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

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

   The hon. Gentleman has made a number of important points. The terms of reference are available on Ofgem’s website for the inquiry that NESO has commissioned an independent law firm to carry out. It will conduct interviews with staff who were in the control room on that day to get to the bottom of the allegations that have been made, because it is right for us to take them incredibly seriously, and transparency will be an important part of that. I should add, however, that if there are lessons to be learned, it is critical that we implement them very quickly. NESO has already said—and the inquiry will discover further details in this regard—that corporate affairs staff are present in the control room at a number of times, but that they do not interfere in any way with operational decisions. Obviously the inquiry will get to the bottom of the operator’s views on that, but that is the point that it has made in recent days. As for the hon. Gentleman’s wider point, I agree with him. It is important for us to recognise that grid stability is foundational to everything in our energy system. That is why we are investing record amounts in upgrading the grid so that it is resilient for the future; it is also why we are looking at how we invest in, for instance, storage—which the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned—so that we can store renewable energy that we are generating until when we absolutely need it, and have more tools at our disposal at moments of tight margins such as the one under discussion. As I have said, however, although at times frequency moved outside the normal operating range, it never moved outside the statutory limits. We met demand for all customers, and there was no disruption for customers at all. That is an important fact that is borne out by all the data that has already been published, although it does not take away from the fact that if we have lessons to learn from those incidents, we will absolutely learn them.

   Hansard source
2. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

   I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has framed his remarks. He is right to say that these are incredibly serious allegations, and we take them with the seriousness with which they should be taken and will take on board any lessons learned. As for his point about the importance of grid investment, we inherited a grid that was not only in dire need of investment, but had not been designed to meet the full needs of generation that had been built for many years and not connected. We are currently constraining renewable energy that has been built over the past few years because it had not been connected to the grid. We are doing that work to ensure that the grid can continue to do what it needs to do. As for my hon. Friend’s final point, let me state very clearly that electricity supplies were maintained throughout the June heatwave. No customer demand was subject to disconnection. Statutory frequency limits were maintained throughout the event, and the largest credible loss that could have occurred was also covered. Let me explain exactly what we mean by the margin in this instance. The margin represents the cushion of spare generation above the peak demand that is maintained by NESO, and at no point did we come close to breaching that. It did not indicate any kind of emergency situation. Demand was met, and those are the facts.

   Hansard source
3. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

   I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, and to all who were involved in that incredibly important exercise. I was not aware of it at all until I came into this job and read the full report, as well as the breakdown of all the actions that had been started during his time in office and have been continued by officials now. As he says, the cascading impacts of a national power outage are extraordinary and very quick, which is why we are first investing in the grid to ensure that that remains a very low risk on the national risk register, and secondly taking forward all those actions. I do not have the detail in front of me, but very few of the actions remain open; most have now been completed. We are also, across Government, continuing to organise exercises—on a much smaller scale—to ensure that Ministers are prepared and that we continue to keep on top of the actions, because these are not one-time events. The water industry, to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly referred, must continue to look at preparedness. That is the wider work that we are taking forward on resilience.

   Hansard source
4. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

   Yes, I agree. At the risk of repeating myself, electricity supplies were maintained throughout this period. Tight margins were caused by unprecedented warm weather—as I think we can all testify, having lived through it that week—and we were not alone in that. Other European countries were facing similar challenges and similar pressures on their electricity systems because of the extreme weather. I say gently that our aim as a House should surely be to do everything we can to prevent that extreme weather from becoming even more frequent, and I hope we will rebuild some of the consensus on that. My hon. Friend is right to say that the margin notices are a standard operational tool. Although there is enough generation available on the system to meet demand, NESO would like to have an even bigger cushion on that generation, and that is what the electricity margin notices are for. They were withdrawn because that generation was met, and at no point were any customers disconnected.

   Hansard source
5. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

   It is right and proper that we are talking about this issue, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is absolutely no complacency on my part or that of the Government. I take my responsibilities incredibly seriously, as do NESO and Ofgem, the operator, and I think he should be careful of his language on an issue as serious as this. [Interruption.] He shouts from a sedentary position about blackouts. That is exactly the point I am making: this is irresponsible language. We are not debating across the House, and it is totally irresponsible. I am not sure how much more clearly I can say it to the House, but I can point the hon. Gentleman to some published reading material on the nature of what happened during that week. I have not denied at all that an extreme weather event caused pressure on the grid, but at no time did frequency move outside the normal operating range, at no time did we not meet demand across the country, and at no time were we close to disconnecting anyone whatsoever from the system, let alone to a potential blackout, as he frequently likes to share on social media. We have a robust and resilient energy system that came under pressure, and it responded exactly as it should. The allegations that have subsequently been made about how decisions were made that day are serious and will be taken seriously in the investigations, and we will learn any lessons that come from that, but that does not detract from the fact that we met electricity demand on every single one of the days that it was under pressure. He can dispute that all he wants, but it is a basic fact.

   Hansard source
6. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

   In the past two years, during which I have had the privilege of doing this job, my hon. Friend has frequently shared her experiences as an electrical engineer, and she is right. I, too, am in awe of the grid and of the work that its operators do day in, day out as part of the extremely complex job of balancing supply and demand 24/7. I will not get into what the previous Government did or did not do, but they did not do enough. I am not saying that they had no interest whatsoever in this issue, but there was clearly a long period in which there was not enough investment to build the grid that we need for the future. They did not maintain the resilience of the grid or invest enough to ensure that it was able to cope with these kinds of weather events, which we know will become much more frequent, so there has to be increased investment. That is why we are driving forward the biggest upgrade in the grid in generations, and the work that the operators do at NESO is a critical part of that. The system is becoming more complex, which presents opportunities for decentralised energy and for using much more renewables in the system, but it is more complex to manage as well. I am absolutely confident that NESO is able to do that, but this is a lessons-learning exercise and we will learn the lessons from it.

   Hansard source
7. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

   The right hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions. On his point about the governance of NESO, I engage with its chair but also with the Government’s independent director. NESO is regulated by the independent regulator, Ofgem, which has responded in the last few days by scrutinising and governing the outcomes of the inquiry, as we would expect it to do. On the right hon. Gentleman’s wider point about documents, I am not going to comment on a process that is now under way to establish the truth. The version of events that I have seen suggests that that is not the case, but we are now doing an inquiry to establish the truth about version control, the sharing of documents and everything else. That is one of the key questions in the terms of reference. The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which we voted on yesterday, because transparency is important. I am not seeking in any way to suggest that we should not be transparent, but I am suggesting that we need to let the inquiry run its course so that we can establish the facts before we pass judgment.

   Hansard source
8. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

   I thank my hon. Friend for both of his questions. On the first, he is right to imply that it is good that the vast majority of the public do not think about the electricity system at all when they switch things on or off. That is the system working as it should do. He is also right to say that extreme weather events will become more frequent in the years ahead, unfortunately, and we do need to respond to that. That is partly why we are investing in the grid. My hon. Friend’s wider point is about how much we talk to the public about resilience. We are quite an outlier in Europe in not engaging with the public regularly on the question of personal and household resilience, whether during floods, storm events or any other incidents. We will take forward work as a Government to make sure that we are talking to the public much more, so that people are prepared for such circumstances and would be able to respond if they were to occur. On his final point, the report will be published when it comes forward, and I absolutely commit to making sure that the House has a copy.

   Hansard source
9. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

   I think we are probably speaking at cross-purposes. I suspect that when the shadow Secretary of State refers to blackouts, she means a national power outage rather than supply disruption, which does happen. I cannot give a guarantee that there will never be some supply disruption, because there are faults in the system and things will occur, which can lead to a temporary loss of supply. If the hon. Gentleman refers to a recurring issue, I am very happy to work with him so that we can make sure that the local DNO or the transmission owner is looking at particular faults. If he writes to me with the details, I will follow up.

   Hansard source
10. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting a question about nuclear into this, and she is absolutely right.

    Hansard source
11. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    I agree with my hon. Friend 100%—as, I hear, does the shadow Minister. This is one of those rare areas where I think we do have complete consensus—well, maybe not complete consensus, but widespread consensus—across the House. Nuclear is going to play a really critical part in our future energy needs. It provides the stable baseload power that runs on the system 24/7 for decades. Nuclear power that we build today could well still be operating by the end of this century. It is an extraordinary technology that we should be supporting and investing in as much as possible. That is why we are taking forward Sizewell C and Hinkley, but also why we have unlocked the small modular reactor programme and are delivering it at scale, and why we will take forward the reforms in the Fingleton review to make sure we can build things even faster in Britain.

    Hansard source
12. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    There was a lot there, but I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not happy to see me at the Dispatch Box. I am very happy to see him in his place, and to be here to answer this important urgent question. On security of supply, let me say that, yes, renewables are not going to be the entirety of our mix at all times. That which is why nuclear is important as well, it is why storage is important—so we can store energy for when we need it—and it is why our interconnectors to Europe are critical. The hon. Gentleman said two things in his question that I think show the problem with the Conservative party’s logic at the moment. First, on an urgent question about the resilience of our grid, he is saying that we should not invest in the future of the grid, which is the very thing that would lead to more issues with grid resilience. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman did just say that. If Opposition Front Benchers read his question back, I think they will see that he did. The hon. Gentleman’s second point is rightly a challenge about constraint payments, which we should not be paying, but I gently challenge him: if we had not built renewables without strategically planning where they were and the grid to connect them into, we would not be paying that money. His party may want to reflect on exactly why that happened. We are fixing the problems we inherited, and that involves investing in the grid.

    Hansard source
13. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    I almost thought my hon. Friend had asked a question without mentioning Harlow, but we got there in the end. I am afraid I cannot give him a specific answer about the work we are doing on the grid in Harlow, but I can confirm that we will be investing in ensuring that the grid is as resilient as it can be for all his constituents in Harlow. We are doing two things with the grid that really matter. One is recognising the scale of investment that is necessary to connect not just renewables, but the economic opportunities, growth projects and demand projects that need electricity, and we need the upgrade of the grid to do that. Secondly, we are reforming the grid so that it works much more efficiently. We are reforming the connections queue, which got completely out of control under the previous Government, so that projects can connect, and businesses and households in my hon. Friend’s constituency can benefit from clean, cheap, secure, home-grown power.

    Hansard source
14. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    First, I am not going to comment on leaks from internal conversations that may or may not have happened. I was not in the meeting, so I am not going to comment. On the right hon. Member’s point about the review’s independence, I do not know Eversheds Sutherland, but I am sure it would challenge his view that it is not independent. It has been asked to carry out an independent review. The findings will be reported to the independent director on the NESO board, and it will be shared with Ofgem. I have also committed to sharing it more widely. If there remain questions that the process has not answered, clearly we will look at what further investigation is necessary. I take this matter incredibly seriously. At the bottom of it all, this is not about trying to conclude some process; it is about trying to understand the concerns of the whistleblowers, who have shared their information with the shadow Secretary of State. They have not shared it with me; all I have seen is a summary of those points in a letter—a one-page letter—from the shadow Secretary of State. I have not seen the detail of the allegations, and she has not shared the details with the Government. However, we take this seriously. We have to get to the bottom of the matter and find the truth, and we will do whatever is necessary to do that.

    Hansard source
15. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    First, whistleblowers are protected under legislation, and rightly so. That is important, and we have reiterated to all those involved in this incident that they are protected in law from their employers when coming forward with allegations, as has clearly happened. However, the inquiry should also protect their ability to speak about their engagement in all this without any other NESO staff present, so that their evidence can be compiled for the inquiry report without the management being part of that process. I take the hon. Member’s point very seriously. On the second point about an office of the whistleblower, I am afraid that is not in my portfolio, but I will certainly pass it on to other Ministers.

    Hansard source
16. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    First, no, I am not concerned, because other tools can be deployed to ensure that need is met, and they are being taken forward. Secondly, if the hon. Member looked at the disruption caused by the weather, he would see that a significant part of the issue was caused by gas power stations not being able to operate at full capacity because of the heat. I am afraid that his suggestion is not quite the silver bullet he thinks it is.

    Hansard source
17. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    First of all, I did not brush anything off. I gave a very serious answer and said I would follow up with the individual distribution owner to resolve the issue. I said what I hope will be pretty obvious to everyone: that there are faults in the system now and again that lead to temporary disruptions to supply in households and streets, which are corrected by engineers who do an incredible job to fix things and for whom I have huge admiration. That is the nature of the system. I do not think we could ever have 100% of every single part of the system operating—I wish we could—but I did not brush it off in the slightest. I am happy to look into the issue in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) if he wants to raise it with me. Secondly, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) refers to—I do not know where this has come from—a “hostile environment” and “enemies of the company”. I have not said anything of the sort here. People have come forward with allegations and we are going to investigate them seriously, because we appreciate the fact that they have incredible skill and knowledge of what is going on in that control room—better than any of us, frankly—from the job that they do day in, day out. An independent inquiry will now interview them to establish the facts. We should wait for those facts before we jump to conclusions.

    Hansard source
18. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    First of all, investment is necessary to bring down the costs in the long term. We are currently paying to constrain the renewables that are generating often much more electricity day after day than we are able to get to homes and businesses. Instead of doing that—paying to both turn off wind and turn up gas somewhere else in England to fill the gap—we should be building a transmission system that brings that clean power to houses and businesses across the country. That requires an initial investment, but that investment is repaid, long into the future, from the virtually free fuel that comes from solar and wind. Many, many projects were built under the previous Government and I am very happy to champion those projects, but the problem is that they did not connect them.

    Hansard source
19. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    The hon. Gentleman asks a number of important questions about the role of data centres in the future of the country. First, there is a real opportunity if we get this right, but I take his challenge about properly planning where they should go. Data centres are an opportunity to soak up some of what we are currently constraining, which will actually bring down bills. If we can deploy them in the right places, we get a greater customer base for electricity, rather than consumers paying to switch off. Secondly, AI is a huge opportunity for us as a country and it will become increasingly important to have sovereign capability here in the UK. In the energy space, there is a real opportunity to utilise AI to run the system in an even more efficient way. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have to get this absolutely right so that local communities get the benefits and not any downsides. We are working through a data centre strategy with my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. On the energy side, we are working to ensure that we are getting the best possible locations for the benefit of the energy system and consumers.

    Hansard source
20. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

    I am disappointed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard that the hon. Gentleman rapped some of his speech in a Westminster Hall debate today, so I am disappointed that he did not do a rap in his question. He is a man of many talents, but he has disappointed me in this final week before recess! First of all, he knows that my answer—I hope he never takes it to mean that I am not interested—on the grid in Northern Ireland is always that it is a transferred power, because there is an all-Ireland grid. However, he is right about the connections with NESO. Our interconnectors with Ireland and Northern Ireland are an important part of balancing across the system. When there were storms in Northern Ireland recently and generation was switched off, those interconnectors were vital. The partnership that we have and the partnership between the two system operators are really important, so I will take his points away.

    Hansard source
21. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Ward

    Defence Skills: Fife

    2. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to promote skills development in the defence industry in Fife.

    Hansard source
22. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Ward

    Defence Skills: Fife

    Given the threats that our country faces, in March the Secretary of State announced welcome funding for two defence technical excellence colleges, one to be in the east of Scotland. Fife college at Kirkcaldy, in particular, stands ready to absorb new funding and rapidly scale up provision to plug the gap in entry-level skills for the defence industry in Scotland. Can the Secretary of State update us on progress towards getting a Fife-based DTEC off the ground?

    Hansard source
23. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

    Engagements

    Q9. It is an emotional Prime Minister’s Question Time today, and I really welcome the tone that has been struck. I think we should hear more of this, more often. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]Last year, I convened a roundtable of stakeholders in my constituency to explore joined-up solutions to tackling the scourge of violence against women and girls, and I have been really pleased that over the last two years, the Prime Minister has made that central to his Government’s mission. He has ensured that spiking and sexual deepfakes have been criminalised and that police forces have been mandated to have rape and sexual offences teams, and he has embedded trauma support for victims across all services. Does he agree that the Government absolutely must stick to the pledge that the Labour party put in its 2024 manifesto to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade?

    Hansard source
24. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Maureen Burke

    Pride in Place

    1. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support regeneration in Scotland through the Pride in Place programme.

    Hansard source
25. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Maureen Burke

    Pride in Place

    In my constituency, the Pride in Place programme will be stewarded by Jim Hope BEM. Jim has decades of experience in community engagement, and has been involved in a range of projects that have brought local people together. Does the Minister agree that the key strength of the Pride in Place programme is not only that it is investing £20 million in long-forgotten places, like Springburn, Barmulloch and Balornock, but that it is trusting local leaders like Jim to shape the future of their areas, putting power directly into the hands of those who know their communities best?

    Hansard source
26. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Western

    Waste Management Sites

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She may be aware that we have had a plastics recycling facility in my constituency for several years. Only when it opened did we suffer an awful fly infestation across the town, as well as a horrendous odour. It is on a normal industrial estate, but it is immediately next to a residential area. Surely the Environment Agency should have had some sort of involvement in the decision to allow it to open.

    Hansard source
27. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Turmaine

    Engagements

    Q2. It was an honour to march with people from across Watford on a peace walk in my constituency recently. Earlier this year, we saw an attack on our high street. A fire was lit at a Jewish-owned shop, and the shop was sprayed with antisemitic graffiti. Additionally, mosques in Watford have been subjected to Islamophobic attacks and intimidation. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister’s additional support to deal with antisemitism and anti-religious hatred. Does he agree that this House must come together to stand united against those who would seek to divide us?

    Hansard source
28. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mary Glindon

    A1: North Northumberland

    I am not a Northumberland MP, but I really want to press the Minister on a couple of things. The fact is that this road is important not just to Northumberland and Scotland, but to the whole region. While Hadrian’s Wall is not on the A1, people travel to Housesteads and Vindolanda on the A1. That is a worldwide heritage attraction and centre, and it has that status. However, I am concerned. The Minister is saying some brilliant things about the north-east, but does he agree that we need urgency? The number of fatalities continues to make this issue a priority. The north-east loses out—Manchester is the south-west to us. I am really concerned that fatalities are not higher up the list.

    Hansard source
29. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    National Security

    I have 60 minutes to make 60 points—no, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak very briefly, as I feel I have already taken enough of the House’s time on this issue. I commend the Government for bringing forward the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 and for designating the IRGC almost as soon as it received Royal Assent. I gently say to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers)—who said many things that I agreed with—that while he talks about the length of time it has taken, it was a delivered by a Labour Government, despite all the time that the Conservatives had in office. But that is the only party political point I seek to make in this debate—

    Hansard source
30. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    National Security

    The right hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I am not going to take the offer. The IRGC is a direct threat to the safety of the British-Jewish community. We have known that for a long time, and unfortunately the evidence has stacked up as the years have rolled on. We have seen Hatzola ambulances, which served the whole community, not just the Jewish community, set ablaze; we have seen synagogues and community centres firebombed; and we have seen Jewish people stabbed on the streets of Golders Green. It is past time that we designate the IRGC as the threat to this country that it is. I am reminded—especially today of all days, after the Prime Minister’s final Question Time—that it was the Prime Minister who went to the Jewish community in April and made two promises: first, that the legislation would be brought forward in the King’s Speech and prioritised; and secondly, that he would use it to designate the IRGC. I am so pleased that today, after his final Prime Minister’s Question Time, he has fulfilled both promises. I am eternally grateful for the work that the Prime Minister did to transform my party. I think back to 2019 and the worst defeat that we had suffered since 1935 and remember feeling that my party may never come back. But the Prime Minister turned it around, made us face the public, rid us of the poison of antisemitism and delivered the second-biggest majority of my party’s history. As I make the short journey over to the parliamentary Labour party office to nominate my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), in the spirit of unifying behind out next leader, to succeed the Prime Minister—assuming this debate is done by 6 pm— I place on record my thanks to the person who delivered this historic Labour majority, and who is directly responsible for my job and the jobs of many of my colleagues. After all, serving as a Member of Parliament is the greatest privilege in the world, and I will always be grateful to the Prime Minister for that.

    Hansard source
31. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Myer

    Iran

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, and he is absolutely right. This issue was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who spoke about the threat of social media disinformation from hostile states such as Iran and Russia. Given the significance of the threat to our democracy, does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that there does not seem to be a single lead in Government for dealing with this issue? We have the Security Minister, the defending democracy taskforce, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and, of course, the MOD. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be a single lead on tackling disinformation online?

    Hansard source
32. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Myer

    Iran

    I wish to push the Minister on the point about social media disinformation. This is one of the biggest issues affecting our democracy, and western democracies around the world, when it comes to the threat from not only Iran but other hostile states. I am no closer to understanding which part of Government is responsible for leading on tackling this challenge. Where is the plan? Who is responsible? I wonder if the Minister can offer clarification on that.

    Hansard source
33. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Murphy

    Estate Regeneration

    I beg to move, That this House has considered estate regeneration. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I want to use this debate to talk about the principles of estate regeneration, its real-life impacts and the process through which it should be handled. I will speak specifically about the current regeneration in Buckskin and South Ham in my constituency. First, I want to cover what good regeneration looks like. When done right, good estate regeneration has the power to breathe new life into communities, restore civic pride and improve quality of life through better infrastructure such as schools, GP surgeries and green spaces. In all cases, there is a community that lives there, often close-knit and deeply rooted across generations. Those communities deserve not just respect but full and genuine engagement, shaping and driving the future of their own areas. That is at the heart of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s 2016 guidance on estate regeneration, although I will go on to say that that guidance needs to be refreshed and strengthened. Buckskin and South Ham are proud, strongly knit communities where many have lived for decades and neighbours look out for each other. They were transformed when Basingstoke became a London overspill town post-war. By 1973, more than 3,250 homes had been built in South Ham alone. With new housing came new schools and the associations and religious groups that bind an area into a community, each with its own congregation, and that now run projects such as the community pantry in Buckskin or the street pastors. The Westside Community Association, following the much-mourned closure of its premises, now runs the Ridgeway centre and the Russell Howard pavilion, hubs known across Basingstoke. They have hosted countless birthday parties, christenings and events, including my coffee afternoons, but they are so much more than a space for hire. They house nurseries and run clubs for the over-55s at risk of isolation. I have seen at first hand the work they do, such as the food bank at the Ridgeway centre, which supports people in Buckskin and South Ham when they struggle to make ends meet. Today, both areas contain more than 4,600 households and 10,000 residents. A regeneration proposal was first identified for development in the 2016 local plan. In 2023, Basingstoke and Deane borough council and Sovereign Network Group signed a memorandum of understanding to take forward, in their words, “transformation plans, covering community engagement, master planning, working with Hampshire county council on transport and infrastructure, land assembly, partnerships and funding.” The housing association, Sovereign Network Group, then partnered with the Hill Group to form the Sovereign Hill Partnership to deliver the scheme. There is no doubt that change is needed for parts of Buckskin and South Ham, and the flats in Pinkerton Road have been identified as a particular priority. I and many residents recognise that there are clearly homes and areas in need of investment; that is not in doubt. The Sovereign Hill Partnership says it has held 33 events, knocked on 1,200 doors and received 1,800 survey responses as part of the regeneration process. I know that staff at SNG and the SHP, many based locally, have tried hard to engage with residents; this is not about them. In my surgeries, at the SHP’s own drop-ins and on the doorstep, too many residents remain frustrated, uncertain and anxious about the future. Issues raised with me focus on three key areas: accountability and transparency over finances; uncertainty; and trust linked to performance on repairs and maintenance. First, on accountability and transparency over finances, residents are frustrated with what they see as a lack of accountability in this project. The memorandum of understanding was updated in 2025, in the council’s own words, to “reflect updated ambitions, aims, objectives and working arrangements of the partners.” That means the council and Sovereign Network Group. I am not aware that any version has ever been made widely available, which itself raises questions over transparency. That speaks to a broader issue that residents raise with me time and again. If the council agreed the memorandum of understanding with the Sovereign Network Group, and they are working in partnership together, but the Sovereign Hill Partnership, which is a partnership between the Sovereign Network Group and a private house builder, is delivering the regeneration, who exactly should residents hold to account? Many tell me that they feel left in the dark. Does the Minister agree that accountability for such schemes should be crystal clear? There needs to be clarity on which body is accountable, alongside greater democratic accountability. In London, regeneration projects involving more than 150 dwellings or the demolition of any social homes that seek Greater London Authority funding require a resident ballot demonstrating support. In Basingstoke, even though direct funding is not involved, a partnership with the local authority still exists. The parties should look at measures to introduce greater democratic accountability, including the use of resident ballots, as increasingly is normal practice. I ask the Minister whether the Government would consider including resident ballots or similar mechanisms as standard in updated guidance for schemes with or without Government funding. We must also consider the financial model for the regeneration. SNG is a not-for-profit with a social purpose, but it has formed a joint venture with private house builder the Hill Group to help deliver this regeneration. Many residents want greater clarity on how any surplus will be reinvested, and on the details of the financial model underpinning the regeneration. Given the scale of the proposals, it is essential that residents can understand whether the benefits will be retained locally, particularly for housing, affordable housing, infrastructure and community provision. Does the Minister agree that transparency over the financial model is crucial for resident confidence, and will the Department consider updating the national guidance to that effect for all regeneration schemes? My next point is about the significant uncertainty caused to both social and private tenants, as well as to homeowners, by the regeneration proposals. Following nearly two and a half years of consultation, the Sovereign Hill Partnership confirmed in February what it calls the priority areas for redevelopment and refurbishment, as well as areas of limited change, the latter covering around a third of homes—roughly 1,500—in Buckskin and South Ham. That clarity is welcome for those residents, but it leaves nearly 3,000 households in areas of further study with no certainty at all. Residents have told me that they are unclear as to why and how these boundaries were determined—another example of a lack of clarity and transparency over decision making. Does the Minister agree that it is good practice to explain such decisions in an accessible way? On the point about uncertainty, the Sovereign Hill Partnership has acknowledged that wide-scale regeneration would take multiple decades. In the meantime, thousands of my constituents have no idea whether they will be asked to move next year, the year after, in 10 years or not at all. I have spoken to residents unsure whether to redecorate, lay patios, redo gardens and kitchens, or make other home improvements. They do not know whether they will see any return on improvements already made, including significant accessibility works for disabled residents. Those considering selling have also raised concerns about their ability to get a fair price. In short, too many people are having to put big life decisions on hold. Three years on, do residents not deserve clarity and a clear timeline as soon as possible? I urge the SHP to give that clarity quickly. Updated national guidance should set out what a realistic timeline for such schemes looks like, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s view. Perhaps most prominently, many residents are deeply fearful about the potential use of compulsory purchase orders. I do not believe that the widespread use of CPOs is justified, and their potential use only strengthens the case for resident ballots. The third area of concern revolves around a lack of trust, driven in large part by Sovereign Network Group’s performance on housing repairs. Put simply, that is the largest single source of casework in my office. I am afraid that we hear the story all too regularly: complaints ignored, wait times running into months or years, missed appointments, and wrong jobs or poor repairs that mean starting the whole process all over again. Recently, an elderly constituent had scaffolding on their SNG property from November 2025 until this month for a roof repair that never took place. They were unable to open their windows for eight months, including during the recent heatwave. The work has now been cancelled, the scaffolding has been removed, and the problem has been left unsolved. Likewise, a constituent whose depression and anxiety leaves them almost entirely housebound reported a roof leak last November. It remained unresolved until March, despite multiple SNG visits confirming the property was extremely damp and infested with mould and woodlice. These are just samples, but the pattern is borne out in both tenant survey data and the judgment of the Regulator of Social Housing. In the tenant satisfaction measures headline report, published last November, SNG performed worse than the national average across a range of measures, including overall satisfaction, repairs service, time taken to complete repairs, home maintenance, listening to residents and complaints handling. The regulator has found weaknesses in SNG’s delivery of an effective, efficient and timely repairs service, and a related failure to meet complaints handling timescales. I am aware that improvement plans are said to be in place, but the record points to a real issue of trust. Residents tell me repeatedly that they struggle to believe SNG can deliver a regeneration of this scale when it is struggling to deliver day-to-day repairs. Let us remind ourselves that this is one of the largest regenerations in the country. Does the Minister agree that improvement is needed on repairs and maintenance? Does she recognise that the record erodes residents’ trust in SNG’s ability to handle a scheme of this size? Might there be scope to update national guidance on estate regeneration so that minimum standards on repairs must be met? In conclusion, how does the Department monitor adherence to its 2016 guidance, and what plans are there to update it and make it statutory for both local authorities and housing associations? I recognise the role that estate regeneration can play in restoring civic pride, breathing new life into communities and improving quality of life, but it must be done with communities—with them shaping and directing the change, with clear accountability, with trust between all parties, and with the provision of as much certainty as possible. I will continue to fight for the residents of Buckskin and South Ham for as long as is needed. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

    Hansard source
34. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Murphy

    Estate Regeneration

    I completely accept that, as the Minister said, residential ballots are not the answer in and of themselves, but they do drive the behaviour that helps to build community consent. Will she extend my request to the Housing Minister, our hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), to meet me about this issue following this debate?

    Hansard source
35. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Luke Murphy

    Estate Regeneration

    I thank the Minister for her response. I particularly want to recognise the points she made about repairs and maintenance. I would welcome her passing on my request to the Housing Minister, and I acknowledge what she said about residential ballots. I fully agree that it is just one part of the process, but it would be a useful mechanism to drive some of the engagement she was referring to. I also thank other Members for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) made a point about the value of estate regeneration to both the economy and pride in place. I fully recognise that community needs to be at the heart of any proposals. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made the point that communities are not just a number on a spreadsheet and spoke about the need for a holistic blueprint for renewal. I think that we all agree that there should be a UK-wide approach on that. I heard the pride of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) in the Alton estate, and I share that pride in representing Buckskin and South Ham. She mentioned a number of things that are also really important locally in Buckskin and South Ham, including the need for a permanent community centre as part of the regeneration and the role of co-design. She also mentioned the way that the residential ballot worked—I was very interested to hear that. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made a powerful argument about pride in place and resident action groups, which I would like to speak to him more about. I appreciated the response of the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), and his agreement with the point about minimum standards and what community consent can help to deliver. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for what he said about my speech. However, I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Government cut the budget for affordable housing by two thirds, introduced the unaffordable rent model and decimated the building of social housing, so I might gently disagree with some of the points he made about the Conservatives’ record on housing. I put on record my thanks to the Minister for her response and to all Members for contributing. I am having conversations with the SNG, the Sovereign Hill Partnership and the local council, and I want to work constructively with them. I recognise the need for investment and more homes, and many residents do too, but it has to be done in the right way, with the accountability needed to build trust. I will always be a strong voice for my constituents and the residents in Buckskin and South Ham. Thank you, Dr Murrison, for presiding over the debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered estate regeneration.

    Hansard source
36. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lorraine Beavers

    Waste Management Sites

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of waste management sites on local communities. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. For nearly three years, the people of Fleetwood have been forced to live with an intolerable smell from the Jameson Road landfill site. They have complained, protested and reported the effects on their health to the council, the Environment Agency, the Government and to me, their Member of Parliament. Over the past two and a half years, the Environment Agency has taken increasingly severe action against the operator of the site. Each time, the operator has breached its permit and acted unlawfully in the process, and still the smell remains. At times recently, it has been worse than ever. In March of this year alone, more than 4,000 complaints were made. The central point that I wish to make is that this is proof of a broken regulatory system. Residents can make thousands of complaints, and people and businesses can be forced to leave an area because of an operator acting unlawfully, and still they are left breathing the same foul air. If our system cannot prevent that from happening, it is broken. If the regulatory system’s purpose is to record suffering, issue notices and hold meetings, but not to prevent suffering for the local community, its purpose and objectives are the wrong way around. In Fleetwood, it is as simple as this: a private company is making money from stinking out the entire town and damaging livelihoods, breaking the law in the process, while the British state appears too weak, too slow and too broken to stop it.

    Hansard source
37. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lorraine Beavers

    Waste Management Sites

    I agree. I hope that we will get that done—or start the battle to do so—today. Absurdly, none of the waste is even from Fleetwood. It seems that waste can be transported from across the country to any landfill site that is happy to take it—a form of waste tourism. The waste comes from outside Lancashire, harming people and the environment in the process. Of course, working-class northern communities such as mine are allowed to be collateral damage. This is not just about Fleetwood; communities across the country have found themselves trapped in the same nightmare that we have experienced.

    Hansard source
38. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lorraine Beavers

    Waste Management Sites

    My hon. Friend is correct, and I agree with him. I will address that point in my remarks. Communities across the country have found themselves trapped in the same nightmare that we have experienced: living beside waste sites, making complaint after complaint and discovering that the system is better at documenting their suffering than ending it. People have reported headaches, nausea, nosebleeds, vomiting and breathing difficulties, with some requiring hospital treatment. The prolonged stress is also harming my residents’ mental health. Children do not want to play outside, parents have had to keep the windows shut—even during the recent hot weather—and businesses are losing customers. Some residents are considering leaving the town they have lived in all their lives, while others have already left. I take this opportunity to raise the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), who, unfortunately, cannot join us today as she is attending a Select Committee. Her constituents have also had to keep their windows shut and stay indoors because of the awful smell coming from a landfill site. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) has constituents who can smell the landfill site in my constituency, as the odour blows across the Wyre estuary to Knott End and Preesall. Nobody should have to live like that, in Fleetwood or anywhere else. Let me share some of the experiences that residents have reported to me. One wrote to say that the landfill has affected her already severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. She feels like a prisoner in her own home; when the smell is at its worst, she cannot leave her house for days on end. Like many in Fleetwood, she moved to the area for the fresh sea air. Instead, she says, it has ruined her life. Another wrote to say that their family had to leave Fleetwood because of the smell. One member of the family, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, found the additional strain impossible to cope with, and their adult disabled daughter experienced throat irritation and disrupted sleep. They could not put up with it any longer and had to move away. That meant leaving behind their daughter’s established social and support network, registering with a completely new medical team and changing her care package. Another of my constituents has emphysema. He too moved to Fleetwood for better air, but because of the landfill, he suffers with sore and itchy eyes, has difficulty breathing and feels worse than ever. He asked one simple question: why is this allowed? I ask the Minister the same question. I do not want to hear that it is not allowed, because the fact that the problem continues proves that it is. If a national Government cannot put a stop to it, will the Minister suggest who can? These are not isolated complaints.

    Hansard source
39. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lorraine Beavers

    Waste Management Sites

    I agree. The problems began following the transfer of ownership from SUEZ to Transwaste Recycling and Aggregates, and the resumption of tipping in January 2024. SUEZ proved that sites like Jameson Road can be operated properly without a detrimental impact on the local community, but across the country more operators are cutting corners and operating outside of the law. Meanwhile, our enforcement framework has not kept up. It is designed around the assumption that operators will do the right thing, often with local authorities in mind. As we have learned in Fleetwood, we cannot afford to make that assumption any longer. The nature of waste management has changed. Small waste management firms are now operating sites that were previously considered economically unviable. As the Jameson Road debacle suggests, to make such sites profitable, companies are now operating them poorly, breaching the terms to their permits and ignoring planning conditions. Local people are left to bear the brunt of their corner cutting. The issuing and transferring of environmental permits needs to be more robust. Perhaps a new environmental permit should be issued with each change of ownership. If an economically unviable site has been closed, any prospective operator should surely be asked how they will overcome the financial issues. The way in which operators plan to make a site profitable without cutting corners should be scrutinised, and permits should not be carried over if operators cannot produce credible plans. Instead of the company bearing the burden to run a site properly, the burden has fallen on residents to prove that the operator has no such ability. That demonstrates that the weight of scrutiny in the system is in the wrong place. How does the Minister plan to address that? At present, the regulation is self-evidently ineffective. As the local Member of Parliament, I meet representatives of the Environment Agency every Friday morning. My team and the wider community have pursued every possible avenue to stop the smell and get the site closed. Over the course of those meetings, I have concluded that one of two things must be true: either the Environment Agency does not have sufficient powers to intervene quickly enough, or it is not using the powers it has with the necessary urgency. Which does the Minister think it is? Either explanation demands Government action. If the Environment Agency lacks the powers to suspend activity before further harm is caused, Parliament must provide such powers. If existing powers are unusable because of legal tests, internal processes or fears of legal challenge, those barriers must be removed. The agency must also have the resources to enforce the law. The issues at Jameson Road have resulted in the Environment Agency needing to pull experts in from all over the country.

    Hansard source
40. 15 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Lorraine Beavers

    Waste Management Sites

    I agree. I thank the Environment Agency, which has worked tirelessly despite massive staff shortages and everything else. It has worked with me and my community to resolve this problem. The passing on of responsibility while communities suffer cannot continue. The regulators point to the limits of their powers; the operators point to the weather; Departments point to the regulators. Meanwhile, residents are told to make another complaint and keep filling in their diary sheets. That is how faith in Government is destroyed, especially when that pattern is so recognisable in other aspects of the way the country is run. A private company is making money from stinking out an entire town, damaging people’s health and livelihoods, and the British state has so far been incapable of stopping it. I have dedicated much of my time as an MP to working out why. The children of Flakefleet primary school understand the injustice. A year ago, they wrote to the Prime Minister and handed a petition into 10 Downing Street. The smell from Jameson Road dominates their life at school, and those pupils believe that when something is clearly wrong, those in power will listen and act. That is why I invited this Prime Minister to come to Fleetwood, and I will be inviting the next one to do so as well. My constituents are tired. They feel ignored and forgotten. Many believe this situation would never have been allowed to continue for so long in a wealthy commuter town in Surrey, and I agree with them. Working-class communities should not be expected to tolerate lower standards because they have less political and economic power. Fleetwood’s health, dignity and future cannot be treated as less important than the financial interest of the private waste companies. No community should be treated in this way.

    Hansard source