You're going to lose good people. The great and the good will go. And you'll finish up with people, as I've said earlier, who want to be and will will have to settle for second best. I don't think that's good enough. I think that we should do what we've always done, done in this country and allow our Constitution, our parliamentary democracy, to, yes, change by all means, but in in a gentle and evolutionary way, so that we don't get rid of a tried and tested system that has lasted for generations and with all its faults, has actually done this country rather well over the centuries.
16:46
16:46
16:46
16:46
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Member for Stroud for securing this critical debate. I know he's a champion in pursuing long overdue reform to the upper chamber. Let me start with this. As chair of the all party parliamentary group on Anti-Corruption and responsible Tax, I have had the privilege of working with a number of excellent peers who are deeply committed, yes, to legislative scrutiny and improving our legislation. There are many, 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. Why is it acceptable in this country for lawmakers in the upper House?
As the honourable member for Stroud, for Stroud has mentioned, to work as lobbyists? At the same time, how can the public be expected to trust the system where those shaping the 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. It shouldn't pass that same test in Parliament either. Transparency international UK has gone on as far as calling the House of Lords, and I quote, a lobbying network for hire. If that doesn't set alarm bells ringing and they are the true experts here, I don't know what will.
And while we're asking difficult questions, yes, I will give way. Thank you for giving way. And while it's only a couple of individuals involved, he may not be aware there are still Lords who sit on Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal and can be paid up to £40,000 a month, despite the national security law obviously effectively meaning that the courts in Hong Kong are a kangaroo court. I wonder if you would agree with me that actually nobody from this place, neither this house or the other place, should be involved in anything to do with implementing the national security law in Hong Kong.
I welcome that intervention from my honourable friend, and he is absolutely right to talk about kangaroo court in Hong Kong, that UK lawmakers should not be complicit in supporting. Now, while we're asking difficult questions, here's another 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 you can disappear for months, sometimes years, and still retain the right to walk back in and take part in decisions affecting millions of people. An honour should come with responsibilities. Membership of Parliament should not be a lifetime pass with no expectation of participation.
And then there's the size of the place about 800 peers, 800 peers. 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, and who gets to participate. The overwhelming majority of working peers are based in London and the South East, and it is not right, for instance, that the North West, my region, for example, is so underrepresented.
But it's hardly surprising when the accommodation allowance is £125 a night. It sounds reasonable until you actually 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 be deciding a legislature that prices out talents from the nations and the regions. Then there's the transparency. Why don't peers have to declare how much time they spend on outside employment compared with their parliamentary duties? Why don't they have to declare how much they pay 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, and so I'd like to ask the minister will he reaffirm the government's commitment to that proposal elsewhere? What progress has been made on the government's progress on three other manifesto commitments first, new participation requirements, second, delivering national and regional balance of the upper chamber. Finally, and most importantly, reforming the appointments process. Because removing the worst offenders is not the same as fixing the system that allowed them through the door.
That's why we need stronger suitability and propriety checks through the House of Lords Appointments Committee. Those reforms should include putting Holac on a statutory footing and giving it an effective veto to demonstrably and suitable appointments. And let's tackle one final issue head on, Sir John, 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 Chequebooks. The House of Lords does important work, but in conclusion, many diligent and hardworking peers I know feel they're having their reputations dragged through the mud by certain individuals who are exploiting or sometimes actively enabled by a broken system, a smaller house, a cleaner house, a more transparent house.
That's not radical, surely. It's just common sense.
As the honourable member for Stroud, for Stroud has mentioned, to work as lobbyists? At the same time, how can the public be expected to trust the system where those shaping the 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. It shouldn't pass that same test in Parliament either. Transparency international UK has gone on as far as calling the House of Lords, and I quote, a lobbying network for hire. If that doesn't set alarm bells ringing and they are the true experts here, I don't know what will.
And while we're asking difficult questions, yes, I will give way. Thank you for giving way. And while it's only a couple of individuals involved, he may not be aware there are still Lords who sit on Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal and can be paid up to £40,000 a month, despite the national security law obviously effectively meaning that the courts in Hong Kong are a kangaroo court. I wonder if you would agree with me that actually nobody from this place, neither this house or the other place, should be involved in anything to do with implementing the national security law in Hong Kong.
I welcome that intervention from my honourable friend, and he is absolutely right to talk about kangaroo court in Hong Kong, that UK lawmakers should not be complicit in supporting. Now, while we're asking difficult questions, here's another 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 you can disappear for months, sometimes years, and still retain the right to walk back in and take part in decisions affecting millions of people. An honour should come with responsibilities. Membership of Parliament should not be a lifetime pass with no expectation of participation.
And then there's the size of the place about 800 peers, 800 peers. 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, and who gets to participate. The overwhelming majority of working peers are based in London and the South East, and it is not right, for instance, that the North West, my region, for example, is so underrepresented.
But it's hardly surprising when the accommodation allowance is £125 a night. It sounds reasonable until you actually 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 be deciding a legislature that prices out talents from the nations and the regions. Then there's the transparency. Why don't peers have to declare how much time they spend on outside employment compared with their parliamentary duties? Why don't they have to declare how much they pay 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, and so I'd like to ask the minister will he reaffirm the government's commitment to that proposal elsewhere? What progress has been made on the government's progress on three other manifesto commitments first, new participation requirements, second, delivering national and regional balance of the upper chamber. Finally, and most importantly, reforming the appointments process. Because removing the worst offenders is not the same as fixing the system that allowed them through the door.
That's why we need stronger suitability and propriety checks through the House of Lords Appointments Committee. Those reforms should include putting Holac on a statutory footing and giving it an effective veto to demonstrably and suitable appointments. And let's tackle one final issue head on, Sir John, 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 Chequebooks. The House of Lords does important work, but in conclusion, many diligent and hardworking peers I know feel they're having their reputations dragged through the mud by certain individuals who are exploiting or sometimes actively enabled by a broken system, a smaller house, a cleaner house, a more transparent house.
That's not radical, surely. It's just common sense.
16:51
16:51
16:51
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
And congratulations to the honourable member for Stroud for not only securing this debate, but the manner in which he introduced it and indeed his intervention on the honourable member for, for for Romford, which I think rather exposed the the case that he was making. Indeed, the honourable member for Romford indicated that he was happy to join the party which proposed to abolish the thing that he wants to to protect that he wants to depoliticise the thing that he wants to politicise more, and he wishes to maintain continuity of of a body by by changing it quite, quite radically according to the proposals that he has.
But but what I would say is that is that one of the reasons we are here today is because. A small number of, of the of the House of Lords made a very a very eloquent and strong case for their own for their own abolition in the manner in which they they treated the the, the terminally ill adults dying bill earlier this year, they spent many months filibustering in order to effectively block that bill, exceeding the powers that that clearly the House of Lords should should have. It raises the question. Indeed, I've often raised the question of why do we want.
What is a second chamber? Therefore. And I think that most people, indeed, even the honourable member for Romford was suggested that, in fact, it is there for sober, second thought, independent scrutiny of of the kind of things which we send down to that that that place to, to encourage us to, to take a less tribal view on the legislation which we which we are seeking to take to take forward and providing the kind of expert scrutiny which which is really a very helpful to, to the processes we're engaged in. However, as other people have already.
Indeed, the honourable member for Bolton West very articulately put the the the process of patronage or the system of patronage is both corrupting and and extremely corruptible. And clearly that needs to be swept away in any in any reforms to the to the House, to the House of Lords. But the question then is, what do you put in its place? Now? I entirely understand the emotional response, which is, well, you obviously you elect you have an elected chamber there, and I'm going to challenge that by by. I've often said that that in fact, what we want to do is to is to is to retain what is best in the House of Lords Appointments Commission, because I think it provides at least a template of a very helpful function, and particularly if we can attract the kind of people that.
Indeed, the honourable member for Romford described, so that a sliver of a proportion, a minority of those members, are selected according to the qualities that they can they can bring to the place. And indeed, I would say that the rest of it should be on the basis of a jury service in in other words, a citizens assembly that has been proposed by a large number of people and organizations over time, of course, I. As I say, I can entirely understand the laudable and emotional response, which is that what one one elects this, this, this chamber.
But there is a risk which indeed I think the honourable member for Romford did reasonably put forward, which is that the risk that it becomes either a lapdog or a logjam to to this to this chamber, because clearly, in those circumstances, we thought that the terminally ill dying bill that that they would then argue that they have the democratic legitimacy to, in fact, undertake to, to actually challenge the the decisions of the of the primary chamber. And we don't, for example, say that because they have political influence on the kind of things that and decisions which are taken in, in our in our country that we don't say that, for example, the the members of the Environment Agency Board, Natural England, the the Equality and Human Rights Commission, or the Committee on Climate Change, the Low Pay Commission.
We don't say that because they have they have powers that they should be elected. And therefore on that on that basis, I mean, I would argue that the argument for an elected second chamber. Actually, for my part, I'm sorry to say do, do do actually, you know, evaporate away. And I think that we need to find other ways of ensuring that we have the genuine sober second thought and independent scrutiny that I believe that this chamber needs and deserves. Otherwise, I'm afraid it would be better, quite frankly, to turn the place into a museum. Thank you, Sir John.
But but what I would say is that is that one of the reasons we are here today is because. A small number of, of the of the House of Lords made a very a very eloquent and strong case for their own for their own abolition in the manner in which they they treated the the, the terminally ill adults dying bill earlier this year, they spent many months filibustering in order to effectively block that bill, exceeding the powers that that clearly the House of Lords should should have. It raises the question. Indeed, I've often raised the question of why do we want.
What is a second chamber? Therefore. And I think that most people, indeed, even the honourable member for Romford was suggested that, in fact, it is there for sober, second thought, independent scrutiny of of the kind of things which we send down to that that that place to, to encourage us to, to take a less tribal view on the legislation which we which we are seeking to take to take forward and providing the kind of expert scrutiny which which is really a very helpful to, to the processes we're engaged in. However, as other people have already.
Indeed, the honourable member for Bolton West very articulately put the the the process of patronage or the system of patronage is both corrupting and and extremely corruptible. And clearly that needs to be swept away in any in any reforms to the to the House, to the House of Lords. But the question then is, what do you put in its place? Now? I entirely understand the emotional response, which is, well, you obviously you elect you have an elected chamber there, and I'm going to challenge that by by. I've often said that that in fact, what we want to do is to is to is to retain what is best in the House of Lords Appointments Commission, because I think it provides at least a template of a very helpful function, and particularly if we can attract the kind of people that.
Indeed, the honourable member for Romford described, so that a sliver of a proportion, a minority of those members, are selected according to the qualities that they can they can bring to the place. And indeed, I would say that the rest of it should be on the basis of a jury service in in other words, a citizens assembly that has been proposed by a large number of people and organizations over time, of course, I. As I say, I can entirely understand the laudable and emotional response, which is that what one one elects this, this, this chamber.
But there is a risk which indeed I think the honourable member for Romford did reasonably put forward, which is that the risk that it becomes either a lapdog or a logjam to to this to this chamber, because clearly, in those circumstances, we thought that the terminally ill dying bill that that they would then argue that they have the democratic legitimacy to, in fact, undertake to, to actually challenge the the decisions of the of the primary chamber. And we don't, for example, say that because they have political influence on the kind of things that and decisions which are taken in, in our in our country that we don't say that, for example, the the members of the Environment Agency Board, Natural England, the the Equality and Human Rights Commission, or the Committee on Climate Change, the Low Pay Commission.
We don't say that because they have they have powers that they should be elected. And therefore on that on that basis, I mean, I would argue that the argument for an elected second chamber. Actually, for my part, I'm sorry to say do, do do actually, you know, evaporate away. And I think that we need to find other ways of ensuring that we have the genuine sober second thought and independent scrutiny that I believe that this chamber needs and deserves. Otherwise, I'm afraid it would be better, quite frankly, to turn the place into a museum. Thank you, Sir John.
16:56
16:56
16:56
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
Thank you. See you in the chair. And I thank my hon. Friend the member for Stroud for securing this debate. When I became an MP more than five years ago now, I entered this place with a very open mind about most things, which is perhaps as well, including in relation to the role of the House of Lords. I didn't feel strongly about the other place one way or the other, but since I've been an MP, I've developed not only a greater understanding of what they do and how they do it, but also actually 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, it, revises, it, brings fresh eyes, new ideas. And if I may be so bold, Sir John, decades of experience and expertise, it can make our legislation stronger and our democratic process more robust. And there have been many examples of this over the years. The Domestic Abuse Act was strengthened in the Lords, where an amendment was introduced, a new face, a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, closing a gap that had let abusers escape charges. Similarly, crossbench and opposition peers spearheaded amendments, creating a powerful new corporate criminal offence.
Failure to prevent fraud in the 2023 Economic Crime Act, 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's 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 which heard from nearly 50 witnesses and powerful and emotional debates in the Commons.
At second and third readings, the bill made its way to the Lords. It had had over 100 hours of scrutiny. It was examined, lined by 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 taking the issue extremely seriously, voting to send the bill to the other place. What happened next was not what I think most MPs, however, they voted and more importantly, the public either expected or deserved. I was very grateful to those 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. And 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 we were happy to accept, and we engaged with peers in good faith. But nearly 1200 amendments were tabled, and as my hon. Friend has said, around half of them came from just seven peers. And looking at the content of many of those amendments, which were inappropriate and at times actually 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 is no selection of amendments and no time limits. So every amendment that is 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 with shocking examples, such as the amendments that were 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 Lord of the rings. Return of the King Extended Edition. A great film, but not the most succinct piece of cinema. And I say this not to be disrespectful to the other place, but to ask the simple question was this responsible behaviour? And were they fairly and professionally carrying out their role as the second chamber? I think not. Then there is the cost. The Lords debate on this bill cost the taxpayer over £1.7 million in attendance allowances, public money spent, so that a bill could go nowhere. The public have got every right to expect good value from their institutions because we work for them.
And I do not think anyone with a clear conscience can say that was a good use of taxpayers money. We've also got to look at the makeup of the chamber. 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords. Now, 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 this 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.
I will.
I am supportive of a second chamber. I believe in an upper house. It scrutinises, it, revises, it, brings fresh eyes, new ideas. And if I may be so bold, Sir John, decades of experience and expertise, it can make our legislation stronger and our democratic process more robust. And there have been many examples of this over the years. The Domestic Abuse Act was strengthened in the Lords, where an amendment was introduced, a new face, a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, closing a gap that had let abusers escape charges. Similarly, crossbench and opposition peers spearheaded amendments, creating a powerful new corporate criminal offence.
Failure to prevent fraud in the 2023 Economic Crime Act, 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's 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 which heard from nearly 50 witnesses and powerful and emotional debates in the Commons.
At second and third readings, the bill made its way to the Lords. It had had over 100 hours of scrutiny. It was examined, lined by 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 taking the issue extremely seriously, voting to send the bill to the other place. What happened next was not what I think most MPs, however, they voted and more importantly, the public either expected or deserved. I was very grateful to those 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. And 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 we were happy to accept, and we engaged with peers in good faith. But nearly 1200 amendments were tabled, and as my hon. Friend has said, around half of them came from just seven peers. And looking at the content of many of those amendments, which were inappropriate and at times actually 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 is no selection of amendments and no time limits. So every amendment that is 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 with shocking examples, such as the amendments that were 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 Lord of the rings. Return of the King Extended Edition. A great film, but not the most succinct piece of cinema. And I say this not to be disrespectful to the other place, but to ask the simple question was this responsible behaviour? And were they fairly and professionally carrying out their role as the second chamber? I think not. Then there is the cost. The Lords debate on this bill cost the taxpayer over £1.7 million in attendance allowances, public money spent, so that a bill could go nowhere. The public have got every right to expect good value from their institutions because we work for them.
And I do not think anyone with a clear conscience can say that was a good use of taxpayers money. We've also got to look at the makeup of the chamber. 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords. Now, 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 this 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.
I will.
17:01
17:01
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
I think I may say that's quite a leap of faith to to go from the comments I was making about the unelected chamber to the Church of England, for whom I have the utmost respect and have worked with many people of faith on a, on a, an agenda around cohesion and the need to bring our communities together, something which I'm sure he would fully support. But we've got a question that in what is a multi-faith and increasingly secular society, whether that is the right thing to do, to have unelected faith leaders in our second chamber?
Look, the Prime Minister has said himself, I don't think we can justify half of our national legislature being unelected. I think this is something that in many ways is quite scandalous. If you want to cut the cost of politics, that's the first place to look. The Prime Minister has also spoken about his desire to rewire how power works in this country. Surely we cannot do this 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 that we do need a national commission into the future of the House of Lords, and I'm pleased to speak in support of that today.
Look, the Prime Minister has said himself, I don't think we can justify half of our national legislature being unelected. I think this is something that in many ways is quite scandalous. If you want to cut the cost of politics, that's the first place to look. The Prime Minister has also spoken about his desire to rewire how power works in this country. Surely we cannot do this 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 that we do need a national commission into the future of the House of Lords, and I'm pleased to speak in support of that today.
17:02
17:02
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Chairmanship, and I thank my honourable friend for Stroud for securing this really important debate. And I represent the Green Party. And for many, many, many years we have supported the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement with a fully elected second chamber. I'm personally fairly agnostic to 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, the authority entrusted in lawmakers, in the legislature, by the people, by the voters, not by the people in charge of a political party who draw up a list from time to time, not some of which clearly is related to the amount of money that's been donated over a period of years by some of the people that end up in the other place, and not even through the legitimacy that an individual achieves within their specialized field of expertise because of many long years of practice in that field.
Absolutely. We should, as a House, as a parliament, be drawing on expertise from all across the full panoply of sectors in our country. But we need to ask ourselves who should fundamentally be making the laws. And it should be people who are working on the basis of the trust given them, by the voters, by the people, on the basis of every vote having equal weight. Which is why I'm equally passionate about the importance of a proportionally elected parliament. Fundamentally, we have a system with the House of Lords which is undemocratic. It's hugely unrepresentative in all sorts of dimensions, all sorts of areas of demographics, and it's untransparent because so much of the decision making about who goes on it is done behind closed doors.
How can that be suitable for the 21st century? So we have a huge problem with the composition of the House of Lords. We also have a problem with the functioning of the House of Lords. Now, yes, it's important that legislation is properly scrutinised, that there are full opportunities to amend it, and we've got questions to ask ourselves in the Commons about how well we do those things, how well our system enables us to do these things, but we don't fix them. With an institution like the House of Lords, no matter how effective individual members of the Lords may be in their work.
And I do, like colleagues here, pay tribute to the work of so many members of the Lords who do take their roles seriously, who do bring expertise, who do pay attention to the job that they are there to do. But as my honourable friend has just pointed out, we've seen a huge failure in the functioning of the House of Lords because effectively, the will of a few members of the House of Lords has overridden the will of the House of Commons, and that cannot be right. So we desperately need reform. And I welcome the proposal by my honourable friend for Stroud, for a National Commission on Reform of the House of Lords, and to address a point that was raised by the opposition spokesperson earlier, I would strongly favour the inclusion of a Citizens Assembly as part of that process of the National Commission, because I do fundamentally believe that a representative sample of the British people, representing all demographics and engaging in the detail of the questioning of how we construct our political system so that the people's voice is heard, that must be a fundamental part of any reform process.
But we cannot continue as we are with an undemocratic, unrepresentative, untransparent second chamber. And we must have reform. Thank you.
Absolutely. We should, as a House, as a parliament, be drawing on expertise from all across the full panoply of sectors in our country. But we need to ask ourselves who should fundamentally be making the laws. And it should be people who are working on the basis of the trust given them, by the voters, by the people, on the basis of every vote having equal weight. Which is why I'm equally passionate about the importance of a proportionally elected parliament. Fundamentally, we have a system with the House of Lords which is undemocratic. It's hugely unrepresentative in all sorts of dimensions, all sorts of areas of demographics, and it's untransparent because so much of the decision making about who goes on it is done behind closed doors.
How can that be suitable for the 21st century? So we have a huge problem with the composition of the House of Lords. We also have a problem with the functioning of the House of Lords. Now, yes, it's important that legislation is properly scrutinised, that there are full opportunities to amend it, and we've got questions to ask ourselves in the Commons about how well we do those things, how well our system enables us to do these things, but we don't fix them. With an institution like the House of Lords, no matter how effective individual members of the Lords may be in their work.
And I do, like colleagues here, pay tribute to the work of so many members of the Lords who do take their roles seriously, who do bring expertise, who do pay attention to the job that they are there to do. But as my honourable friend has just pointed out, we've seen a huge failure in the functioning of the House of Lords because effectively, the will of a few members of the House of Lords has overridden the will of the House of Commons, and that cannot be right. So we desperately need reform. And I welcome the proposal by my honourable friend for Stroud, for a National Commission on Reform of the House of Lords, and to address a point that was raised by the opposition spokesperson earlier, I would strongly favour the inclusion of a Citizens Assembly as part of that process of the National Commission, because I do fundamentally believe that a representative sample of the British people, representing all demographics and engaging in the detail of the questioning of how we construct our political system so that the people's voice is heard, that must be a fundamental part of any reform process.
But we cannot continue as we are with an undemocratic, unrepresentative, untransparent second chamber. And we must have reform. Thank you.
17:06
17:06
17:06
17:06
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
On this side. Yeah. Well thank you, Sir John. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairship. And I praise my honourable friend from Stroud for securing this debate. I'm 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 honourable members have already rehearsed. So I think we can improve the best elements we can preserve, rather the best elements of the other place, the House of Lords, and we can also improve its deficiencies.
The best elements are obviously its expertise, its ability to scrutinise and revise. Although I must note that the behaviour of a minority appears regarding the terminally ill adults end of life Bill was shameful, absolutely shameful. But regarding improving on the deficiencies, the deficiencies are of course, it's patchy expertise and opaque selection process, lack of legitimacy, lack of democracy and its unrepresentative nature around demography, geography, ethnicity. So I would rename the other place I would call it another kind of place, a Senate. I would have 50% of its members being experts, the other 50% being citizen senators, a point that has been already mentioned by the honourable members for Yeovil and North Herefordshire.
And in anticipating what I'm about to say regarding experts, certainly the House of Lords Appointments Commission does a good job in difficult circumstances, but we need a more transparent system. We need a more open system. I would recommend that experts are appointed from across the range of sectors in our society. They are given a limited tenure of office of ten years. If the president of the United States can can get a lot done in eight years, I'm sure that that expert senators would be able to do a lot in ten years. But on the more interesting side, half of the upper chamber, as I am envisaging envisaging citizen senators, I think these should be selected by lot by sortition.
It's a form of democracy. They would be serving as if they were. They would serve using the same principles that people who serve in juries do, whereby they forgo their political biases and other biases and serve in the national interests to scrutinise legislation that comes to them from the elected and the elected chamber, which of course , must have primacy. So let's rewire this place, starting with the other place. Let's inject some more expertise, more fairly and transparently appointed. Let's bring people into the heart of this Parliament through a system of citizen senators to improve, not to block legislation through the lens of national, not party interest.
The best elements are obviously its expertise, its ability to scrutinise and revise. Although I must note that the behaviour of a minority appears regarding the terminally ill adults end of life Bill was shameful, absolutely shameful. But regarding improving on the deficiencies, the deficiencies are of course, it's patchy expertise and opaque selection process, lack of legitimacy, lack of democracy and its unrepresentative nature around demography, geography, ethnicity. So I would rename the other place I would call it another kind of place, a Senate. I would have 50% of its members being experts, the other 50% being citizen senators, a point that has been already mentioned by the honourable members for Yeovil and North Herefordshire.
And in anticipating what I'm about to say regarding experts, certainly the House of Lords Appointments Commission does a good job in difficult circumstances, but we need a more transparent system. We need a more open system. I would recommend that experts are appointed from across the range of sectors in our society. They are given a limited tenure of office of ten years. If the president of the United States can can get a lot done in eight years, I'm sure that that expert senators would be able to do a lot in ten years. But on the more interesting side, half of the upper chamber, as I am envisaging envisaging citizen senators, I think these should be selected by lot by sortition.
It's a form of democracy. They would be serving as if they were. They would serve using the same principles that people who serve in juries do, whereby they forgo their political biases and other biases and serve in the national interests to scrutinise legislation that comes to them from the elected and the elected chamber, which of course , must have primacy. So let's rewire this place, starting with the other place. Let's inject some more expertise, more fairly and transparently appointed. Let's bring people into the heart of this Parliament through a system of citizen senators to improve, not to block legislation through the lens of national, not party interest.
17:09
17:09
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Thank you very much, sir John, pleasure to serve with you in the chair. And I very warmly congratulate the honourable member for Stroud, both the way he opened this debate and for the way he chairs the Appg for Lords reform. 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, and people across the country understand this. 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's one of the reasons so many people have lost faith in our democratic institutions. Now, in her excellent speech earlier in this debate, the honourable member for Spen Valley mentioned the Lords spiritual, the 26 Church of England bishops who take their seats in the other place. And I don't think it's an excessive understatement to say that that arrangement feels a bit outdated. Sir John Britton 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 now. Peers may also be appointed as they are seen to be experts within a field, but as there is currently no time limit on how long they sit within the laws, this could mean that someone was indeed an expert in something 40 years ago, but the field has moved on vastly, yet they still legislate in that area. Being viewed as a specialist. Now, when thinking about these issues, some say that it isn't a priority. It doesn't come up very 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've had constituents write into me about this, including, most recently Kelly from Offerton, who argued powerfully that we should have an elected second chamber. Well, I agree with Kelly. We Lib Dem supported the hereditary peers bill. Nobody can seriously defend a place in Parliament being handed down through a family line, but removing the remaining with pleasure.
That system ingrains patronage. It feeds the sense that politics is run by and for a small elite. And it's one of the reasons so many people have lost faith in our democratic institutions. Now, in her excellent speech earlier in this debate, the honourable member for Spen Valley mentioned the Lords spiritual, the 26 Church of England bishops who take their seats in the other place. And I don't think it's an excessive understatement to say that that arrangement feels a bit outdated. Sir John Britton 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 now. Peers may also be appointed as they are seen to be experts within a field, but as there is currently no time limit on how long they sit within the laws, this could mean that someone was indeed an expert in something 40 years ago, but the field has moved on vastly, yet they still legislate in that area. Being viewed as a specialist. Now, when thinking about these issues, some say that it isn't a priority. It doesn't come up very 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've had constituents write into me about this, including, most recently Kelly from Offerton, who argued powerfully that we should have an elected second chamber. Well, I agree with Kelly. We Lib Dem supported the hereditary peers bill. Nobody can seriously defend a place in Parliament being handed down through a family line, but removing the remaining with pleasure.
17:12
17:12
17:12
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Extended himself several times this afternoon, Sir John and I, for one, I'm here for it. There are many things I would change about the way our country runs. And I think if we were designing a country from scratch, I don't think we would have a Parliament like this. I don't think we would have a monarchy like this. I think the monarch and the royal family do a really important job in all sorts of ways, but I would change very much the relationship between Parliament and the monarch. To answer his question, yes I would. Removing the remaining peers on its own does not go anywhere near far enough, and that's why my hon.
Friend the member for Richmond Park tabled an amendment to the Hereditary Peers Bill to replace every unelected member with a fully elected chamber. Sadly, neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party supported that which feels to me, Sir John, 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 in 2025, according to an Electoral Commission study, only 14% of respondents said that they trust politicians.
We must all work to improve that level of trust, and increasing accountability in Parliament feels to me like an important place to start in February. My right hon. Friend the member for Kingston and Surbiton, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, 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 and the removal of peerages. Bill was included in the last King's Speech. Yet we're still to see any wide scale reform, and I'd be grateful if the minister could 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.
Now, the representation of the people Bill could have been a good place to start making vital reforms to the way the second chamber works. That bill 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. Lib Dems have campaigned for. But the bill says nothing about the Lords, nothing about 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 make the real changes that are needed to fix the broken political system we currently operate in, and there are steps they could take now.
Implement the 2017 Burns report. Bring down the House of Lords 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 will.
Friend the member for Richmond Park tabled an amendment to the Hereditary Peers Bill to replace every unelected member with a fully elected chamber. Sadly, neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party supported that which feels to me, Sir John, 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 in 2025, according to an Electoral Commission study, only 14% of respondents said that they trust politicians.
We must all work to improve that level of trust, and increasing accountability in Parliament feels to me like an important place to start in February. My right hon. Friend the member for Kingston and Surbiton, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, 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 and the removal of peerages. Bill was included in the last King's Speech. Yet we're still to see any wide scale reform, and I'd be grateful if the minister could 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.
Now, the representation of the people Bill could have been a good place to start making vital reforms to the way the second chamber works. That bill 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. Lib Dems have campaigned for. But the bill says nothing about the Lords, nothing about 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 make the real changes that are needed to fix the broken political system we currently operate in, and there are steps they could take now.
Implement the 2017 Burns report. Bring down the House of Lords 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 will.
17:15
17:15
17:15
17:15
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I just wanted to get my interest as well to John that my wife is the deputy government chief whip in the House of Lords, but she will . The honourable lady will know that the Taylor Report is bringing in a retirement age. It is going to be a mandatory 80 year old laws and things of those are they're progressing.
17:15
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
And I look forward to seeing that at pace, which I'm sure is what's going on. Indeed. My next line is move at pace to move power out of Westminster and Whitehall. But none of this is a substitute for the end goal. Our second chamber needs the legitimacy that only a democratic mandate can give it, and the Lib Dems will keep making that case until it is one.
17:15
17:15
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, Sir John. The question of reforming the House of Lords is obviously not a new one. Successive administrations of all political colours have grappled with it for decades. Indeed more than a century, discovering the constitutional upheaval tends to be far easier to promise from opposition than it is to deliver successfully from government. But that history reminds us of a fundamental truth constitutional reform must always be approached with care, caution, balance and a clear understanding of the consequences. Now, the House of Lords is far from perfect. I think we would all agree, and certainly no one on this side of the House suggests otherwise, that it performs a vital constitutional function.
It provides thorough legislative scrutiny. It brings unmatched expertise from law, science, business and public service into Parliament and it holds ministers to account. Crucially, it serves as a vital check on the executive, ensuring legislation is properly stress tested and challenging governments when they get things wrong. As someone who was a member of the government whips office before the last election, this is not always convenient for governments, but it is a core constitutional function. So any sensible reform must preserve and enhance that scrutiny and never dismantle it purely for political convenience or political advantage. And that is where we have serious concerns regarding the government's approach.
In its 2024 manifesto, as has been said, Labour declared that the House of Lords was too large and promised to reduce its numbers. But since then their actions have told a rather different story. Even after expelling the hereditary peers, the House of Lords still stands at around 800 members. That's 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. So I hope the Minister can explain that contradiction. Appointments must reflect the expertise the Parliament requires, not serve as a patronage machine to manufacture a compliant legislature.
Then there is 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? And, critically, how would it relate to the democratically elected House of Commons? These are not minor procedural queries, and the fact that the mover of this debate today seems to answer that question with an unelected panel to to decide just highlights the fact that the Labour manifesto, the promised radical reform, the Lords, they had no idea what that radical reform meant and 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 the 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. So when will the minister launch the proposed public consultation, or is the government expecting Parliament to sign a blank check on Lords reform? Turning 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. And 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 does not belong to the government of the day. It belongs to our nation very briefly, but I mustn't eat into the.
It provides thorough legislative scrutiny. It brings unmatched expertise from law, science, business and public service into Parliament and it holds ministers to account. Crucially, it serves as a vital check on the executive, ensuring legislation is properly stress tested and challenging governments when they get things wrong. As someone who was a member of the government whips office before the last election, this is not always convenient for governments, but it is a core constitutional function. So any sensible reform must preserve and enhance that scrutiny and never dismantle it purely for political convenience or political advantage. And that is where we have serious concerns regarding the government's approach.
In its 2024 manifesto, as has been said, Labour declared that the House of Lords was too large and promised to reduce its numbers. But since then their actions have told a rather different story. Even after expelling the hereditary peers, the House of Lords still stands at around 800 members. That's 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. So I hope the Minister can explain that contradiction. Appointments must reflect the expertise the Parliament requires, not serve as a patronage machine to manufacture a compliant legislature.
Then there is 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? And, critically, how would it relate to the democratically elected House of Commons? These are not minor procedural queries, and the fact that the mover of this debate today seems to answer that question with an unelected panel to to decide just highlights the fact that the Labour manifesto, the promised radical reform, the Lords, they had no idea what that radical reform meant and 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 the 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. So when will the minister launch the proposed public consultation, or is the government expecting Parliament to sign a blank check on Lords reform? Turning 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. And 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 does not belong to the government of the day. It belongs to our nation very briefly, but I mustn't eat into the.
17:20
17:20
17:20
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
I mean, it will be beyond me to decide who should and shouldn't be in the House of Lords any time soon. But I do note that his party leader last month was talking about flooding the House of Lords with hundreds of new reform peers, and if that didn't work, to get their legislative agenda through, he's going to have a referendum on abolishing it. So I think the Reform Party's position on this does seem a little confused. Now, the second chamber does not exist 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.
That is, the test against which His Majesty's opposition will hold the government to account.
17:21
17:21
17:21
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
Thank you, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I'd like to begin by thanking my honourable friend, the member for Stroud, for securing this debate today. I'd also like to thank honourable members for their contributions this afternoon to what has been, unsurprisingly, an interesting and enlightening debate. Before responding to some of the specific questions raised during the debate, I would first like to set out the government's approach to reforming the House of Lords. The government has a number of manifesto commitments in this space and is 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 Commons, an important and historic step. This 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 focused on implementing our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and participation requirement, something I know members on all sides are concerned about. For a long time there has been general agreement in both houses of.
The second chamber is too big. However, in asking more members of the second chamber to depart by introducing a retirement age. New talent will be required. New people will need time to learn how to develop expertise and how to fulfil their duties as members of the other place effectively.
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 Commons, an important and historic step. This 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 focused on implementing our manifesto commitments on a retirement age and participation requirement, something I know members on all sides are concerned about. For a long time there has been general agreement in both houses of.
The second chamber is too big. However, in asking more members of the second chamber to depart by introducing a retirement age. New talent will be required. New people will need time to learn how to develop expertise and how to fulfil their duties as members of the other place effectively.
17:22
17:22
17:22
17:22
17:22
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Are much more powerful than individual elected members of Parliament. They have greater privileges, less transparency. They're able to influence legislation to a much greater degree than we are in this elected House. And that is what lies at the fundamental heart of the problem. And so while we can indulge ourselves in these tweaks, and all governments have done it around the edge, in the end, unless we address that fundamental problem, the dissatisfaction will continue.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
Member for his point. I know he has very strong views on this, and I'm glad he has had an opportunity to contribute to this debate, and I'm sure he will continue to contribute in future. I, I take his point. I don't entirely agree. I think the primacy of the House of Commons is incredibly important, and the primacy of MPs is incredibly important. And again, I feel like that will be shared, unsurprisingly, by a room full of members of the House of Commons. These manifesto commitments, though, that I referred to the retirement age, the participation requirement.
These 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 Select Committee to provide the opportunity for the second Chamber itself to shape how these further reforms are delivered. The Retirement and Participation Committee published its report in July and was debated in the other place in September. The committee's report has been genuinely House led, with over 100 members submitting evidence to the committee. The government is carefully considering the committee's recommendations and will respond substantively later this year.
Something I know if you are here this afternoon, you will absolutely be looking out for the historical context of House of Lords. Reform tells us, though, that an incremental approach is often quite effective. Throughout the 20th century, there were various attempts to reform the second chamber. Some passed, some failed. Of course, there were the Parliament acts of 1911 and 1949, but there were 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 which was voted down in the House of Commons. None of these attempts were able to bring about lasting reform to the second chamber. However, during that time, reforms on expulsion, attendance and resignation, the held cross-party consensus were able to pass. That is why the government is 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 reforms that meet our objectives of a smaller second chamber that better represents the country it serves, and therefore the third stage, which takes up a large proportion of the debate today and on which specific points I will return. The third stage of reform focuses on the manifesto commitment to consult on proposals to replace the Lords with an alternative second chamber. The government recognises that previous public consultations and attempts to reform the House did not bring about lasting change. So the government wants to see a second chamber that better represents the nations and regions, something I personally am very interested in.
I know honourable members share that vision. There are many ways of achieving this goal, and we owe it to the public to get this consultation right now. Addressing some of the specific points made by individual members here today. I want to thank again my hon. Friend the member for Stroud. He referenced at one point House of Lords being abolished 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 honourable member for Romford now, I was surprised to hear him say that he wants continuity when there hasn't even been continuity in the party, that he's that he's represented within this parliament.
Look, I think this country needs to change. I believe in his own way. He believes the country needs to change. Otherwise his recent change of party is somewhat surprising. Although I did enjoy when he dabbled in Unicameralism, I wasn't necessarily expecting that point. Often in this place, championed by former Labour member Mike gapes, a proud unicameral. I know there aren't many of them in the in the House. It was interesting to hear that point made by the member for Romford on the size and competition composition of the Lords. One of the many points made by my hon.
Friend the member for Bolton West. Look, the government believes that all peers should make an active contribution to the House of Lords. There is a general, albeit not universal, consensus, that the size of the second chamber is too big . In addressing that. We should recognise that the pace of change in every field is increasing, which necessitates new talent with up to date experience, the introduction of a participation requirement and a retirement age sit at the heart of this work and as the leader of the House has said before, we believe the second chamber works best with its full time with part time members.
As I've said with regard to his point, which I will return to in a moment in regard to the number of representatives from the nations and regions. Of course, that is something that I think he will get a lot of sympathy from on these benches with with relevance to Hola, Hola. He is an independent, is 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 crossbenchers to the Lords. With regard to my hon. Friend the member for Spen Valley look, she speaks passionately about the terminally adult end of life bill, and I know her frustrations on this matter.
It's obviously a sensitive and delicate subject matter that should be dealt with seriously. The government was and remains neutral on that specific bill and the issue of assisted dying. It is up to the other place to determine how that bill was scrutinised. As with other legislation. With regard to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I enjoyed the reference to Kelly or her constituent, although I would always warn against weighing the mail bag for how important an issue is. I'm sure all members would agree with that, and I was quite interested to hear the Lib Dem position with regard to the monarch.
That said, loss of trust in politics, alas, comes at least as much from the Commons as it does from the Lords. With regard to removal of peerages, it is unacceptable that disgraced peers are able to 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. With regard to the opposition spokesperson, he talks of care, caution and balance. I am disappointed that was not the position they took with regard to the abolition. I'm afraid of the hereditary principle. To conclude once more, I would like to thank honourable and right honourable members for this very thought provoking debate on the second chamber.
These 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 Select Committee to provide the opportunity for the second Chamber itself to shape how these further reforms are delivered. The Retirement and Participation Committee published its report in July and was debated in the other place in September. The committee's report has been genuinely House led, with over 100 members submitting evidence to the committee. The government is carefully considering the committee's recommendations and will respond substantively later this year.
Something I know if you are here this afternoon, you will absolutely be looking out for the historical context of House of Lords. Reform tells us, though, that an incremental approach is often quite effective. Throughout the 20th century, there were various attempts to reform the second chamber. Some passed, some failed. Of course, there were the Parliament acts of 1911 and 1949, but there were 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 which was voted down in the House of Commons. None of these attempts were able to bring about lasting reform to the second chamber. However, during that time, reforms on expulsion, attendance and resignation, the held cross-party consensus were able to pass. That is why the government is 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 reforms that meet our objectives of a smaller second chamber that better represents the country it serves, and therefore the third stage, which takes up a large proportion of the debate today and on which specific points I will return. The third stage of reform focuses on the manifesto commitment to consult on proposals to replace the Lords with an alternative second chamber. The government recognises that previous public consultations and attempts to reform the House did not bring about lasting change. So the government wants to see a second chamber that better represents the nations and regions, something I personally am very interested in.
I know honourable members share that vision. There are many ways of achieving this goal, and we owe it to the public to get this consultation right now. Addressing some of the specific points made by individual members here today. I want to thank again my hon. Friend the member for Stroud. He referenced at one point House of Lords being abolished 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 honourable member for Romford now, I was surprised to hear him say that he wants continuity when there hasn't even been continuity in the party, that he's that he's represented within this parliament.
Look, I think this country needs to change. I believe in his own way. He believes the country needs to change. Otherwise his recent change of party is somewhat surprising. Although I did enjoy when he dabbled in Unicameralism, I wasn't necessarily expecting that point. Often in this place, championed by former Labour member Mike gapes, a proud unicameral. I know there aren't many of them in the in the House. It was interesting to hear that point made by the member for Romford on the size and competition composition of the Lords. One of the many points made by my hon.
Friend the member for Bolton West. Look, the government believes that all peers should make an active contribution to the House of Lords. There is a general, albeit not universal, consensus, that the size of the second chamber is too big . In addressing that. We should recognise that the pace of change in every field is increasing, which necessitates new talent with up to date experience, the introduction of a participation requirement and a retirement age sit at the heart of this work and as the leader of the House has said before, we believe the second chamber works best with its full time with part time members.
As I've said with regard to his point, which I will return to in a moment in regard to the number of representatives from the nations and regions. Of course, that is something that I think he will get a lot of sympathy from on these benches with with relevance to Hola, Hola. He is an independent, is 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 crossbenchers to the Lords. With regard to my hon. Friend the member for Spen Valley look, she speaks passionately about the terminally adult end of life bill, and I know her frustrations on this matter.
It's obviously a sensitive and delicate subject matter that should be dealt with seriously. The government was and remains neutral on that specific bill and the issue of assisted dying. It is up to the other place to determine how that bill was scrutinised. As with other legislation. With regard to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I enjoyed the reference to Kelly or her constituent, although I would always warn against weighing the mail bag for how important an issue is. I'm sure all members would agree with that, and I was quite interested to hear the Lib Dem position with regard to the monarch.
That said, loss of trust in politics, alas, comes at least as much from the Commons as it does from the Lords. With regard to removal of peerages, it is unacceptable that disgraced peers are able to 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. With regard to the opposition spokesperson, he talks of care, caution and balance. I am disappointed that was not the position they took with regard to the abolition. I'm afraid of the hereditary principle. To conclude once more, I would like to thank honourable and right honourable members for this very thought provoking debate on the second chamber.
17:29
17:29