Iran
Yes. The Minister gave way to me, so I must now return the favour.
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Iran
I have two things to say to the Minister. First, I am not sure if what he says is exactly right, but even if it were true, those programmes are still unfunded, pretty much, because there is no new money in the defence investment plan. Secondly, I have a small revelation—I was not going to mention this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I now I will—about the “no confidence” debate, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, that was won at the Oxford Union last autumn, at which Labour was slaughtered: the two proposers of the motion that night were Sir Robert Buckland and me. We have been invited back this autumn, so we will see whether we do better next time.
- Hansard source
Iran
Yes, certainly, although I am coming towards the end of my remarks.
- Hansard source
Iran
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s second question, that is all the more reason to get on with the exploration. On his first question, I know that we are all on our best behaviour for the Prime Minister’s departure, but he has some brass neck talking about big victories on the day that the Labour party effectively sacked its Prime Minister. I give him marks for chutzpah, but that is going a bit too far. For the benefit of Hansard, the hon. Gentleman is even grinning at me while I say this. We all know why this debate was scheduled: it is because the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has gone AWOL, and Labour did not want a debate about the fact that he did not want to face scrutiny.
- Hansard source
Iran
No. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not embarrass myself again. He should sit down and take a break. That is the reason why the Government have scheduled this debate, which is likely to finish more than two hours early—[Interruption.] Around two hours. These silly games that the Government play do not help them, and do not impress. There is a lot of hubris in this. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not take too much for granted. I will finish on what I hope will be a consensual point for the House: there will never be peace in the middle east while the mullahs run Iran. We now know that the horrific 7 October attack carried out by Hamas was almost certainly ordered from Tehran, in order to pre-empt the signing of an Abraham accord between Israel and Saudi Arabia; that is why it was done. The theocratic regime of the mullahs does not want stability. The mullahs do not want peace; they want destruction and death, be it in the Gulf or, if they could achieve it, here in the United Kingdom. In much the same way that Margaret Thatcher hoped and prayed, three years before the Berlin wall came down, that one day people in eastern Europe would be free, I hope and pray—I hope that the House will join me in this—that one day the ordinary, decent people of Iran will be free. They, the Gulf and the world will be all the better for it.
- Hansard source
Iran
Without asking the Minister to reveal any operationally sensitive information, for reasons that we all understand, is the Government’s position that they will not seek to use the capability of the international coalition for de-mining to clear mines from the strait unless, in effect, they have Iranian consent for de-mining?
- Hansard source
Regional Accents and Social Mobility
It is a pleasure to listen to and take part in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing the debate and on her personal, informative and engaging speech. I had the pleasure of welcoming the Youth Parliament to my county last year, and I was delighted to hear from all those young people from across the country; it was a pleasure to listen to them. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned her pronunciation of “tooth”; I was born on the “two-th” of June—I had to continually be corrected on that one. I must declare an interest, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for youth employment. I have the pleasure of working with Youth Employment UK on promoting youth employment in all its forms, the role of young people in the economy and ensuring that young people’s voices are heard. I also co-chair the APPG on men and boys’ issues, and it is a pleasure to work with the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys in that role on improving the wellbeing, opportunities and life chances of our boys. I think it is clear that this is one of the things that drives me in politics. As we have rightly heard today, a regional accent must never be seen as a badge of shame, and I will come on to talk about my mother’s experience of that. Every single one of our regional accents—from the north-east to the south-west, the Welsh valleys to the highlands of Scotland, Merseyside through to the Black Country and down to the Thames estuary—is a reminder of the people and places that make this country so special, and that is why we have enjoyed this debate so much. After 10 years of living and working in Wales, I have had a very messy accent. In my county of Sussex, our native accent has largely been replaced, except for a few old place names and words—for example, a twitten is an alley—due to the rise of mass education and accent correction in favour of perceived “better” pronunciation. Otherwise, I would be speaking more akin to the west country accent and using the rhotic “r”. That was an accent that my dad had, as a Sussex farmer, and that two Cornish people in my office would recognise. My dad married my mum, who was from Stoke and had elocution lessons at grammar school, where she had to wear a boater, not eat in the street and most certainly not chew gum in the street. When she took dad to football, most people presumed she was in the wrong end, watching the wrong team. Pride in where she came from was undermined by the fact that her accent as a youngster was deemed to need to be ironed out, as the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) said. I had the pleasure of serving as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions for over five years, and a title I fought for and had the honour of holding was Minister for Social Mobility. I know there is a huge amount of talent in every part of Britain, which is why I care so much about ensuring that everybody has a chance to succeed, no matter where they come from, their postcode or, of course, their accent. I would like to share are a couple of things from my time as a Minister. My very Liverpudlian private office lead had about 15 different ways of saying no to many of my bright ideas, which I learnt meant how much she liked them. At the DWP, we created 140 youth hubs, which I am delighted this Government are taking forward, and Members have highlighted the importance of young people’s confidence. In creating those youth hubs, we learned from the Birmingham model, under the leadership of another well-known and very well thought of former mayor, Andy Street. Manchesterism is now extremely fashionable, and I think we are all delighted to highlight the fact that there is so much talent and ability across the country. The DWP is unique in the fact that it is in every single community, and our second headquarters was in Leeds. One thing I found during my time working with the amazing civil service was that too many people cannot progress in that Department or more widely, because if they do not have the ability to get to London or be supported there, and perhaps if they do not have the right accent, they do not get the social mobility and the opportunities they need to progress. I worked with the care leavers in our Department and really listened to and learned from them. I hope that that is continuing, as I know this is a focus for the Government. Hon. Members have rightly spoken passionately, in their wonderful accents, about their constituencies. The hon. Members for York Outer (Mr Charters) and for Leigh and Atherton spoke about the BBC accent. When I, a former Croydon schoolgirl, worked at the BBC, they briefly tried to train my accent out of me. Again, that was about softening an accent, or perhaps it was about improving it—we need to read between those lines. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—good luck to Hansard on capturing all the magical recollections that he shared—shows off his magnificent accent. Once we have had time to tune in, frankly, we never get a chance to tune out. It was lovely to hear about learning phrases across generations; when we hold on to our past, our family and our area, it really makes a difference. Research has found that when interview candidates demonstrate technical knowledge or speak confidently, they are subject to less accent-based differential treatment. It is important to challenge the Government on the fact that they are lowering their ambitions around vocational qualifications and moving away from high standards and specialist knowledge—I leave that with the Minister to think about. My party is very much about meritocracy. We should be raising people up, and giving our young people the best start and the skills and knowledge they need to succeed, instead of lowering expectations and pushing them down to the bottom. That has been highlighted in speeches today. As I have said before in the House, you will do great when you are your true, authentic self—that will serve you. Confidence in being ourselves is everything we need. The Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has rightly said: “diversity and inclusion should never put any individual or group at a disadvantage, and should never damage cohesion and morale in the workplace”, and that anti-discrimination should not be “used as a mechanism to undermine meritocracy”. That is the nub of what we are talking about today. What is the point in pushing for us all to be the same? As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) said, this is not about conformity. We might have different approaches to this issue, but the challenge is there for us all, and we need to find a way to fix it. We need to insist on not seeing people as victims who need saving. We need to see people as talented individuals with agency, or we risk reinforcing stereotypes and pulling up the social mobility ladder. The new legal duties may sometimes make us politicians feel good about ourselves, but all too often the outcomes fail to live up to the talk. That, again, has been highlighted today. As the public sector equality duty shows, such duties can lead to more harm being done in the name of equality. We need to recognise that. The ongoing obsession with putting people into boxes and categorising them according to their characteristics is not the answer, as I think we all agree. It leads only to more division when, frankly, we need less. Instead, we should be celebrating achievement, holding up examples of excellence and promoting role models in every walk of life. In the age of social media influencers, a man named Wilfred Pickles is a somewhat unlikely role model, but his reading of the news on BBC radio during the war, in his broad Yorkshire accent, broke barriers and redefined the idea of who could be on a national broadcaster. Young people today, no matter where they are from, should feel confident that their accent will never be a barrier to them reaching their potential. That will be possible only if we build a society that is focused on individual merit and access to opportunity for all, rather than group characteristics and tick-box exercises. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Will she commit to a full assessment of the implementation of the socioeconomic duty in Scotland and Wales, and can she update us on what conversations she has had about it with the devolved Administrations? What impact does the Minister think devolution has had on promoting social mobility in the regions and nations? I certainly have my views on that, and I am interested in the those of the Minister. Conservative Members believe people should have the opportunity to succeed in life regardless of background or accent with the opportunity to go as far as their talent and hard work takes them. We should never judge people solely on protected characteristics or limit their chances and ambition based on where they are from. I agree with the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton: it is not about how we speak but how we listen and, crucially, act to make a difference in social mobility and open the doors for others.
- Hansard source
National Security
It is right that these measures have been brought forward, and the Opposition will support them. The powers Parliament created through the National Security Act exist for precisely this purpose. They are there to respond to hostile state activity and those who threaten our national security. It is right that they are now being used. That said, we have consistently argued that these powers should have been deployed sooner, particularly against the IRGC. We made the case repeatedly because the threat was clear. While it is disappointing that it has taken this long, it is nevertheless welcome that action is now being taken against these organisations. As we heard throughout today’s earlier debate, Iran continues to pose a serious threat to the United Kingdom. It seeks to intimidate, to interfere and to undermine our security, often through the use of proxies and affiliated organisations. That is why it is right that the regulations do not focus solely on the IRGC itself. The Iranian regime does not operate through one organisation alone. It relies on a network of proxies to spread fear, conduct hostile activity and threaten those it regards as opponents. The Minister has already set out clearly why each of these organisations meets the test for designation, so I will not repeat those arguments, but it is important that we recognise the danger they pose.
- Hansard source
National Security
We put in place powers that assist in this. The first duty of any Government is to keep the public safe, regardless of which party is in office. We introduced the National Security Act 2023. The Minister and I have had many debates on this subject, pushing for action, and we have been clear and consistent that the powers should have been used much more quickly. If the Government are now doing what is necessary to protect the public, they will have our support. National security should not be a political football. Groups such as the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right demonstrate how quickly new organisations can emerge, targeting people here in the United Kingdom while often acting on behalf of hostile states. We know that their activities have included threats against dissidents and particular hostility towards Britain’s Jewish community. That brings me to a wider point. The rise in antisemitism we have seen in recent years is deeply disturbing. Jewish people in this country should never have to look over their shoulder because of who they are or what they believe. Equally, those who have come to Britain to escape authoritarian regimes should be able to live here free from intimidation and fear. Protecting those communities is not optional; it is a fundamental responsibility of the state. These organisations, and those who support them, should face the full force of the law. Parliament has provided the powers; now they must be used robustly. When the 2026 Act was before this House, we spent a great deal of time scrutinising how the powers would work in practice. We asked whether there were gaps in the legislation and whether hostile actors might find ways around them. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could reassure the House that the operation of these new powers is being kept under close review, their effectiveness is being assessed, and, if weaknesses emerge, the Government will not hesitate to act. But legislation alone will never be enough. The organisations we are dealing with today are driven by ideologies that reject everything this country stands for. They seek to divide communities, spread hatred and undermine confidence in our democratic way of life. They do not believe in debate; they believe in intimidation. They do not persuade; they threaten. That is why our response has to be broader than enforcement alone. Of course we need strong policing. Of course we need capable intelligence agencies. Of course we need robust legislation. But we also need confidence in who we are as a country. We need to defend the values that unite us: democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Those are not abstract ideas. They are the very things these organisations seek to attack. If we are serious about protecting our national security, we must do both: relentlessly pursue those who threaten us, while strengthening the resilience of the society they seek to undermine. That is why we support the regulations today. They are an important step and they send a clear message that those acting on behalf of hostile states, or supporting those who do, will find no safe haven in the United Kingdom.
- Hansard source
National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk
May I associate myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) about the management of NESO creating a hostile environment for technicians in the distribution centres? Like the Minister, I have met the individuals in the control rooms, and I have nothing but admiration for them, so for them to be condemned as enemies of the company by being whistleblowers is profoundly wrong. We have heard Members raise other problems. In particular, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) spoke about small blackouts in his constituency, and the Minister brushed that off as a little local problem. The reality is that at the moment we use about 36 GW of power, and during the winter we use about 45GW of power, and that is before we have electrified transportation and before we have invested a huge amount in data centres and artificial intelligence. Blackouts are indicators that the grid is not working. A small blackout in Tunbridge Wells is an indicator that there could be big blackouts in the future. What is the Minister doing to resolve these problems?
- Hansard source
New Nuclear Energy Projects
Many of my constituents work at Torness power station and are deeply disappointed that the SNP Government are blocking new nuclear development in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State agree that the nuclear industry provides highly skilled jobs and that it is a grave mistake by the SNP Government to block them coming to Scotland?
- Hansard source
A1: North Northumberland
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate my neighbour the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on securing it. I understand that a football match is taking place tonight, and I want to reassure colleagues that I will not detain them until 7.30 pm—it will be a relatively short contribution. The A1 is not simply a road through Northumberland; it is one of the United Kingdom’s most important strategic routes linking London, the north-east of England and the south-east of Scotland and beyond. For my constituents in the Scottish Borders, the A1 is a vital economic and social artery. It connects communities in eastern borders with Newcastle, Edinburgh and the wider national transport network. It is used every day by people travelling to work, attending hospital appointments, visiting family and transporting goods. Yet large stretches of the A1 through Northumberland and the Scottish Borders remain single carriageway. That is simply not good enough for a road of such national importance. The last Conservative Government approved plans to dual 13 miles of the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham. Those improvements would have created a continuous dual carriageway from Newcastle to Ellingham, improving journey times, strengthening connectivity and, most importantly, making the road significantly safer. It was therefore deeply disappointing that the Labour Government cancelled the scheme shortly after taking office. Years of planning had taken place, development consent had been granted, and tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money had already been spent. The decision to abandon the project was short-sighted. Businesses do not recognise the border between England and Scotland when they make investment decisions or move goods around the country. The failure to invest properly and improve the A1 in Northumberland has a direct impact on businesses, workers and families in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. Too often, debates about transport investment focus on major cities. Rural and cross-border communities are expected to tolerate slower, less reliable and less safe infrastructure. That imbalance must be readdressed. I will not focus my frustration only on the UK Government, because the Scottish Government, which is responsible for the A1 on my side of the border, bear equal responsibility for investment in the road and have also significantly failed to invest in the A1 in Berwickshire and the Scottish Borders. Serious accidents happen all too frequently, causing significant diversions through small, rural communities and upsetting local residents. There is great concern about some of the junctions on the A1, particularly around Reston, where local campaigners have been campaigning for years. I pay tribute to Barrie Forrest and the community council team from Reston who have been campaigning for the A1 junction at Reston and Coldingham to be improved, because they rightly identify it as a safety concern. The Scottish Government need to play their part in improving this important road as well. Upgrading the A1 would support tourism, agriculture, manufacturing and the many small businesses that form the backbone of the economies of Northumberland and the Scottish Borders. It would improve access to jobs and services and help unlock investment across the wider region. There is also an overwhelming safety argument, as we have heard already from the hon. Member for North Northumberland. Anyone who regularly travels along the single-carriageway sections of the A1 understands the risks caused by heavy traffic and slow-moving vehicles, and the limited opportunities to overtake safely. Minor alterations and isolated safety measures are not a substitute for the substantial upgrade that the route requires. This should not be treated as an English project or a Scottish project: it is a United Kingdom infrastructure project.
- Hansard source
A1: North Northumberland
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Part of the reason why the Scottish Government have not invested in the route—I notice that none of the Scottish National party Members are present—is that they see it as a road going to England. Perhaps they make decisions to invest in other parts of the Scottish transport network—maybe not ferries or the A9—but routes going to England do not get the share of the resources that they require. This is undoubtedly a United Kingdom infrastructure project in which both Government should invest. I conclude by urging the Government to reconsider their decision not to go ahead with these improvement works, to restore the Morpeth to Ellingham scheme and to work with the Scottish Government to set out a credible, long-term plan to upgrade the A1 through Northumberland and the Scottish Borders. Our communities have waited long enough. They deserve a road that is safe, reliable and fit for purpose.
- Hansard source
A1: North Northumberland
The Minister said that National Highways is engaging with the Scottish Government, but it is really important that there is engagement at ministerial level. There is cross-party support for improvements—I think we all recognise their importance—but unless we get that ministerial drive pushing it forward, I do not think we are going to get what we want.
- Hansard source
Livestock
8. What recent discussions he has had with relevant stakeholders on Scottish livestock numbers.
- Hansard source
Livestock
Scotland’s beef breeding herd is in trouble; it is down 373,000 in the last decade. There are also declines in dairy cattle, pigs and chickens, which show that the industry is in distress. In her response, the Minister said that food security is national security, so why do she and the Secretary of State let the SNP use devolution as a shield while stripping Scotland’s larder bare?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q7. Books are going to be written about how a Mayor of Manchester has managed to out-manoeuvre a sitting Prime Minister with a 170-seat majority and take the keys to No. 10. The Prime Minister appears to have been brought down by an inability to articulate a plan for government so it must be tough to be replaced by a man who refuses to say whether he has even got a plan. As the Prime Minister bows out, done in by his hon. Friends, does he agree that in a few months’ time we will all be missing him?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The leader of Surrey county council wrote to the Department for Transport on 27 March with serious concerns about the future funding arrangements for the A31 corridor scheme in my constituency. Despite my writing twice to the Secretary of State for Transport, and despite being told in response to a written parliamentary question on 18 May that the Government would respond as soon as possible, nearly four months later neither I nor Surrey county council have had a response. Can you therefore advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, what further avenues are available to me to secure a substantive response from that Department, so that my constituents, Surrey county council and all those affected by this scheme can finally receive the clarity they have been waiting for?
- Hansard source
Iran
I only intervene on the hon. Gentleman because he said “finally”, so I assume that he is coming to the end of his speech. [Interruption.] Apparently not. Perhaps he is about to come on to this, but I have not heard him yet condemn Iran for its actions, both against its own people and across the region. He talks about destabilisation and war. Iran is the catalyst and the instigator of the destabilisation not just in Iran, but in Israel, Yemen and further afield. Will he not condemn Iran for all that it is doing?
- Hansard source
Iran
The hon. Gentleman has just outlined a number of ways that Tehran does not respect international law and uses human capital as a bargaining chip, but in the same breath, he mentions that he does not see that there needs to be a military solution and that he believes that somehow Iran can be brought to the table to get a diplomatic solution. How can those two things be compatible?
- Hansard source
Iran
My hon. Friend has danced around the topic, but should we not place it on the record that we are now entirely clear why the Opposition business was cancelled yesterday and we are having a debate in which only two Labour Back Benchers are speaking—
- Hansard source
Iran
Okay, three Labour Back Benchers. It is because the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) and the Government decided that they did not want scrutiny of the new Prime Minister. It should be placed on the record that that is an absolute disgrace.
- Hansard source
Iran
The hon. Gentleman has very clearly put on the record his own condemnation of Iran. I join him in his comments about the way that Tehran treats its own people, but Iran’s malign influence on civilian populations goes way beyond its own people. It funds terrorist organisations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, causing devastation and destruction to civilian populations across the region and beyond. Will he also condemn Iran for that?
- Hansard source
Iran
There is little in the hon. Gentleman’s analysis that I disagree with, including what I could generously call the maladroitness of the American response. However, given the Tehran regime’s human rights violations and its utter disdain for not only its own citizens, but citizens across the world, what does he think is the correct response to a regime that is so brutal and so fundamentally outside the societal norms that he and I think are acceptable?
- Hansard source
Iran
Before I start on the main topic of Iran, I put on record my condolences to the family and friends of Ann Widdecombe. The only time I met her was when I was a late teenager at the Oxford Union—like me, she was a former treasurer of the Oxford Union. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) mentioned the Oxford Union when he referenced the King and country debate. The other formative debate that the Oxford Union has every year is the no-confidence debate, which always happens in September or October, at the start of the academic year. In the past academic year, which we are now coming to the end of, the Oxford Union voted overwhelmingly to say that it did not have confidence in His Majesty’s Government. However, I am not naive enough to believe that Labour Members were following that debate carefully and that that is the reason they have ousted the current Prime Minister. It is interesting, however, that the reason we are here debating Iran is not because Iran is a serious issue—although, of course, it is. It is because neither the outgoing Prime Minister nor the incoming Prime Minister, nor Labour Members want there to be scrutiny of the new Prime Minister. Labour was so frightened of whatever it was it thought its new Prime Minister was going to say at the Dispatch Box that it has given him cover for six weeks until he has time to think about it. We know from his own campaign manager that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has been plotting this coup for over a year. One would have thought that in that time he could have come up with a few answers, ideas or ways forward, but he will not speak to this House or to journalists, and presumably he does not even speak to Labour Back Benchers. Hopefully, in September he will come before this House and we can scrutinise him. As the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s Question Time, the problem is not whichever Prime Minister is leading the Labour party; it is fundamentally the Labour party itself. If this Labour party has allowed their incoming Prime Minister to evade scrutiny, all Labour Members should be ashamed.
- Hansard source
Iran
The hon. Member is entirely right, and I will come on to the IRGC in my speech. He is right to raise the concerns of his Jewish constituents. but I think all our constituents—of any faith or none—should fear the malign influence of the IRGC, and the way that it has brutalised its own population and works to the detriment of the UK and other European nations. For centuries, Iran has been a nation of immense historical, cultural and civilisational importance. It has produced some of the world’s greatest contributions to literature, science, the arts and philosophy. Before the ’79 revolution, Iran was widely regarded as one of the most advanced and outward-looking states in the middle east. It was a country with a growing economy, expanding diplomatic ties with the west and a strategic role as a regional partner for us here in Britain, the United States and other democratic states. I do not say that to give right hon. and hon. Members a history lesson, but simply to highlight that it is not the Iranian people or Iran itself with which we have a problem, but the current fundamentalist regime in Tehran. The picture I have painted of Iran before ’79 changed completely with the revolution. The previous system of government had essentially produced prosperity, but the Islamic Republic has a fundamentally different view and has, for four decades, pursued the destruction of its own country. The Iranian people have suffered from increasing restrictions on political freedoms, suppression of dissent, economic mismanagement and a state apparatus that has too often prioritised ideological ambition and external confrontation over the prosperity and liberty of its own citizens. I was very disappointed in the speech from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who is no longer in his place, because he spent the whole time blaming Donald Trump. As I said in earlier interventions, I have no love for Donald Trump or the way in which he has dealt with the issues in the region, but not to stand and condemn Iran was shocking. I did a quick search, and while the hon. Member has mentioned Donald Trump in 18 speeches in this House, today was the first in which he has mentioned Iran. I think that is probably the wrong balance. The current regime does not represent the aspirations of millions of ordinary Iranians, who have repeatedly risked their lives to demand greater freedoms, accountability and the right to determine their own future. Our quarrel is with the regime, which has systematically denied its citizens basic liberties, exported terrorism and instability across the middle east and further, threatened our allies and conducted hostile activity here in the United Kingdom. The courage of the Iranian people deserves all of our admiration. Since the end of last year, protests have spread across all 31 provinces, driven by soaring inflation, economic hardship, corruption and decades of political repression. The response from the authorities in Tehran has once again demonstrated the methods on which this regime relies: intimidation, arbitrary detention, restrictions on communications and the use of force against those who simply demand a better future. Support for the Iranian people must therefore go hand in hand with a clear-eyed assessment of the wider threat posed by the Iranian regime. For decades, Iran has sought to project power beyond its borders—not through normal diplomacy, as some in this Chamber seem to think, but through intimidation, terrorism and proxy warfare. It has armed, financed and directed militant organisations across the middle east in pursuit of its strategic objectives. It has threatened Israel, our Gulf partners and other allies of the UK and US, culminating in the attack on a number of our allies earlier this year and last year. Last May, I had the opportunity to go to Bahrain and see our troops there—to think that they were being bombed by Iran is utterly disgusting. We need to have a robust response to that. I have to say, I found the response of the UK Government and the current Prime Minister weak-willed at best. He seemed to be happy to allow American fighter jets to take off from our bases and to be willing for our British fighters to shoot down incoming missiles, but was not willing to use our bases and fighter jets to shoot the missile launchers. That seems utterly bizarre to me. The Prime Minister was extraordinarily fortunate that one of those incoming missiles did not hit and kill personnel at Akrotiri or hit a hotel in Dubai full of British citizens. If that had happened, I think the British public’s mood towards this Prime Minister would have changed, and changed rapidly. I do hope that the incoming Prime Minister will have a much more robust response when dealing with these threats from not just Iran, but a number of its proxy actors.
- Hansard source
Iran
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The fact that the incoming Prime Minister has run away from any kind of scrutiny, whether it be from us, the press or anybody else, does him a disservice, and I think he will come to regret that decision. I do not know the right hon. Gentleman personally, but from Labour Members I have spoken to understand that he is good on his feet and can talk, so it surprises me that he does not want to come to the House and answer those questions. None the less, we are having this debate, and it is an important one. I spoke about proxies. Hezbollah, for example, remains a heavily armed organisation despite international obligations and years of diplomatic pressure. Hamas has not abandoned violence, and the Houthis continue to threaten freedom of navigation and regional security well beyond Yemen. Iran’s network of proxies may be under pressure, but it remains one of the principal drivers of instability across the middle east. That brings me to the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been mentioned. The IRGC cannot simply be treated as an ordinary branch of Government. It is the institution most closely associated with Iran’s external military operations, its support for those proxy groups, its intimidation campaigns abroad, and its efforts to undermine the security and safety of Britain and our allies. Earlier this year I co-signed a letter to the Foreign Secretary calling for the IRGC to be proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. I did so because the evidence is compelling, and recent developments have only strengthened the case for action. I welcome steps taken in recent years to respond to the increased threat posed by Iran. Last year the Iranian state was placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. That was an important national security measure to increase transparency around activities undertaken on behalf of foreign powers. More than 500 Iranian individuals and entities have been sanctioned, restricting their access to the international financial system, imposing consequences on those responsible for the malign activity, and demonstrating that Britain will not ignore threats to our national security. I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will be proscribed under the Terrorism Act. It is a really significant step, because it reflects the reality that the IRGC is not merely a political or even a military institution of a foreign Government but an organisation that is responsible for activities that pose a direct threat to Britain, our citizens and our allies. I note that Conservative Members have been calling for proscription of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation as early as 2023, and I know that others across the Chamber did so. I thank them for their efforts in getting us to this point. The Government have taken a number of important steps to respond to the threat posed by Iran, but this is an important national security measure, because it is designed to increase transparency. We should also be clear about what the measures were and what they are not. Sanctions matter—they are really important, despite what some hon. Members on the Labour Benches have said. Foreign influence registration matters, and action against Iran-linked organisations matters, but they are not the same as proscription under the Terrorism Act. This debate takes place against the backdrop of Iran’s continuing nuclear ambitions. Britain has consistently supported diplomacy in the region. Where diplomacy can succeed, that remains the right approach, but nobody should underestimate the consequences of further military action and escalation in the middle east. Diplomacy cannot succeed without pressure. It cannot succeed without enforcement. It cannot succeed if Iran believes that international commitments can be ignored without consequences. Sanctions, international co-ordination and robust enforcement all have a role to play. The international community must remain determined that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon capability that would further destabilise an already fragile region and place additional pressure on our allies. From past engagement, we know that the Iranian regime has historically responded not to weakness, ambiguity or pleasant overtures, but to strength, unity and resolve. Iranian state-linked actors have been responsible for hostile activity directed towards the United Kingdom, including the intimidation, espionage and threats that I mentioned against individuals on British soil. Protecting the British public must remain the Government’s first duty. Our response must therefore match that scale of threat. Iran undoubtedly faces profound internal challenges of its own—its economy, its regional position and the public confidence in the regime are together a real pressure on that regime—but, unfortunately, none of that internal pressure means that change is inevitable. The British public therefore expect the Government not merely to recognise the threats but to confront them. In closing, I wish to ask the Minister a few questions. First, what is the timetable for completing the legal process for bringing the proscription fully into force? Secondly, what steps have the Government taken to ensure that the evidence base and legal reasoning underpinning the decision are sufficiently robust to withstand any potential judicial challenge? Thirdly, what assessment have the Government made of the likelihood of any appeal or judicial review? What contingency planning is there, should legal proceedings be brought? Fourthly, what additional operational benefits will proscription provide to the police and security services in identifying, disrupting and prosecuting IRGC-linked activity in the United Kingdom? Finally, how will the Government work with our international partners—including the United States and other allies who have long recognised the threat posed by the IRGC—to ensure that this decision has maximum impact?
- Hansard source
Iran
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that Britain should be the leader and at the forefront of any negotiations and international coalitions, not just because we have the skills and the history to be able to do so but because that would demonstrate to our European allies—perhaps even more importantly, to the Americans—that we as a country are willing to stand up and do our bit. The Government really must ensure that the right decision they have taken is implemented swiftly, defended robustly and enforced effectively. The decision has been made; now, the test is the delivery.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 July.
- Hansard source
Engagements
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Ann Widdecombe. I take this opportunity to thank him for his public service, and wish him and his family all the best for the future. Most of us can only dream of playing the role of Jude Bellingham—scoring the winning goal and leading our team to victory—yet the Prime Minister did it. But politics, like football, is a ruthless game, and he has now been handed a red card by the 400 dodgy referees on the Benches behind him. What advice does this Prime Minister have for the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) to ensure that he, unlike the Prime Minister, does not end up with an early bath?
- Hansard source
Estate Regeneration
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to take part in this debate about estate regeneration. I find myself in agreement with much of what I have heard so far. I thank the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this important debate and for his opening speech about an estate regeneration scheme in his constituency; he made a strong argument. I also thank those who have spoken in the debate: the hon. Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also somewhat belatedly congratulate the Minister on her promotion and welcome her to her place; this is the first time that I have had the pleasure of facing her in a debate. Estate regeneration is an important process in delivering the right homes for local people. That is true across all the main types of estate regeneration, from refurbishments, where homes are retrofitted to bring them into line with regulations and make them safe, viable and modern places for people and families to call home, to infill developments, where new homes are built on previously developed or undeveloped land to increase density and provide housing for the local population, or full redevelopments and regenerations, meaning the wholesale demolition and reconstruction of entire estates to provide fresh stock for residents and for new buyers or tenants. That is why, alongside new housing delivery, the Government should think seriously about estate regeneration. Across the country, there are thousands of homes with untapped potential for renewal, regeneration and improvement, alongside the vast and preponderant unrealised space that is ripe for increased density and new homes. That is especially true here in London, as I am sure the Minister will agree; I know it all too well, as a former Conservative leader on the London Assembly and as a Member of Parliament for a Greater London constituency. With a population that has never been higher and continues growing, London is bursting with demand for housing. Greater London has been set a target of 88,000 homes a year by the Government. That means, on average, the equivalent of one London borough-worth of homes being delivered every 16 months. So far, however, the Mayor of London and his supporters in MHCLG are falling very far short of that. According to GLA figures, in 2024-25 just 7,124 social rent and London affordable rent homes were completed. Of course, that does not even come close to helping the 366,000 Londoners on the social housing waiting list. The need for new homes is stark and urgent. The Government’s own figures show that across England, the number of new net additional dwellings was just 208,600 in Labour’s first year in power—a 6% drop from 2023-24, the previous Conservative Government’s final year in office. In Labour’s first year, 190,600 new homes were built; that is a fall of 8,000, or around 4%, from 2023-24, and suggests that the Government are on course to fall well short of their self-imposed target of 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament. They are on track to build something like 400,000 fewer homes than they promised at the election. By contrast, from 2013 to 2023, under the previous Government, the nation saw the highest sustained level of new home formations in the past 50 years, surpassing even the levels of the 1970s. Between 2010 and 2024, 2.5 million new homes and 750,000 affordable homes were delivered. That is where estate regeneration can play a key role, particularly, but not only, in London. According to the London Councils estate regeneration report from November 2025, London’s boroughs have the potential to develop more than 10,000 new homes in a city that is starved of supply, but overflowing with demand. That is not true just inside the M25, but across the country, as Members from across the House have noted today. Estate regeneration is not a silver bullet, but it can certainly make a significant contribution. The previous Government understood that. As the mover of today’s motion, the hon. Member for Basingstoke, noted, they had a national strategy in 2016 to give this issue the national attention that it deserves. They also understood the role that estate regeneration can play in taking the pressure off our green belt by prioritising the regeneration of brownfield sites, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, noted in his speech. Everyone has heard the lip service the Government pay to brownfield development, but MHCLG’s actions since July 2024 have shown a clear desire to build all over the green belt. Instead of the undesirable urban sprawl encouraged by this Government, the Conservatives believe in building where homes are wanted and needed, and where they can be supported by existing necessary infrastructure such as in our cities and urban areas. Estate regeneration fits that rationale perfectly. As highlighted by the architect Chloë Phelps, the director of Grounded, estate regeneration schemes “are going to be critical to delivering new homes on brownfield sites over the next few years, with estimates that there is capacity for more than 120,000 homes on small sites in London alone.” The Minister’s colleague the Planning and Housing Minister is well-versed in all aspects of his brief, but his Department’s Social Housing Bill suggests otherwise. Not only does the Bill fail to recognise the importance of delivering social homes on brownfield sites, but estate regeneration remains largely absent from it. That is because the Bill is dressed up as a law to support social housing and increase its supply, but is in fact more about destroying the right to buy. If the Government were serious about social housing, they would have actually built some. In 20% of council areas across England, not one social home was built under this Government over the last two years.
- Hansard source
Estate Regeneration
I am not going to comment on that particular scheme, because I am not across the detail of it, but of course I support building more houses, and we need more houses of all tenure. That is something that we have said repeatedly, here and in the main Chamber. Once again, Whitehall has the wrong priorities: targeting our green belt, the ideological attack on the right to buy and the failing new towns programme. Those come before the right priorities, such as estate regeneration. Replacement rates are too low for social homes and too many councils have been unable to deliver. The Government would therefore be wise to generate an appetite for regeneration, to feed the desperate hunger for new social housing. To date, they have not done that. The Conservative Opposition believe in building more homes, prioritising brownfield land and making the dream of home ownership a reality. We believe in aspiration and, critically, in regeneration. Only through those priorities, and by acting on those beliefs, can we provide the much needed, much demanded and much wanted decent and modern social homes that people deserve. I hope the Minister will address those concerns in full and give our constituents on the waiting list, the developers in a position to build, and local leaders the confidence that the nation needs in order to make estate regeneration real.
- Hansard source
Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project
I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the Peak Cluster Pipeline and project. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. It is good to see the Minister in his place. I hope to get some meaningful answers from him today on this project; up until now, those have proved elusive from his Department and the Government. The Peak Cluster is a carbon capture and storage project. It will take carbon dioxide from cement and lime plants in Derbyshire and Staffordshire, pressurise it, and transfer it 125 miles across Cheshire, Wirral and then off the coast from Wirral, where it will be stored beneath the seabed. It has been made clear to me by scientists and engineers that the project is wrong-minded and wholly unnecessary.
- Hansard source
Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project
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.
- Hansard source
Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project
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.
- Hansard source
Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project
Can the Minister confirm that the final sign-off on this project, via a development consent order, will be done by the Secretary of State for Energy—by, in other words, the Government? Is that true or false?
- Hansard source
Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project
I see the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) in the seat behind the Minister, although I appreciate that, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, he is not able to speak. The Minister might not know this. but I confirm that Wirral council in its entirety, across all parties, objected to the Peak Cluster project. Do the Minister and the PPS sitting behind him know that?
- Hansard source
Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project
Did the Minister just say, “so that the Government can part-own some of this”? Were those the words he used?
- Hansard source
Waste Management Sites
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing this important debate. As she strongly articulated, she has had significant issues with sites in her constituency. This debate is an excellent opportunity for her to share her concerns with the Minister. We have heard powerful contributions from across the House and from places across the country—urban, rural and, as ever, in Northern Ireland—about the important health and human impacts. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) talked about fire issues related to batteries. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) discussed the health impacts affecting people young and old. The hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) also discussed the fire issue. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) discussed odour and wellbeing issues. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) also discussed odour issues, as well as the hazards posed by plastics to wildlife and the environment. The hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) discussed access issues in terms of traffic build-up at sites. The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) powerfully articulated the mental health impacts of some of these sites. The hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) discussed issues relating to flies. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) discussed the heavy traffic and the knock-on consequences of these sites, leading people into fly-tipping. I am very proud of the previous Conservative Government’s record on this issue. We introduced the 2018 resources and waste strategy, the 2023 waste prevention programme and a statutory target to halve residual waste per person by 2042. It is essential that the current Government build on that record, with an approach that remains sensible and pragmatic, by taking account of the concerns of local residents while ensuring that the UK reuses more and wastes less. Although all types of waste sites can affect local communities, the worst harm comes from those operating illegally, whether they were illegal from the outset or drifted into illegality over time. Those sites degrade local environments, create safety hazards, can be damaging to health and, in some cases, cut off access to community spaces altogether. Sites that are managed poorly and left to get out of hand by the authorities can lead to a vicious cycle where unscrupulous operators move in, fly-tipping is exacerbated and local communities and the environment are negatively impacted. The Countryside Alliance’s recent report on waste crime is useful here. It identifies major illegal fly-tips, such as the horrendous 150 metre-long dump beside the River Cherwell and the A34 near Kidlington. It also highlights Walleys Quarry, which was closed in 2024 after years of complaints. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme for his efforts on that; he has followed the good work of his predecessor. The report also finds that compliant waste sites can drive fly-tipping if they are made too costly or inconvenient to use. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether she has looked at the report’s recommendations on vehicle owner liability and access to municipal sites. Turning to incineration, prior to the general election, the previous Government issued a moratorium on new environmental permits for waste incineration. That gave the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the chance to properly consider the role incineration should play in managing residual waste in England. That moratorium applied regardless of whether a site already held planning permission, though it rightly excluded hazardous and clinical waste facilities, small incinerators and sites seeking permit variations for carbon capture. In December 2024, the current Government announced that new waste incinerators would receive planning approval only if they met strict new local and environmental conditions. As the Minister may be aware, Friends of the Earth opposes incinerators for environmental reasons. They contribute to climate change through carbon emissions, destroy materials that could be reused and fail to provide an incentive for reducing waste. Moreover, it is important to consider the human element of incinerators and the consequences they can have on local residents’ physical health—including respiratory conditions—but also on their mental health. Does the Minister accept that even a small rise in local air pollutants can affect residents’ mental health? Studies suggest that environmental contamination can bring “heightened stress and anxiety to the point of dread”. The UK Health Security Agency found that “it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from MWI completely”, which will offer little reassurance to constituents living near one. What are the Government doing to support the health—both mental and physical—of those communities? You are by some quirk of fate in the Chair for this debate, Mr Murrison, but you have long campaigned on the issue of waste incinerators, and I note a point that you raised: “Not only does the incineration of plastic produce 175 times as much CO2 as landfill, but the emissions per unit of energy produced from burning mixed waste is the same as coal and nearly double that of gas.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 263.] On the issue of energy, which is pertinent, given that incinerators provide around 3% of the UK’s total energy generation, much of Britain’s total energy needs are still met by oil and gas. Both the Government and the Climate Change Committee have admitted that we will still need oil and gas for decades to come. It is vital, therefore, that we make the North sea an investable basin. Reducing domestic production will not mean that we consume any less oil and gas; it will simply make us more dependent on imports. That will mean that we do not benefit from more jobs and investment or higher tax revenues. It will also increase our carbon footprint if we import liquified natural gas from countries such as the US or Qatar. It is therefore much better for both our economy and the environment that we harvest our own oil and gas. Regrettably, we will now not hear from the incoming Prime Minister for many, many weeks about what his new Government’s approach to domestic oil and gas might be. I turn to recycling, which we have heard about today. It was disappointing to see London’s recycling rate show no improvement in 2024-25. It has gone down 0.9% since 2020 and, at 32.7%, is the lowest rate since 2016. It is welcome that the Government have continued the simpler recycling measures begun by the previous Conservative Government. What can and cannot be recycled should not be a postcode lottery. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition support a more consistent and streamlined system. Put simply, waste that is not recycled is destined for incineration or landfill. The Government should follow the lead of the previous Government in carefully assessing the need for new incinerators so that we do not end up with more capacity than we need. The Government must also ensure that waste site operators are operating legally and with due regard to their environmental responsibilities so that they do not blight local communities, as we have heard powerfully from across the House and across the country.
- Hansard source
Waste Management Sites
It is always a huge pleasure to be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman. He has been very kind to me over the years. After my maiden speech, he came across the Chamber to speak to me and was very kind, so I will always take an intervention from him, as I am sure everyone else will. I totally agree. The Countryside Alliance is a powerful organisation. The report that I cited earlier shows that it is a powerful voice and that it does its research. The rural voice does need to be listened to in this debate; the report highlighted some of the key issues across the country such as waste crime and fly-tipping, including in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. The issue affects the whole country—urban, suburban and rural—and we need to recognise that. Finally, the Government should look hard at what can be done before waste ever reaches these sites. Above all, they should listen to local residents and take seriously the effect that these sites have on people’s mental and physical health. The Government must, through all their authorities, keep monitoring health data closely and act to help people in their daily lives.