Graham Leadbitter MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State commented on the extensive and continued disruption of passenger and air freight services that has occurred as a consequence of the collapse of the NATS system yesterday. That disruption will not be fully resolved before the weekend. For people and businesses in Scotland and across the UK, this is deeply concerning. It results in lost work time, affecting productivity, and it disrupts time-critical services, including medical flights and cold-chain delivery mechanisms. For example, about £1 million-worth of Scottish salmon is exported through Heathrow alone every single day, and that is just one sector in one of the home nations. That level of disruption, affecting all the home nations and, indeed, many other countries, cannot be allowed to happen again. There is a serious question to be asked about the clear lack of back-up systems, given that this incident lasted for several hours, with an estimated quarter of a million passengers disrupted. I welcome the actions that the Secretary of State set out, but I urge the Department to publish an assessment of the cost of this episode to individuals and businesses as soon as practicable. I am certain that Ministers will have cross-party backing in holding hold NATS to account and ensuring that it has far more robust back-up systems in future.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, absolutely. People in airports up and down the country are having to manage the delayed flights at their end. Pulling in people from around the airport adds cost. Some regional airports are operating on much smaller margins, and the expense of bringing in additional staff has a significant impact on them. This incident will have been not just frustrating for many people, but quite distressing and very costly. The measures in this Bill are predominantly welcome, and the SNP here and in government in Scotland is broadly supportive. However, I draw attention to amendment 33, tabled in the Lords, which introduced a review of airport parking charges, which was not in the Bill originally. I am not against that in principle, but the original text would not have required a legislative consent motion. It looks like consent will now be required, following the introduction of amendment 33 in the Lords, and I ask the Minister to address that point. If a legislative consent motion is required from the Scottish Parliament, it is essential that appropriate time is built in for proper scrutiny of this element of the Bill by MSPs, prior to Report. I want to raise the issues facing people with e-visas. Many have not been allowed to board aircraft coming to the UK, even though they have a legitimate right to travel and gain entry, because ground staff are not sufficiently trained or aware of how to check and scrutinise e-visa documentation. In these circumstances, passengers who are incorrectly refused boarding may not have a right to be compensated. That can be hugely costly and is inherently unfair. The legislation provides protection for adequately documented passengers who are denied boarding, but it does not define what constitutes being “adequately documented”. The Prime Minister has talked about giving people agency, but many people in such circumstances clearly do not have agency. For digital documentation, it seems obvious that the onus should be on the carrier to check it. A passenger in another country, with potential language barriers and limited digital access, is clearly disadvantaged if the onus is on them. The campaign group the3million has proposed a well-considered amendment to the Bill, which I am sure the Minister will be aware of. Will he give consideration to tackling that issue through an amendment to the Bill? It is a significant consumer issue for people who are entitled to travel and have a visa, but are refused boarding. It is a very costly experience if they do not get compensation for being incorrectly refused boarding. I have two significant airports in my constituency: a civilian airport in Inverness, and an airbase at RAF Lossiemouth. Clearly, military aircraft movements do not come under civilian aircraft legislation, but people who live in the vicinity of a military base experience noise and environmental issues. I am not suggesting for a minute that there should be constraints that would make operational flying difficult for the military. However, in the case of regular training exercises and regular training flights, which is predominantly what most flights out of our military bases are, more work could be done to improve how the military communicates with local communities. The expectations should be a bit closer to our expectations for a normal domestic airport. Has the Minister considered that, and will the Department have conversations with the Ministry of Defence to see how much room there is for manoeuvre? We do not necessarily need hard legislation that says the MOD must do x, y and z, because it would be wrong to constrain its ability to do its core work. However, we could explore how to minimise the environmental impact of routine flights on people who live close to what can be very noisy bases. They accept the noise, because the bases produce a huge amount of employment. People recognise their importance to the defence of the country, so they are very accepting, but that does not mean that this issue should not be addressed in the best possible way to try to improve things. We should always be looking for improvement. Finally, I commute to this place 40 weeks a year, give or take, so I take 80 flights a year. I spend about seven hours a week either in airports or on aircraft. Like other Members, I emphasise that it is a predominantly positive experience, and is largely without significant delay, but when significant delays do occur and people miss connections, often to long-haul flights, it can be really distressing, so the consumer element and protecting people are absolutely critical. I have regularly seen passengers who have been distressed about the circumstances they are in. Sometimes, they are flying for deeply personal reasons—bereavements and such like—and it is a more stressful form of transport than getting on and off a bus. Unlike people taking a single bus for a few miles and getting off at the other end, they have to plan for security, plan for their baggage and all those things. It requires a lot more thinking before someone gets on a plane, and for those who are there in difficult circumstances, it is all the more important that we ensure the experience is as good as it possibly can be for the people using it.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. Following the summer, recovery will be at the forefront for communities in my constituency and others who have been impacted by devastating wildfires. Many businesses in these communities are in the hospitality sector, the pressures on which are well documented. A reduction in VAT would provide a much-needed boost, enable reinvestment by these businesses and support economic growth. Will the Chancellor therefore consider cutting VAT for hospitality?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields · Hansard source

  More

  Both Labour and the Conservatives are guilty of failing oil and gas workers by driving uncertainty in this debate: the Conservatives by their U-turn on climate change policy, something which both the oil and gas sector and the renewables sector are deeply unhappy with, and the Labour Government by their complete lack of pace in decision making on regulatory issues, such as the transmission network use of system—TNUoS—charges, the 18 months to decide what is happening at Ardersier, and now on Jackdaw and Rosebank. The whole energy sector needs pace in and clarity of decision making. Scotland would make this a priority with the full powers of independence. Will the Government put the same pace and effort in?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rewiring the State · Hansard source

  More

  Can I remind the First Secretary that during this summer my constituency experienced the extensive Cairngorms wildfire? It was a major incident in difficult terrain that destroyed around 20 square miles of iconic hillside and forestry, threatened homes and businesses, and required the efforts of over 500 firefighters and volunteers. There are actions required of the UK Government, the devolved Governments and numerous public agencies and landowners, and I am pressing all of them on these issues. With the risk growing, my ask of the First Secretary is that the lack of military aerial firefighting capability within the UK be urgently reviewed, so that aerial assistance can be provided in these extreme and often prolonged incidents. What work is being done with our European neighbours in respect of mutual aid in tackling wildfires? We must recognise that exceptional local effort cannot be a substitute for national and international preparedness.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing the debate. Members will be aware of the half-hour Adjournment debate that I recently led, in which there were 19 interventions on me and the Minister. Many of those Members are present today, which demonstrates the strength and breadth of cross-party support on this issue. It is important to bear that huge cross-party support in mind. In my constituency, I have communities that are 65 miles from the nearest bank branch. For context, that is the same distance as from here to Hastings or Cambridge. It is an enormous distance, and people are hours of travel from a bank branch. That includes people who may be seeking entrepreneurship advice, perhaps on the first steps in setting up their own business. They may not know who to contact, but if they are able to see someone face to face in a branch, they can be told, “These are the people you need to speak to. This is how you set up an account”—not detailed business advice, but just the basics of how to access the system. People risk falling at the first hurdle otherwise. I restate the point about people who may be unsure about digital services, or who are attempting to use apps but need a bit of advice. They might do something on the app and then think, “Oh, I’m not sure I’ve done that right.” They need the opportunity to go into a bank. If someone has suffered a bereavement, they are looking for face-to-face contact and reassurance that their joint bank account will be sorted out. These are critical points in people’s lives. Finally, many of us will have been at highland games and agricultural shows, where charities hold lots of raffles and collect lots of cash. For people in my constituency, it is hours of travel to go to bank that cash.

• 8 Jul 2026 · European Entry and Exit System · Hansard source

  More

  There are clearly significant challenges to work through, and that is not unusual with large-scale technology adoption, as we know. I welcome the fact that the Government are working hard to find the trigger points where measures will be reduced or suspended for periods to try to keep queues to a minimum. There are two areas that I think the Government could do a bit more with. They could do even more to promote the official “Travel to Europe” app, which might help with some of the delays. Will the Government also ensure that perishable goods have prioritised access at ports? That is particularly important for fish exports and other short-life produce, which is critical to our economy.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Maritime and Coastguard Agency · Hansard source

  More

  My constituency has coastguard rescue services operating in Nairn, Burghead and at Gordonstoun school. One constituent who works for a local team told me: “After September, the cost would fall entirely on myself or my small business employer—this is not right”, and that the “changes will force me to no longer be available for call outs during working hours”. They also said that they “don’t do this role for financial gain, but the small amount of remuneration enables those of us who are employed to respond to emergency call outs without suffering a financial loss during a cost of living crisis.” Will the Minister give an assurance on two points: that the changes will not be made until we are collectively satisfied that these volunteers have been treated fairly, and that a life-or-death emergency service will not be diminished as a consequence of the changes?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Nuclear Energy Sites: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Two years ago, Labour promised to cut bills for every household by £300. Not only are households now paying hundreds of pounds more instead of less, but Labour’s nuclear tax on household energy bills will cost Scots a further £300 million over the next decade. The Minister knows that Scottish energy consumers pay among the highest electricity prices in the UK; he knows that there are serious alternatives that are quicker to implement and could actually reduce bills, such as geothermal energy; and he knows that the Government’s own figures for a nuclear waste disposal facility are up to £53 billion. With serious and far more cost-effective alternatives available, will the Minister listen to the Scottish people, stop the obsession with costly nuclear power that Scotland neither needs nor wants, and transfer energy power to—

• 7 Jul 2026 · Nuclear Energy Sites: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  6. Whether he held discussions with the Scottish Government and local authorities prior to announcing potential nuclear energy sites in Scotland.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  While it is welcome that the proposed use of Cameron barracks in Inverness was ultimately abandoned, that came only after months of unnecessary uncertainty for local communities following an announcement made without meaningful engagement with the Scottish Government, Highland council or NHS Highland. Does the Minister accept that bypassing devolved partners and failing to consult local communities undermines confidence in the asylum system? Will he commit that any future decisions on asylum accommodation in Scotland will be made only after meaningful engagement with the Scottish Government, local authorities and local MPs? Will he acknowledge that, while military sites may relieve immediate pressure on the system, they do not address the underlying failures driving the accommodation crisis, including slow decision making, inadequate planning and a lack of suitable community-based housing options?

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member probably needs to keep up a bit because that position has already been scrapped. That was articulated by the First Minister.

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  That is not the reason for my intervention. If there is such a drive to get investment and renewables in Scotland—there is some, though it is not nearly fast enough—why did it take two years to make a decision about Ardersier? After two years, the rug was pulled from underneath that with a simple no. If that was the decision the Government were going to come to, surely it could have been made sooner, and the project could have moved on and had some investment. That has the potential for 1,500 jobs on site and a further 4,500 in the supply chain.

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  The SNP backs new licences with the normal environmental assessments and everything that goes with that, which, the hon. Lady will understand, is part of the regulatory process that the previous Conservative Government also followed. Every Government would have an appropriate regulatory and licensing regime. The roads infrastructure, the foundations of installations, the fuels currently relied on by vessels transporting offshore wind towers and turbines, and even composite turbine blades rely heavily on oil and gas production. More significantly, the skills required to deliver the renewables revolution that will be at the heart of Scotland’s industrial economy are the same skills currently utilised in oil and gas. Those who wish to force the decline of the North sea without creating renewable jobs will do to the oil and gas communities what the Tories under Thatcher did to our coal and steel communities. That would be unforgivable.

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership today, Ms Furniss. I commend the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. The North sea oil and gas sector is of critical importance for the many of my constituents who work in the sector. Businesses across the north and north-east of Scotland—and far beyond—either directly operate facilities or provide specialist services and a very substantial supply chain. The oil and gas industry lost 70,000 jobs under the previous Conservative Government, and it continues to lose them under the current Labour Government. It is a complex challenge, and there are far too many people who, like the Tories, are backing full-scale oil and gas extraction with little to no focus on renewables or, like Labour, have a full-on focus on renewables while forcing the decline of the oil and gas sector and ongoing mass job losses. Neither of those extreme positions provides a solution to the challenge. While we must strive to substantially reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, there will still be a need to use oil and gas for many years to come.

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I think that the hon. Gentleman is not keeping up with the current debate because the question was about the SNP’s policy. The strategy will be published in due course. Those who believe that we should drill, drill, drill with little to no investment in the renewables transition are simply pushing the cliff edge further away without dealing with the cliff edge itself. That would also be unforgivable. The industry is clear that it needs the Government to protect oil and gas jobs while building up the renewables sector to transfer those jobs to—a focus not on one or the other, but on a transition from one to the other. It is abundantly clear that neither the Tories nor Labour has a serious focus on that transition. A new report out from the Energy Transition Institute at Robert Gordon University—a highly respected Aberdeen institute—makes for stark reading. The report predicts a further 18,000 job losses in the north-east of Scotland by 2035—1,600 jobs every single year. Crucially, the report then points to the huge benefits that can be achieved from a strong transition to renewables. The report’s author states: “That is not a marginal advantage. It is a structural head start that few other regions in the UK or Europe can match.” He goes on to say: “The priority must be to prevent these losses in the first place, not simply to manage the consequences after the fact.” What this needs now is the investment, policy, alignment and co-ordination to match. That is really simple. Scotland has enormous opportunity to reindustrialise with renewable energy technologies, but to do so requires existing North sea jobs to be protected, or the loss of those vital skills will stall that transition to renewables. There is a so-called “Goldilocks zone”, where growth in renewable jobs more than matches reductions in oil and gas jobs, but crucially, only if the transition is embraced and the oil and gas sector is protected through that transition. Other scenarios have devastating consequences for jobs and the people and communities of north-east Scotland. Pragmatism and pace must be the watchwords on energy policy if we are to make the most of this enormous renewables opportunity in front of us and ensure a future for the workers of the north-east. It is abundantly clear that mass job losses under the Tories and the undermining of those vital jobs by Labour are leading to economic and social pain across the north-east of Scotland. The people best placed to support the transition in Scotland and protect jobs and communities are the people who live and work in Scotland. That is why Scotland must have the full powers and control of energy policy that come with independence.

• 21 May 2026 · Costs for Motorists · Hansard source

  More

  Scotland is an energy superpower, so it is particularly galling for constituents and businesses in my constituency, which is a two and a half hour drive end to end, and where road vehicles are an absolute necessity to conduct daily life, to face the prices they currently face. Will the Government commit to using the hundreds of millions of pounds of extra tax revenue from VAT for a VAT freeze for the duration of the current crisis?

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Less than two weeks ago, the SNP secured a landslide, record-breaking Scottish election victory, including the election of two constituency MSPs who have left this place for Scotland’s Parliament. I know that regardless of political difference, there is a significant level of respect across the parties for their contributions in this Chamber and to the wider work of Parliament. That experience will stand them in good stead for what lies ahead in Holyrood. Much more respect for Scottish voters is required from the UK Government. While the Labour Government here in Westminster have floundered month after month, failing to address the cost of living crisis affecting all my constituents, the SNP has offered a message of hope for what Scotland can and should be, with its vast natural resources, its strategically important geographical position in the world, and the incredible talents of its people. It is particularly notable that in Scotland, support for independence is now consistently polling above 50%, and that Scotland’s voters have elected a significant majority of MSPs who support independence—more than ever before—with a clear mandate from the Scottish electorate to pursue an independence referendum. The theme for today’s King’s Speech debate is defence readiness. Many Members will focus on defence spend, defence procurement, national security threats and other direct defence issues. I agree with many of the points that have been made by hon. Members in the debate this afternoon; many of them were extremely well made. However, I contend that for around 4,500 personnel across three significant bases in my constituency and probably the same number again in family members; around 1,000 permanent defence contractors and their families; and an estimated 12,000 veterans and their families—a total of over 30,000 people with a defence connection—there are many issues that contribute to defence readiness. I turn first to the cost of living crisis. Like every other resident in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, our defence community are struggling to cover bills and are having to cope with more month than there is money. Defence personnel posted to the north of Scotland from elsewhere in the UK will experience an amazing place to live and work, but they will also experience among the highest energy prices in Europe, caused by a regulatory system that is hugely discriminatory to the north of Scotland. Labour MPs promised that people would see a £300 reduction in energy bills, but people there are projected to see a more than £400-a-year increase. There is little to nothing in the King’s Speech that seeks to reverse that £700-plus difference from Labour’s manifesto promise or that would remove the discrimination faced by households and businesses in the north of Scotland—discrimination that has gone on for decades, with no action to address it by the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and now Labour. Up until yesterday, there was no plan from the Westminster Government to address growing food costs—something that the SNP is tackling head-on. Seemingly, the Chancellor is now looking to do similar, but, critically, not in a compulsory way. I very much welcome the Government’s late acceptance of the SNP’s wisdom in this matter, but if the Government are going to do it, I strongly urge them to do it properly. There is no plan to cut fuel costs. There has been a promise not to increase tax further, but there is no plan to reduce it. In constituencies like mine, where car use is necessary for accessing basic services and education, leisure and employment opportunities, that is especially disappointing. People in the north of Scotland deserve better than to be punished by Westminster just for living where they live. Defence personnel, who are often hundreds of miles from their family, also deserve better than having to incur substantial costs when they drive home. When it comes to energy and net zero, a sector that has always been a strong destination for retiring forces personnel, and which is very much suited to the skillsets of many who come from a military background, the current Government are intent on repeating the mistakes of the past by accelerating the decline of one sector, in this case oil and gas, at a rate that does not match either demand changes or the growth of the renewables sector. That is simply Thatcherism all over again, which saw the tearing apart of coal and steel communities in Scotland. It is also a betrayal of North sea workers and those in the vast supply chain associated with those jobs, from skilled parts manufacturing jobs to the hospitality staff across the north of Scotland—taxi drivers, cafés and corner shops—who are seeing their revenues eroded to an unsustainable level. The Government’s policies are eroding the opportunities available to defence personnel, too, and the Conservatives are no better. Their answer is simply to push the cliff edge further away, rather than embrace a managed transition, which is what the industry wants to see. Neither of those scenarios is acceptable to Scotland or to my constituents. That brings me back to the theme of today: defence readiness. It is not attractive for people to join the military when jobs and opportunity are being eroded around key bases. That stifles transition opportunities for personnel leaving the services and erodes the vitality of the communities of which those bases are an integral part. Defence spending needs to be significantly increased, we need a better offer for new military personnel, and we absolutely need much stronger defence resilience in a more challenging world—where dictators such as Putin are prepared to threaten peace on a shocking scale and threaten the infrastructure that is critical to our economic and social wellbeing. At the heart of this issue are the defence communities that are embedded in their wider communities. Those defence communities have the same aspirations, and want the same opportunities for themselves, as their surrounding communities and regions. Getting these fundamentals right supports that bigger community, aids recruitment and retention in our armed forces, and provides the opportunities that our veterans deserve when they exit service.

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. That consistency is vital, but flexibility within the criteria is also vital. I will come on to that as well. It is frankly hard to stomach that the big high street banks use the argument of increased digital banking to justify local bank closures while building large, centralised banking centres in our cities. Surely the same argument can be applied to push workforce and management out to existing bank branches in local communities and enable that local workforce to carry out tasks on national functions such as mortgage services and business banking using the very same digital technology.

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Again, that goes back to the point I made about people needing a business service and basic business advice without having to travel dozens of miles to access that. Setting up a business is hard at the best of times, and having simple access to somewhere that will answer simple questions is really important. To conclude my 12-minute speech that has now lasted for 20 minutes, banking hubs would make a massive difference to communities like Lossiemouth, Grantown, Aviemore and Nairn, and to the many other communities that Members from across the House have mentioned in the debate. I trust that the Minister will recognise the firm but constructive approach that I and other Members have taken on this important issue.

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree about face to face, particularly for vulnerable people, but also for businesses or maybe somebody who might be thinking about starting up in business. Being able to talk to a community banker who can give them a little bit of early advice about access to basic business services is really helpful.

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I am pleased to see the Bill coming forward, as it will provide opportunities to make progress on this important issue. There is also the vital question of community sustainability. The loss of banking services in rural communities makes it harder to attract people to live and work there. It also means the loss of local banking jobs that have long provided access to respected professional jobs and the potential of a career in financial services.

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  Certainly; there are some areas, particularly large estates in urban areas, where we can see services disappearing simply because of how people live their lives. It is important that the state takes action to protect those critical services that people access. I was a student in Glasgow, and I see lots of places where there were banks that I used when I was a student which simply do not exist any more.

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  That gets to the heart of the matter. There is not an understanding by either the regulators or the banks themselves of the impacts that those closures have on communities that view themselves as being neighbours and part of a wider community, and the cumulative impact of that is significant.

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I would consider those to be basic services that people should be able to access as close to their own community as they possibly can. I was perplexed to read, in response to a written question from November last year, that the Government do not hold any bank closure data at all, despite the figures that I have quoted from Link. That is concerning when it is considered alongside the policy of 350 banking hubs, as neither the Government nor we who provide scrutiny can determine definitively how many closures have occurred and, by extension, how much damage requires to be mitigated.