Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey]

I agree, but none of that has been forthcoming to the public, no matter how hard they have tried, and the public do not want the project. Right across the region, there have been demonstrations and councils have voted against it. At a recent public meeting in Byley, close to one of the proposed pipeline routes, the failings were laid bare. The local communities of Cheshire, Wirral and Derbyshire know this, and that is why they are calling for the project to be stopped. The project is completely unnecessary. It is a madness of a project—a net zero vanity project.

I stand here today on behalf of all those members of the public calling for the Peak Cluster project to be stopped. I call, too, for the Government to answer the most basic of questions about the project, and to stop treating the public like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them absolute rubbish. The Government cannot dodge responsibility and accountability for this project, as they seek to by ducking parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests.

Last week I raised a point of order on the Floor of the House about the woeful responses on this matter, only for the Minister to reply that the project is nothing to do with the Government. He said:

“It is a private project.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 175.]

Really, Minister? If one delves a little bit deeper into the Peak Cluster project, it is revealed that it has deep, direct, structural and financial links to Government, with the final sign-off being from none other than the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

If the Government are still trying to say that they have made no estimate of the overall costs, that they have not worked out how much of the bill will land on the taxpayer, that they have done no cost-benefit analysis of it, and that they have made no assessment of the environmental impact—in fact, that they have not even bothered to work out whether the project is necessary at all—then that is a disgrace. If the Government are really trying to say that they have done no homework whatsoever on the project, then they really do need to do some, because if they did, they would come to the same conclusion as the public: that it is not necessary.

Instead, the Government, in ignorance or in full-throttle support, are pushing ahead with the project. In fact, they have deemed it a nationally significant infrastructure project, which means that the local authorities cannot either approve or reject it, despite significant objections from local constituents; rather, it falls for sign-off to the Government. The storage of the carbon dioxide beneath the seabed will require approval from the North Sea Transition Authority, another Government quango—wholly owned by the UK Government—which has responsibility for offshore carbon dioxide storage.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

The North Sea Transition Authority deals with many private sector companies around oil and gas drilling. I agree that it is a public quango, but surely the right hon. Member agrees that it does not have responsibility for what Shell or BP do in the North sea any more than it has responsibility for what Peak Cluster may or may not do through Cheshire and underneath the Liverpool bay?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my neighbour for asking that question. If he listens to the rest of the debate, he will see that this is not a private project; it has deep structural and financial ties to, and sign-off by, the Government. It is not, as he wrongly refers to it, a Shell or a BP. That is not true. That is the myth that we have to dispel today. So far, £28 million of funding for the project—nearly half of the money to date—has come from the National Wealth Fund, which is wholly owned by the Government. When announcing the project, the National Wealth Fund said on its own website that it

“has an important role to play in helping to amplify government policy”,

and on the gov.uk website, the Energy Secretary classed it as a “landmark investment”.

The issues I am raising are not highly technical or obscure; they are straightforward, basic questions about safety, cost and the use of taxpayers’ money. The cost is billions of pounds, which rests on the shoulders of the taxpayer. The amount already spent is in the region of £60 million, and that was just to secure planning permission. The full construction costs are estimated at £5 billion, although the full cost is likely to exceed that. HyNet, a similar project, has cost £2.5 billion for just 31 km of new pipeline, in comparison with the 200 km planned for the Peak Cluster. As the Government have so far committed £28 million through the National Wealth Fund, will the Minister say what process was followed before the fund invested in the project? How was it approved, and what role did Ministers play in that?

There are huge concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the technology, too. Last year, the Public Accounts Committee warned of a “high degree of uncertainty” over whether carbon capture projects would deliver value for money, so I can see why the Government are ducking away and not doing anything. The chief executive of Octopus Energy also questioned whether carbon capture represents a worthwhile use of taxpayers’ money. Surely, the Department responsible for energy infrastructure did a value-for-money assessment before committing public money to the project. If so, what is that assessment?

Residents I have spoken to are rightly and understandably concerned about the health and safety hazards, too. What if a leak were to happen? What emergency procedures are in place? What assessments have been made of the risks to nearby communities and to the maritime environment? The project could cause untold damage to agricultural land, sites of scientific interest and some of our towns and villages. It is ironic that the Government consider this to be an environmental project when it could very well destroy—and is already destroying—the environment. This would be laughable if it were not so serious. Have I received any reassurances on those health and safety matters? No, I have not. Have the Government even taken this into account? They cannot wash their hands of this project. If something goes wrong, the public will want answers.

Another claim by the Government, and by some of the people who might be getting tenders from them, paid for by the taxpayer, is that the project will support around 3,500 jobs. What will those jobs be? How many will be permanent rather than temporary construction roles? How many will go to local people, and how many will require specialist contractors to be brought in from overseas? Regarding the future of the project, how long is the infrastructure guaranteed for? I hear that the pipes are only guaranteed for 30 years. Can the Minister confirm or deny that?

The north-west should not be a dumping ground for carbon dioxide from not only elsewhere in the country, but elsewhere in the world. Although the project says it will initially be used to store carbon dioxide captured from Derbyshire and Staffordshire, it has been reported that the infrastructure will be designed to allow it to import and transport carbon dioxide from other countries in future. Can the Minister confirm whether those reports are correct? What additional approval would the Government require to grant those permissions?

All that the project will do is store up problems for future generations to tackle and pay for. The physicists and scientists who have contacted me mock the Government’s ignorance on this matter, saying that carbon dioxide is needed, and that if the Government really wanted to do something, they could just plant some trees. I am afraid that the Government have been suckered into a multibillion-pound waste of a project about which, as we know, they have no business acumen or know-how.

Before the Minister rises and dismisses my questions, as he did last week on the Floor of the House, saying that the Government have nothing to do with this project, I remind him—I ask him to reflect on this point—that the Peak Cluster project has deep, direct, structural and financial links to the Government, with the final sign-off coming via a development consent order by the Energy Secretary. The Government are a stakeholder in Peak Cluster Ltd, the private company the Minister referred to. Local authorities cannot object to the project, as the Government have deemed it a nationally significant infrastructure project. The money invested in it comes from the National Wealth Fund, wholly owned by the Government.

With that in mind, will the Government and the Minister kindly give some meaningful answers? If he cannot do so today and needs to go away to do some homework, I will happily accept a written response, but the Government cannot keep using obfuscation and excuses to try to hoodwink the public. The public demand answers today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was the point I was going to come on to. Community engagement is absolutely critical. It is an absolutely firm expectation from Ministers that any of these large-scale infrastructure projects should have meaningful engagement with communities. However, it is also absolutely critical for any project that wants to succeed in the NSIP process to demonstrate not only that it has carried out consultation but that that consultation has had a meaningful impact on the shaping of the project. That is one of the key factors in decision making in NSIP applications.

I want to echo a point that was made in the Adjournment debate on this subject and that many Members have raised with me outside of debates in Parliament, which is about the need for extensive consultation on this particular project. Criticisms have been levelled at the Peak Cluster project that its consultation with communities has not yet been good enough. I understand that it is planning to do more, but it is not for me to direct it to do that. It must engage meaningfully with communities because, once a proposal has been submitted, if community engagement has not been meaningful, that will count against the project.

There is a wider argument here about principle. The Government have said from day one of coming into office that it is important that we build things as a country again and that we do not become a country that just spends decades talking about important infrastructure but never builds it. However, that building should never be done without proper engagement with communities, which means communities feeling that they have had their say and that their say has been listened to. This project is one example of where much more consultation has to happen.

[Andrew Cooper]

The important thing for my residents is this: does this project work and is it safe? Those are the two key points. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) is in his place today. He has been challenging these plans on behalf of his community, as have I and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell). This is not a done deal, and Peak Cluster needs to listen to the community’s concerns and act on them. Does the Minister agree with all those points?

[Michael Shanks]

First, on the point about this somehow being a Government project, it is absolutely not. That is why my answers to the right hon. Member for Tatton reflected the fact that, right now, private developers across the country in a whole range of sectors are developing private propositions for all sorts of things.

Until those proposals come to Government, either with a request for funding or as part of the NSIP regime, the Government do not have a view on whether they are Government projects or not. They are not delivered by Government; they are private investments and therefore it is for those companies to put forward their proposition. The Government will then take a view on it, as we do with all nationally significant infrastructure projects. That is the first point about this being a Government project, which it is absolutely not. Peak Cluster is also not one of the clusters that the Government have initially taken forward. We are taking forward two clusters initially to drive carbon capture and storage; the Peak Cluster is not one of them. I make that point again on the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) made a second point about safety. It is really important to say that carbon capture and storage is not a new technology; it has been tried and tested, across industry and across power generation at scale, for a long time. Geological carbon dioxide storage has been in operation for decades. Norway has stored CO₂ since 1996—it has stored over 20 million tonnes of it so far—and a safe and robust regulatory regime exists precisely to ensure that safety standards are as high as they possibly can be.

Safety will be at the forefront of any decision about how we take this project forward. It is absolutely critical but, as I have said, CCS is not some novel technology whose safety considerations we do not understand. It is managed, understood and regulated effectively at the moment.

Ceramics Industry

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison.

As we have heard, the ceramics industry is a vital part of Britain’s manufacturing heritage and economic future. It supports thousands of skilled jobs, sustains local communities, strengthens domestic supply chains and contributes significantly to our economy. These are highly skilled jobs and preserving that expertise must remain a national priority. However, like other energy intensive industries, including those in my Mid Cheshire constituency, the ceramic sector has faced significant pressure from high energy costs. Manufacturers are competing in a global marketplace while dealing with energy prices often far higher than those faced by international competitors. Those pressures have placed additional strain on businesses already working hard to invest, innovate and plan for the future. That is why tackling high energy costs and supporting the decarbonisation of energy-intensive industries must go hand in hand; those objectives are not in conflict.

If we are serious about delivering net zero while maintaining a strong industrial base, we must ensure that the transition protects jobs, skills and domestic production rather than driving investment overseas. While the ceramics industry is concentrated in places such as Staffordshire, the challenges it faces are not unique. In the north-west, energy-intensive industries are grappling with the same pressures of high energy costs, international competition and the need to decarbonise. The question we face is whether we allow those industries to decline, with the resulting impact on the communities around them, or whether we provide them with the tools they need to remain competitive.

Hydrogen is one tool that can help achieve that. It offers a credible pathway to reducing emissions from high-temperature industrial processes, where electrification is not an option, while preserving the skilled jobs and manufacturing capability on which communities depend. We already see that potential here in the UK through the development of the hydrogen cluster in Cheshire. Although it is centred on the industrial clusters of the north-west and north Wales, the project demonstrates what hydrogen can achieve for hard-to-abate sectors across the United Kingdom, helping manufacturers reduce emissions while remaining competitive and attracting future investment.

Whether we can realise that potential across the wider north-west, Staffordshire and the country as a whole is now the key question because we stand at a crossroads as we await the publication of the updated hydrogen strategy. I hope that we make the right choice to bring forward a strategy that backs those of our industries for which hydrogen is the only option—crucially, wherever they are in the country and not simply by picking winners and losers.

The north-west has seen too many manufacturing sites close in recent years. We cannot afford to lose more industrial jobs, skills and investment. I hope that Ministers will publish the updated hydrogen strategy at the earliest opportunity and bring forward a hydrogen network that delivers for the communities that we represent. If we get this right, we will support not only industrial decarbonisation but skilled jobs. We will unlock private investment and help ensure that British manufacturing continues to thrive for generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow such an interesting speech about bricks. I congratulate Hayley and the other petitioners, the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for bringing this important issue into Parliament; it has been a really interesting debate. It is fair to say that the efforts of the petitioners have made sure that the concerns of workers, manufacturers, suppliers and the local communities that depend on the ceramics industry have truly been heard in Parliament.

It is clear that the ceramics sector faces several existential pressures including, in particular, high energy costs, as well as burdensome regulation and rising labour costs. We have heard a range of valuable contributions from Members, and the importance of the industry, not just in Staffordshire but in many other parts of the UK, has truly come across. I was fascinated to hear about Scotland, Cornwall and Stroud, and about a number of businesses in the ceramics sector. It was very welcome to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who made a powerful contribution on behalf of a sector in which he has first-hand experience of working.

We have learned that the ceramics industry is not simply another manufacturing sector. It is a source of highly skilled employment, a proud part of our industrial heritage and a significant contributor to our economy. For generations, the British ceramics industry has been recognised all around the world for its quality, craftsmanship and innovation, but it is clear that the industry faces particular challenges because it is particularly energy intensive. The high temperatures that kilns need mean that the industry cannot simply find, at short notice, alternative sources of energy, or switch on and off when prices fluctuate. The industry is uniquely exposed to very high energy costs, and the recent challenges facing some of its well-known firms should serve as a warning.

The supercharger scheme is a sticking plaster on the damage that has been caused by the Energy Secretary’s net zero policies, which have driven up the cost of energy and piled that cost on to businesses. The net zero costs that the Government have imposed on businesses have meant that the Government were required to introduce a £120 million subsidy for the ceramics industry.

[Andrew Cooper]

rose—

[Noah Law]

rose—

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Trust in politics is at an all-time low, and part of the reason is that our society is littered with examples of structural unfairness, injustice, and ordinary people being ever so slightly fleeced. The housing market of recent years is a strong case in point, with multiplying ground rents, abuse of the forfeiture system, opaque service charges, management companies that cannot be changed, overpriced maintenance performed by firms connected to the management company, no adoption of common assets, short leases and exorbitant lease extension fees—the list goes on.

It has been a privilege to have played my part in scrutinising the draft Bill, because it represents an opportunity to put a significant dent in some of these practices, and to demonstrate that politics and politicians can deliver for people and change lives for the better. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) has set out, the Committee took evidence from an extensive array of witnesses on the measures in the Bill, and I thank them for their contributions.

I will draw out a few specific points from our report. First, the reinvigoration of commonhold that this Bill will deliver has rightly been described not just as an alternative to leasehold, but as a radical improvement on it. For it to be implemented successfully, considerable work needs to be undertaken at the Land Registry to make sure that it is ready to respond, not just to the registration of new commonhold, but to the conversion of existing leases. Our Committee found that a failure to modernise the Land Registry’s legacy systems would pose a significant risk to commonhold working. Good-quality public access systems will be crucial.

My second point is on the ground rent cap. It is fair to say that the Committee spent a lot of our time attempting to get to the bottom of the Government’s rationale for their proposals. I support the proposal to adopt a flat cap of £250, rather than the cap being a percentage of property value. However, I have struggled to understand the rationale behind waiting 40 years before converting to peppercorn rent. I can understand the desire to give certainty and predictability to investors, and I can understand an argument that investors need time to adapt to such changes, but the last three successive Governments were elected on a mandate to address onerous ground rents. The ground rent system, as my hon. Friend said, was condemned by the Competition and Markets Authority, which said that it could find

“no persuasive evidence that ground rent was either legally or commercially necessary, or that consumers received anything in return”.

It should not be a surprise to anyone to hear that the days of ground rent are numbered. I cannot think of a single other example of a Government being so generous as to provide 40 years’ notice of a change to terms of business. Governments have not done that for students on plan 2 loans, for example, or for those affected by the rising pension age. The previous Government thought 20 years’ notice was sufficient, and I am minded to agree with them, unless the Department can bring forward more evidence on its rationale.

My final point is on the absence from the Bill of measures to regulate property management agents. Everyone in the House knows that that change is long overdue. We have Lord Best in the Gallery today. His excellent 2019 report set out the case for regulation clearly, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), following his work on his private Member’s Bill. I understand the concern about the size of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill as it stands, and that adding these measures would create further delay. All I say in response is that we have the opportunity and the responsibility to act. No time has been set aside in the King’s Speech for a separate regulation of property agents Bill, so I hope that the Minister will seize the opportunity in front of him, and chip away at another practice that blights the lives of our constituents and undermines trust in institutions’ ability to deliver for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I start by referring the Chamber to my chairmanship of the leasehold and commonhold reform APPG, where I work closely with organisations such as the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the National Leasehold Campaign, to which I pay tribute.

As we have heard, complaints from constituents about management companies and the exorbitant fees they charge are something that we all deal with on a weekly basis. It is not a new phenomenon; it is something that I raised on the Floor of the House five years ago because I could see it becoming the next big scandal, and sadly that has come to pass.

Homeowners who buy their homes in good faith understandably expect to live in a functioning estate where responsibilities are clear and, where necessary, charges are fair. All too often, the opposite is the case. Homeowners are left in the pernicious situation of paying for services once in their council tax bill, and once again in extortionate service charges. Poor services are often exacerbated by a lack of accountability. Residents are forced to persistently chase matters, while frequently being passed from one organisation to another without resolution. But as soon as residents fall behind with a payment, these companies leap into action, often using aggressive debt collection tactics. Adding insult to injury, the financial structures of these estates are all too frequently opaque: governance structures lack transparency; companies are labelled as dormant for accounting purposes; and dodgy practice—where freeholders, management companies and debt recovery companies operate in an interconnected web—allows them to rack up eye-watering fees.

I will cite one very recent example from my constituency, where a constituent owed some service charges to RMG, with which I think we all are familiar. Looking at his bill, the constituent had been charged an instruction fee and a client admin fee on top of his service charges, adding another £600 to the bill, yet RMG had somehow managed to inflate the £1,100 owed in service charges to £3,300 by the time court papers were issued. There is no world where a trebling of this sum can be justified, and it just shows what a scam the system is.

Time and again, I see people raising problems from a range of new build developments in my constituency, including Ledsham Garden Village, Mersey View and Jacks Wood estates, where homeowners face a range of challenges. In Ledsham Garden Village, residents are facing combined service charges and fees running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, although only a fraction of the spending can be accounted for, which just rubs salt into the wound. Residents do not have any idea how the money is being spent and if it is being spent on the estate at all; they do not know whether the company is getting best value for money, how reserves are being used or how costs are allocated over different phases of the development. There are persistent maintenance issues, inconsistent grounds maintenance and safety concerns because of poor traffic management. People who buy their homes in good faith deserve better. Then there are the Jacks Wood estate in Ellesmere Port and the Mersey View estate in Bromborough, where the adoption process has effectively stalled, leaving residents in limbo.

The regulation of managing agencies is clearly something this House would like to see, but I would like to make some further suggestions. We could introduce standard costs across the country for estate management fees so that there would be a baseline from which to judge these companies. Residents could be given a far greater say over who manages their estate. We could have three-yearly ballots in law on whether they wish to carry on with the same management agents, which could end the “put up or shut up” approach that a lot of these companies adopt. As we have heard suggested today, an immediate step the Government could take would be to make it a condition of any planning permission moving forward that the developers must hand over the whole estate adoption to the local authority and pay a commuted sum for it, ending that revenue stream entirely.

[Andrew Cooper]

On the point about estate adoption, I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that we need to get on and implement section 42 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which would require sewerage to be adopted as part of the public sewer as soon as possible.

[Justin Madders]

Yes, indeed. Residents of an estate in Eastham have been paying for a sewer that they cannot actually locate, which just shows that there is too much ambiguity over what these charges are for.

Finally, local authorities could be given powers to use their resources to bring estates up to an adoptable level and then charge the developers for that work retrospectively. The developers do not want to do it, and we need to find a way of breaking that logjam. These are just some of the measures that, alongside the many welcome reforms from this Government, would improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

Rogue Builders

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) on securing this debate. We have heard some harrowing stories from right hon. and hon. Members from across the Chamber. I am pleased that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) was able to share his story in full; what his constituents went through was utterly outrageous. I want to focus on the other end of the market and highlight a deeply troubling issue that has left families in my constituency and across the north-west region paying the price for the reckless and irresponsible actions of a house builder that failed to meet its most basic obligations.

The collapse of Stewart Milne Homes North West England in January 2024 exposed a glaring loophole in our housing system, which allows developers to sell homes without first securing the legal agreements that guarantee the adoption of essential infrastructure such as roads and sewers. In my constituency, three estates built by Stuart Milne were completed years ago but their infrastructure was never legally adopted. The streets were not adopted by the local authority, nor the sewers by United Utilities. Why? Because the developer failed to secure either the necessary bonded section 38 agreement, the section 104 agreement, or both. The result is that homeowners who purchased their properties in good faith are now told they must foot the bill to bring roads and sewers up to standard: we are talking about thousands of pounds for infrastructure that should have been properly delivered and adopted from the outset.

In Middlewich, residents on one estate had been waiting for a decade for the adoption of their sewers. It has been up to residents themselves to navigate the complex process of securing sewer adoption. After years of persistence, significant personal investment and tireless effort, their determinations have paid off, and the sewers on their development are now fully adopted. I pay particular tribute to Claire Bertram for seeing this through—but this situation is not just unfair; it is unacceptable. People buying a home should not have to become experts in planning law or infrastructure adoption. They should be able to rely on a system that protects them from exactly this kind of exploitation.

We need urgent reform to close those loopholes and prevent that situation from happening again. It must be a legal requirement that no home can be sold unless the infrastructure that it relies on—roads, sewers, drainage—is fully secured through binding adoption agreements. This is not a radical proposal; it is a basic standard of consumer protection. We already have a legislative tool: section 42 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, passed by the previous Government, which provides a mechanism to ensure that sewer adoption is properly regulated. It is time to activate and enforce this provision through secondary legislation. We also need a parallel mechanism for highways—one that ensures that developers cannot shirk their responsibilities and leave communities in limbo.

This is about restoring trust in the housing sector. Families should not be punished for a developer’s failure. We need stronger regulation, better oversight and a clear legal requirement that no home can be sold unless the infrastructure that it relies on is secured, adoptable and protected by law. Only then can we prevent this kind of injustice from happening again.

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for how he has put that. I think he is right on where the burdens of policy fall in that area. It is not in anyone’s interest. No one wins a trade war; that is impossible. However, it requires us to react in a way that is calm, reassuring and pragmatic and which seeks a way forward. I can tell him that that is exactly what this Government will seek to do.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State and his colleagues for all he has done so far in negotiating an economic partnership deal with the US. The automotive sector is an incredibly important one for Cheshire and Merseyside, both for manufacturers such as Bentley, Vauxhall and Jaguar Land Rover, and the wider supply chain, which supports the employment of tens of thousands. The US is the biggest export market for Bentley Motors in Crewe, so it is likely to be at the sharp end of the tariffs. We all hope that my right hon. Friend’s calm-headed approach has meant that we are in the best position to secure a deal. What specific support does he have in mind for the automotive sector to help it weather the storm?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. I am tremendously proud of our automotive sector. Indeed, he may know that I come from and grew up in one of our automotive sector powerhouses, Sunderland, with the Nissan plant. It is incredibly important to lots of communities in the supply chain all around the UK, but particularly to our exports. The US is a key market, particularly for the high-value models, some of which he mentioned, which are incredibly valuable to this country. We want and seek to maintain that success.

On the kind of support, first, it is about dealing with this issue. Secondly, there are things such as the announcement in the Budget of the £2 billion for collaboration with the private sector in the automotive field, the money incentives for electric vehicle infrastructure and the changes around the wider ZEV mandate that we are consulting on and about to publish a response to, for which we need a more pragmatic response than we have seen in the past.

Budget Resolutions

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

After more than a decade of stagnation, this Budget provides the vital reset that our economy needs, not just to address the immediate challenges we face but to lay the foundations for a brighter and fairer future for all.

There are many welcome measures in this Budget, and of particular importance to my constituency will be the increase in the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit, giving carers greater flexibility to work and increase their financial security. The additional £1 billion for SEND and alternative provision is a vital first step as we begin the work to rebuild the broken system, and to restore trust with parents that education can be inclusive, supportive and break from the adversarial model that is the root of the crisis they face.

Today, I will focus on housing as we strive to get Britain building once again. Having worked in the social housing sector for the past 20 years, I am convinced that whether the issue is educational opportunity for children living in overcrowded accommodation, the healthcare needs of people with the blight of damp and mould on their bedroom walls, or the cost of living pressure caused by poorly insulated or draughty homes, fixing the housing crisis is the solution. A safe, decent and affordable home is the cornerstone of a dignified life. When people have decent, safe accommodation that is suited to their needs, they have a strong foundation on which to build their lives. That, in turn, has a stabilising effect on their families and the wider community.

In recent years, we have witnessed a dramatic rise in house prices and soaring rental costs, leaving many individuals and families struggling to secure a roof over their heads. In my area, average prices have increased by 59% since 2010, while earnings have increased by only 23% over the same period. For many young, hard-working people, the dream of home ownership has slipped away. That is why the £500 million investment in the affordable homes programme is so important, as well as the long-term settlement for social rents, to give confidence to our registered providers to make their own investments.

It is important that we ensure that support is in place for vulnerable populations, which is why I welcome the additional £233 million allocated to tackling homelessness, bringing total spending in this area to £1 billion. We believe that every individual deserves a safe and stable place to call home. That is how we transform lives and strengthen communities. I am proud that we have a Labour Government in office who take the housing crisis seriously—a Government who are dedicated to delivering the change that our country so desperately needs, and delivering hope for a brighter future for everyone. This Government will build a Britain where everyone has a place to call home.

[Several hon. Members rose—]