Local Government Reorganisation
I call the Father of the House.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
Order. Can I make another exhortation for short questions, please?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
Order. That really is enough.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
Order. The hon. Lady needs to ask a question, as indeed do all Members, as quickly as possible, because this is taking a very long time.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
Order. Mr Francois!
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
Order. Good temper and moderation are called for at all times in this Chamber.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but he has put his point on the record. I am sure the Secretary of State will have heard his comments, and if a correction is needed, he will make it.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
I call Oliver Ryan.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
Perhaps I also need to correct the record—it has been a long summer already. I thank the hon. Member for correcting the record in that way as it did pertain to this particular statement.
- Hansard source
Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty
Before I call the shadow Minister, I gently remind the Minister that the statement he just gave seemed to deviate slightly from the copy I had received. We need to ensure that they align perfectly. I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
British Steel
Steelmaking is clearly important for our national security. Some of the issues for British Steel are the costs that it has and the full orderbook that it needs to remain sustainable. What will the Government do to ensure that British Steel turns out steel at a competitive rate, and that it gets the orders that it needs?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I trust that the Leader of the House will inform the Backbench Business Committee of any extra time we will get in September—or will prevail on his successor to do so—so that we can plan accordingly. The business in Westminster Hall in September will be as follows: on the day we come back, 1 September, there will be a debate on face-to-face banking in rural areas; on Thursday 3 September, there will be a debate on vaccination rates in England, followed by a debate on the security assessment on global diversity, ecosystem collapse and national security; on Tuesday 8 September, there will be a debate on the safety of the Jewish community; on Thursday 10 September, there will be a debate on the reform of the vascular care sector, followed by a debate on the contribution of fathers and positive male role models to families and society; and on Tuesday 15 September, there will be a debate on residential building safety remediation. The incoming Prime Minister has announced that he wants the housing subsidy money available from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to be spent on social rent. I agree with that proposal. However, the London plan, which is out today, has dramatically reduced the amount of affordable housing that will be built—if it even gets to be built. That seems to be in direct contrast to what is needed in London. I hope that the Leader of the House will prevail on whoever will be the Secretary of State in the new Government to come to this House in early September and set out how the Government plan to ensure that we build the affordable housing that people in this country desperately need.
- Hansard source
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
I beg to move, That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment. This debate, as you rightly point out, Madam Deputy Speaker, commemorates Sir David Amess, who was brutally murdered doing his job as an MP at his surgery. He was an expert in this debate. He would raise 25 to 30 items in five minutes, and then had all his press releases ready for the whole summer from one debate. It is my first opportunity to pay tribute to Ann Widdecombe, who was brutally murdered. I remember Ann when she came up to Bedford and Kempston, when I was standing as a candidate in 1997. She came up with Michael Howard, and famously they did not particularly get on as ministerial colleagues. I was talking to Ann and she said, “Don’t talk to me, young man. Get over there and talk to Michael.” I said, “He’s surrounded by all these sycophants.” She gave me a keen piece of advice: “Use your sharp elbows and get yourself in the photograph. Do not let them be in the photograph.” She was an outspoken individual, and we miss her dearly. We thank her for the service she gave to this House and after she ceased to be a Member. I was delighted by the local election results in May this year. I am delighted to announce that my constituency now has only Conservative councillors. My parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), also has only Conservative councillors, and in my neighbouring constituency of Harrow West we made significant gains, taking 12 seats from the Labour party. We now have 41 out of the 55 councillors. In Brent, which has one ward in my constituency, we have more than doubled the number of Conservative councillors. I am delighted that one of my Brent colleagues is now the deputy mayor of Brent council as a result. I look forward to the next general election, whenever the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) chooses to call it, and the next local elections in 2030, when we will make a clean sweep and turn Harrow fully blue. That shows the revival in the Conservative party under the Leader of the Opposition. We have been rising in the polls, winning by-elections and gaining seats from Reform, which seems more interested in campaigning against a bin and continuing to pretend that the Conservative party is dead, when in reality we are winning and coming back. As we have passed the halfway point of the year, I will update everyone on the important work of the all-party parliamentary groups that I chair. I begin by putting on record my frustration—I am sure many colleagues share this—at the increased bureaucracy with annual general meetings, extraordinary general meetings, membership, quorums and more. I have written to the Committee looking into this issue, asking that those concerns are looked into, because they significantly impact on the APPG work that we all undertake. None the less, I will run through some of the successes we have had. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, which was chaired previously by the late Sir David Amess. We continue to press for sustained action on public and firefighter safety. Nearly two years after the Grenfell report, the priorities must be: coherent implementation of effective building safety regulation, faster remediation, reform of construction products and approved document B, and stronger investment in fire engineering, research, competence and learning from fires. Fire and rescue services are facing growing pressures from wildfires, flooding, new energy technologies and increasingly complex buildings. The all-party group welcomes the recent investment in national resilience and firefighter health, but we will continue to argue for sustainable funding, properly trained and equipped services and a greater attention to operational safety, not least as part of the proposed college of fire and rescue. Earlier today, I hosted a reception on the Terrace for people who are bringing forward greater accreditation. On the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel and the Jewish community overall, we have seen attacks in Golders Green on Hatzola ambulances, and antisemitism across the country rising significantly. We must join together as a House in condemning that in the sternest possible way, recognising that actions are needed, not just words. Security concerns remain significant across the wider region and are a pressing issue for millions of Jewish individuals around the world. While Israel and Lebanon have agreed a framework aimed at preventing Hezbollah’s return to southern Lebanon, the group has rejected the agreement, whose success will depend on enforcement and international pressure. Iran also retains substantial military capabilities, including almost all its ballistic missile infrastructure and a stockpile of highly enriched uranium that can no longer be independently verified following the end of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access. I am delighted that the Government have finally designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I have raised that in the Chamber more often than I can count. I have tabled motions, put questions to Ministers of Governments of both parties and heard every excuse in the book—that it was “under review”, that it could not be done, that it was being “considered”, that the Government “do not comment” on proscription and so on. All the while, the IRGC was murdering Iranians on the streets, arming Hamas and Hezbollah, running cyber-attacks against this country and plotting on British soil against people who had come here to be safe. I welcome the decision, but it is the beginning, not the end. The IRGC controls the Iranian economy through its sprawling web of front companies. That means that anyone doing business with the regime is putting money into the pockets of the guards. That has to stop. Every front company in this country should be identified, investigated and shut down, and anyone working for the IRGC here under diplomatic, commercial or cultural cover ought to be expelled. I thank Madam Rajavi and the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose painstaking work exposed the guards’ covert operations and financial empire, which gave Parliament the evidence needed and helped make the decision possible. My thanks go to the Iranian exiles here in Britain who were harassed, threatened and watched by these people but kept telling us the truth when it would have been far easier to keep quiet. The Iranian people have shown us time and again what they want, which is a democratic republic founded on free elections, human rights and the separation of religion from the state. I will continue to fight for that. Today, we are a step closer; I thank the Government for that. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus, virtually every week I host an event in Parliament on behalf of the Indian community, bringing together the community, entrepreneurs and businesses who are working hard to contribute to the UK and showing the best of the Indian diaspora in this country. The trade agreement, which had been negotiated for so many years, has provided a welcome boost to the relationship. I hope that we will see future agreements and benefits for the UK. I have also continued to work hard in raising awareness of the proposed sale of the only Hindu temple in Peterborough—a disgraceful decision by the council—which would see the only Hindu temple in the area closed, leaving a significant Hindu minority in Peterborough and neighbouring Cambridge with no place of worship. There is an ongoing court case and a review of the proposed decision, so I will not mention specifics, but I have made my position clear. We all have a duty to ensure that individuals can practise their religion peacefully. It should concern us if there are councils or individuals who seek to deny that for an entire community. We have recently re-established the all-party parliamentary group on Azerbaijan. I was in Azerbaijan over the weekend and on Monday and Tuesday, meeting key people and speaking at a conference on energy. That reflects the importance of a country that is both a key UK energy partner and a source of stability in the south Caucasus. During the visit, I saw how disruptions to traditional routes through Russia and parts of the middle east have elevated Azerbaijan’s role as a vital transport and aviation hub linking Europe and Asia via the middle corridor. As geopolitical uncertainty grows, it is essential that the UK continues to strengthen its relationship with Azerbaijan and does not take it for granted. We should move quickly to deliver the strategic partnership announced last year, deepening co-operation in trade, investment, defence, education and digitalisation. Having witnessed the impact of landmine contamination in Azerbaijan at first hand, where the liberated territories are being brought back into operation, I also believe that the UK should continue supporting the mine-clearance efforts. The UK and Azerbaijan already enjoy a strong partnership. The priority now is ensuring that our political relationship matches its growing strategic importance and that we continue to encourage Azerbaijan and Armenia to live peacefully alongside each other. The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 has now become law, ensuring that anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold tobacco products. This legislation, which was first introduced under the previous Conservative Government, is a strong example of cross-party co-operation delivering better outcomes. The Government’s consultation on the Act—particularly on tackling youth vaping—is extremely welcome. Parliament will have an important role in scrutinising the regulations. However, there are still 4.9 million smokers in the UK, and there is growing anticipation for the Government’s promised road map to a smoke-free nation. It is therefore disappointing that the planned NHS investment in smoking cessation support has been paused, particularly given commitments to expand opt-out support in hospitals and to create smoke-free NHS sites. As the House knows, I am very keen on ending homelessness and the threat of homelessness, so I was delighted finally to see the long-overdue repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824, ending the criminalisation of rough sleeping. Credit is due to the charities, campaigners and parliamentarians from across both Houses who worked tirelessly over many years to achieve this change and replace punishment with support. In that same cross-party spirit, I hope that the Government will continue to engage with the APPG for ending homelessness, which I co-chair. While some indicators are improving, significant progress is still needed if the Government are to meet their goal of ending homelessness. As I have repeated on many occasions, priorities should include implementing the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023—my private Member’s Bill—expanding Housing First nationally and introducing a much stronger duty to collaborate so that public services work together more effectively to prevent homelessness. As chairman of the 1922 committee—you were a distinguished officer of that body, Madam Deputy Speaker—I thank my fellow officers and the executive committee for their support this year. I am delighted that we have not had to stage a leadership contest. I also thank my team, who work in my office. Since I was elected in May 2010, we have dealt with 106,000 individual cases from constituents, and we have dealt with more than 10,000 this year already. The fact is that casework is increasing, not reducing, I am afraid. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers, the whole House and all those who contribute to our work a very happy summer recess. I shall start my work experience programme with my students on Monday—so I am quietly glad that there is no bank holiday. That programme gives young people an opportunity to learn what it is like to be with a politician. I will end on a slightly lighter note. We often use this debate to test our vocabulary skills, so I am grateful to Parallel Parliament, which contacted me to confirm that I was the only MP or Member of the House of Lords to use the words “avenged”, “deities”, “inverts”, “handicaps” or “franked” in the previous Session.
- Hansard source
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
I think that somewhere in the heavens, Sir David Amess will be looking down on this debate and saying thank you to the 32 Members who have participated. Everyone has brought great credit to this House by raising important matters before we rise for the summer recess. There is little more to be said, other than our best wishes for a long and happy retirement to those members of staff who are retiring, and for a peaceful recess for staff throughout the House, so that they are ready for us when we return for the debates that we will have. I wish all Members and our staff, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers—indeed, all of us—a happy recess. Let us hope that people can get some rest and recuperation because we will need it for vigorous debate with the new Prime Minister and the new Cabinet on what they bring forward for the future of this country. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Some 40% of roads in Cambridgeshire take up roughly 80% of the highways budget. With the forthcoming announcement about local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire, what assessment has the Department made of the feasibility of that being deliverable given that most of those roads will end up in the same, much smaller unitary authority?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
The Secretary of State has announced that there will be a delay to the decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Most Cambridgeshire and Peterborough MPs are in the Chamber, but he has not gone into more detail on the reasons for the delay. What specific issues are causing a delay to the decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough? The Secretary of State also mentioned that the election timeline will be stuck to, so when will the structural changes order need to be made for Cambridgeshire to ensure that the elections can be delivered? Finally, he offered the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) a meeting to further discuss these concerns; will he extend the same courtesy to me?
- Hansard source
Changing Places Toilets: Capital Funding
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this important debate, and for sharing his family’s experience. I recognise the vital work of the Changing Places consortium, established in 2005, in continuing to ensure that the issue is raised in this place, the Chamber, town halls and across Whitehall. I also pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who began so much of the work on this topic when he served as a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We have heard from Members today how vital Changing Places toilets are in our cities, towns and villages for those in need of their larger and more accessible facilities. The debate has featured powerful testimonies from constituents on how their lives are impacted every day by the inaccessibility of many public toilets, and how this affects them both physically and mentally. I would like to add one more example from my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency. Although it has already been mentioned, it is worth reinforcing how vital Changing Places facilities are for older disabled children and adults. My constituents Radhika and Shyam told me that a standard accessible toilet simply does not meet the needs of their son, Idnaat. Without appropriate facilities, as we have heard, families can face the undignified and distressing choice of changing a loved one on a toilet floor, or having to cut short a day out. No family should ever have to make that choice. That is why I also want to recognise the work of Chester zoo. Radhika and Shyam told me what a difference the zoo’s Changing Places toilet has made to their family. It meant that Idnaat could be changed safely and with dignity, allowing them to enjoy a day out together like any other family. That is exactly the sort of forward-thinking approach we should be encouraging. Accessible public toilets are not a luxury or convenience; they are an essential part of ensuring that everyone, regardless of age or disability, can participate in life with dignity. I am therefore delighted that Chester zoo is looking at increasing the number of Changing Places toilets on site. Changing Places toilets provide an indispensable private space for people with profound and multiple learning disabilities, as well as people with other physical disabilities such as spinal injuries, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis. They include essential equipment that can make daily life that bit easier for an estimated 250,000 people. Changing Places toilet users have found it invaluable to have this equipment, which includes height-adjustable, adult-sized changing benches; ceiling track hoists; a peninsular WC with room either side; a safe and clean environment, including tear-off paper to cover the bench; a large waste bin; a non-slip floor; and space for multiple carers. That is crucial because, for too many people, more typical public toilet spaces are not just inconvenient but not fit for purpose, rendering the space effectively unusable. As we know, many disabilities may not be visible, which can lead to an unfortunate and exasperating ignorance of the issues facing people in need of Changing Places toilets. The toilets allow those with needs that make a regular lavatory inaccessible to find the privacy, dignity, liberty and safety required. That has long been keenly recognised on this side of the House. That is why I was proud to see the previous Conservative Government make Changing Places toilets compulsory in new public buildings. That change, made in 2020, has allowed more people to have greater access to public places by providing the essential facilities to make such everyday trips viable. It is also why I was proud to see the previous Conservative Government launch the Changing Places toilets fund, which was worth £30.5 million. The fund enabled local authorities to increase the number of Changing Places toilets in England, meaning that there are now around 2,665 registered active Changing Places toilets across the country. That is up from just 140 in 2007. Thanks to local campaigners and the previous Conservative Government, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton, we as a nation have gone up from just one Changing Places toilet per 1,786 users to one per 94 users. That is a remarkable steer down the road to equality, and it is vital that the Government continue driving progress in the right direction. The 2019 consultation showed that the vast majority of the individuals and organisations that responded believed that an increase in the number of Changing Places toilets would give individuals with multiple or complex disabilities, as well as their carers and families, greater ability to leave home and visit different places. They believed it would remove the risk of unsafe lifting by carers, offer a dignified space for users and be more suitable than simple wheelchair-accessible unisex toilets. The £30.5 million provided to local authorities by the Conservative Government was divided into two funding rounds: an initial round of £23.5 million allocated to 191 English local authorities, followed by the remaining £7 million, which was spread to 64 local authorities. After the fund closed, the current Labour Government were petitioned on this matter in December last year. They concluded that local authorities are best placed to assess and manage toilet provision. As Members will know, local authorities have valuable local knowledge of where to provide essential services in their area, which highlights why the previous Conservative Government’s Changing Places toilets fund was allocated to local leaders to decide how and where best to spend the vital funds for these life-changing spaces. Will the Minister set out how the Government’s current view appears to be a U-turn from their policy in opposition? During the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022, the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), proposed an amendment for a review of public conveniences that, as the Conservative Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State noted, “would require the appointment of a commissioner to consider the level of need for conveniences”.––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2022; c. 876.] The former Government felt that such a change would risk increasing bureaucracy while decreasing the importance of local decision making. It was felt that it would be disproportionate for the Government of the day to legislate on such a fundamentally local issue, as many local authorities already operate local community toilet schemes. Is it now the Government’s policy for such a commissioner to be appointed to review public conveniences, or do they agree that the best placed authorities are local authorities? I hope the Minister will address that and confirm what plans the Government have for any future support for Changing Places toilets now that the funding I mentioned has concluded. That is essential for those watching the Government and waiting for answers. It is essential for those who must live every day with disabilities—some of which are debilitating, incapacitating and severe—hoping to have the necessary basic facilities to change leaving the house from being something daunting into something routine.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Baddington bridge has been under a 7.5 tonne weight restriction since September 2025, with an hour-long diversion, leading to significant additional costs for local businesses and farms. Without a workable alternative, some drivers are ignoring the restriction, causing damage and disruption to country roads and nearby bridges. Will the Minister work with me and urgently review Cheshire East council’s application to the structures fund, so that we can reopen the bridge as soon as possible?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Bertie, April, Oliver, Rhys and Isaac from Wrenbury primary school, who have successfully completed the horticulture, food and futures project run in partnership with Reaseheath college? This fantastic pilot has transformed these pupils’ enthusiasm for education by giving them practical skills and introducing them to careers they had never imagined. Given the importance of inspiring the next generation into agriculture, horticulture and technical careers, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the role of specialist colleges, such as Reaseheath, in supporting young people and tackling future skills shortages?
- Hansard source
Thirlwall Inquiry Terms of Reference
The Countess of Chester hospital is the local hospital for me and for many of my constituents. They will rightly want to know the outcome of the inquiry. On top of these historical matters, last year the CQC rated the Countess of Chester hospital’s urgent and emergency care services inadequate and found that the overall hospital requires improvement. While I recognise the work that the trust is doing to deliver against its improvement plan, and I thank it for its communication with me, there is still vital work to be done. Can the Minister set out what she is doing to ensure that it makes those improvements, so that my constituents can be reassured that they will be getting access to the best possible healthcare, as they deserve?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation
I welcome the moratorium on, and potential saving of, West Sussex, in response to my opposition and that of thousands of residents who did not want our historic county cleaved in two. Now that he has acknowledged that the proposal from the Government was less sustainable than the status quo, will the Secretary of State remove the jeopardy and confirm that he will not be proceeding with the proposal, and will instead save West Sussex?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I am grateful to the Government for considering improvements to the A605 and Tinwell junctions on the A1, but the current plan is to put traffic lights in place and National Highways agrees that that is not the right approach. Will the Government put the funding, which is welcome, into widening the slip roads, which are far substandard and below the national requirements?
- Watch on YouTube
Zia Yusuf HITS BACK over MP's safety.
Zia Yusuf addresses recent events after the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe.
- Hansard source
Waste Management Sites
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing this very important debate. I want to speak about a case in my constituency that shows the problem and, importantly, what the solution can look like. Last July, business owners near the Hurstwood Court recycling centre on Raikes Lane in Burnden contacted me about traffic and road safety. Queues for the site were backing up on to St Peter’s Way and spilling on to Manchester Road. Access to local businesses was being blocked, and there was a real safety risk. That was happening day after day. I brought together Bolton council, Recycle for Greater Manchester and the operator, SUEZ, to address the problem. To their credit, all parties acted. A hatched yellow box has been painted at the entrance and exit to keep it clear. The entrance has been reprofiled so that more vehicles can wait on the site while speaking to the gate attendant, rather than queuing on the public road. A new turning space has been created for vehicles leaving without entering the centre, and cones have been installed to stop the parking that was blocking sightlines. To be honest, those measures have not solved the problem completely, but they have mitigated some of the worst of it and have made real differences to residents and businesses. Alongside the physical changes, Recycle for Greater Manchester has been suggesting alternative, less busy sites, and advising people on when the centre is quiet. There are more than 20 recycling centres across Greater Manchester, and spreading visits across them eases the pressure on individual sites. The wider point is that traffic build-up at waste sites is not a one-off; it is a recurring and entirely foreseeable pattern, particularly at older sites that simply were not designed for today’s volumes of traffic and waste. Too often, the response is reactive: action comes only after residents, businesses or Members of Parliament push for it. Communities should not have to run a campaign to get a yellow box painted on the road. I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Department encourage joined-up working among councils, waste authorities and operators as standard practice, rather than as something that happens only when it is demanded locally? Secondly, what support and funding are available to councils for physical improvements at older sites, such as the reprofiled entrances and turning space that made the difference in Bolton? Thirdly, will the Government look at establishing a clearer, ongoing channel so that residents and businesses near waste sites can raise concerns and do not have to rely on ad hoc local campaigns? Raikes Lane shows what can be achieved when everyone gets around the table, but we still have a lot further to go. What is missing is a system that acts before communities have to fight for change.
- Hansard source
Independence Referendum
Regardless of how we divide on the referendum, I wonder if colleagues on the SNP Benches will find it in their hearts to put political division aside at 8 o’clock tonight? I did not come of age in time for the 1966 world cup finals, but the older boys in my primary school were all nicknamed after the England world cup squad, so we had Nobby Stiles and Charlton in our Scottish playground. That is a Hebridean example of respect and rivalry. Does the Secretary of State agree with today’s Daily Record editorial, which says that “there is always room for friendly rivalry with neighbouring nations,” but that “Bringing…politics into football does nobody any”—
- Hansard source
Iran
On the threats to British citizens, two British citizens are detained in Iran in Evin prison: Craig and Lindsay Foreman. They are innocent. They have been arbitrarily detained there for more than one and a half years, after a flagrantly unfair trial. It has been reported that Craig has now been sentenced to a further two years, for reasons that seem entirely opaque. The couple have been on a hunger strike for 68 and 59 days, and both have lost significant weight. I welcome the appointment of a special envoy for consular cases and the state threat designation for the IRGC, but what steps are the Government taking that will give the Foremans and their family hope that welfare items will reach them, that full communications will be restored, and that the Government have a plan to get them home?
- Hansard source
Iran
Building on the intervention by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), is the issue not as simple as this: in recent years, although Presidents have called on European Union countries and Britain to spend more on defence, we have not done so because America would fund the defence of the western world? President Trump is refusing to do that and is willing to look to other parts of the world to meet America’s strategic interests, and as a consequence, European countries are stepping up. Missing in this debate is the realisation by the Americans of what they gain by making a fair contribution to the defence of the west: they are not just burning their bridges with their allies, but harming their own defence. We ought to be emphasising that we will invest in our defence, but also that we will call out American behaviour where it is harming alliances and endangering US security.
- Hansard source
Iran
The hon. Member is 12 minutes into his speech, and we have not yet got into a debate about Iran. As he has said, there is a one-sided dimension to the US-UK relationship, in which the US is vastly stronger than the UK at this moment. If he were he Prime Minister—just imagine—and he had to deal with President Trump, what would the hon. Gentleman do to achieve his aims in trying to bring peace to the region, protect our cost of living and further the UK’s national interest?
- Hansard source
Iran
My Jewish constituents will be watching this debate, so I put on record my support for the Government’s ban of supporters of the IRGC. I also welcome the fact that the Government have sanctioned that organisation and 500 Iranian-linked entities and individuals. The hon. Gentleman is an outspoken critic of the IRGC, so will he use this debate to repeat his criticism of it, and to support the Government’s moves?
- Hansard source
Iran
I thank the hon. Member for giving way as he is about to close. He talked about the importance of international co-operation to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability; I completely agree with him. Where the UK has had success before, that has been in concert with the French and the Germans. With the French presidential election this year with the current president moving on, does he agree that there is a real opportunity for Britain to lead that European co-operation to try to address the possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear capability?
- Hansard source
Regional Accents and Social Mobility
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important debate. I am proud to speak not just as the Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton North East but as someone who has felt the pressure to turn down the dial on my accent. From day one of my entering the House, many here made comments—well intentioned, I am sure—about how they could hear my accent, which were usually followed by a “Peaky Blinders” comment. I am absolutely fine with that, because I am a huge “Peaky Blinders” fan”. In isolation, it is fine, but when I hear it again and again, I cannot help but feel self-conscious, and it can become quite tiresome. Shortly after I was elected, after I made my maiden speech, this was all put into context by a message I received from a former student. She said, “Miss”— I am always “Miss” to my former students—“I am so proud that I can see and hear somebody on the telly, somebody in Parliament, who looks and sounds like me.” That was it. That gave me the confidence to just plough forward and to continue to speak loud and proud in my not so dulcet Wolverhampton tones. That is why representation matters for young people growing up in Wolverhampton and Willenhall. Hearing voices that sound like theirs in Parliament and in positions of leadership sends a powerful message: you belong here too. It tells them that they do not have to change who they are to succeed. That matters because there is a clear link between accents and social mobility. Research for the Sutton Trust described accents as one of the strongest signals of socioeconomic background and found that accent bias continues to affect people’s experiences throughout their education and employment. The evidence is striking: a Sutton Trust study found that 30% of university students and 29% of university applicants reported being mocked, criticised or singled out because of their accent. I was recently told of a young man who withdrew from the first day of his university interview at the University of Birmingham. He had applied to study medicine, but he felt belittled by the peers in his group. I have heard of a student on a placement in a scientific lab whose accent was mocked by others, day in, day out. Rather than bring out the best in him, that caused him to withdraw and become a shell of a person, not the brilliant person he usually is. Of senior managers from working-class backgrounds, 29% said that they had been mocked or criticised at work because of their accent. Throwaway comments of that sort can affect people’s self-esteem and make them question their value in the workplace. People do all that is asked of them—they work hard, achieve good qualifications, secure professional jobs and climb the career ladder—but still feel pressure to hide the sound of where they come from. Social mobility should mean expanding opportunity, not conformity. The challenge for all of us is to broaden our understanding of what professionalism sounds like. Talent does not speak with one accent. The more our institutions, including Parliament, reflect a full diversity of voices across Britain, the stronger we all become. As someone from Wolverhampton North East, I want every person listening to know this: our accent is not something to overcome; it is something to be proud of. It connects us with our community, our families, our stories and our values. Social mobility should not mean conformity. We must ensure that people are judged on their ability, attitude, character and potential, not on whether they sound like they belong. I urge the Government to carry on their work to equalise opportunity and build on social mobility practices.
- Hansard source
A1: North Northumberland
It is a pleasure to be here once again with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, to answer tonight’s Adjournment debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on securing the debate, and on the determined and constructive manner in which he has represented the views of his constituents on this issue. May I also mention the persistent lobbying of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) and, until recently, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), who joins me on the Front Bench. My hon. Friends have all lobbied for action on the A1. I recognise the strength of feeling locally about the safety of the A1 and I acknowledge the tragic fatalities on the route. My thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and communities affected. I know that the future of the A1 has been a matter of significant local interest for many years. It is a subject on which Members from across Northumberland have campaigned vigorously, and I fully recognise the importance attached to the route by local communities, businesses, freight operators and visitors. The A1 is one of the country’s most important strategic roads. It earns its historic title as the Great North Road, continuing to move people and goods throughout the United Kingdom. Through Northumberland, it links the north-east of England with Scotland, supports economic activity, facilitates tourism and provides vital connectivity for communities along the route. I do not underestimate the disappointment that many constituents felt following the Government’s decision not to proceed with the A1 Morpeth and Ellingham dualling scheme, given that we inherited a number of unfunded capital commitments from the previous Government. This evening, I want to explain what the Government are doing to improve safety on the route and how we intend to continue engaging with local communities and stakeholders going forward. It is entirely right that these matters should be discussed in this House, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. The proposal to dual the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham has been under development for many years. During that period, considerable work was undertaken—consultation took place, design options were developed and statutory powers were ultimately secured. The Government recognise that many local people view the scheme as an opportunity to improve connectivity, support economic growth and address concerns about safety and the reliability of the route. However, Governments have a responsibility to make decisions based not only on ambition, but on evidence and affordability and the prudent use of public funds. When Ministers reviewed the portfolio of strategic road schemes in 2024, really difficult choices had to be made across the transport network. The evidence presented showed that the Morpeth to Ellingham scheme represented a comparatively weak value-for-money proposition when assessed against competing investment priorities. At the same time, Ministers faced wider pressures on public spending and had a duty to ensure that the limited funding was directed towards investments capable of delivering the greatest benefits across the network. The decision was therefore taken to cancel the scheme, alongside a number of other strategic road projects. While the Government concluded that the full dualling scheme should not proceed, it does not mean that we have ignored concerns regarding safety—indeed, quite the opposite. Safety remains the foremost priority of both the Department for Transport and National Highways. Following the cancellation announcement, National Highways commenced a dedicated safety study covering the Morpeth to Ellingham section of the route. The purpose of that work was to identify practical interventions capable of improving safety while representing a responsible use of public funds. National Highways has examined a range of possibilities, including improved road signs and markings, vegetation clearance, improvements in visibility, speed management measures and junction improvements. Where schemes are sufficiently developed, affordable and deliverable, work will commence during the current road period. That work reflects a determination to identify practical steps that can improve safety, even where a larger scheme has not progressed. A number of colleagues have argued that cancelling the scheme risks constraining economic growth in Northumberland and the wider north-east. I recognise those concerns, but the Government’s approach has been to prioritise investments that can demonstrate the strongest overall return on taxpayers’ money while supporting growth across the country. The decision should not be interpreted as a lack of commitment to Northumberland; the Government continue to invest significantly in transport infrastructure across the region. Decisions on individual schemes must always be considered in the broader context of national transport investment. Through the transport for city regions settlements, we are providing the north-east with £1.8 billion between 2027 and 2032. That unprecedented long-term funding could be spent on improvements to local roads or safety improvements. I also place on record my appreciation for the constructive engagement shown by local Members of Parliament. Following the cancellation, National Highways has met with my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland to discuss concerns about the route and consider options for future improvements. National Highways has subsequently indicated that further work will take place to examine safety issues on sections of the A1 north of Ellingham, towards Berwick, and to identify additional route-based solutions where appropriate. That reflects the reality that most motorists experience the A1 as a continuous corridor.
- Hansard source
A1: North Northumberland
As a sand dancer—as someone from South Shields—I understand where the north is and the north-east is, but I hear my hon. Friend’s concerns about road safety, which is why National Highways is undertaking this work to see what additionally can be done to mitigate any safety concerns. I reiterate that £1.8 billion has been given to the north-east between 2027 and 2032, which could be used for improvements on local roads and safety improvements. I welcome the continued engagement of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland with National Highways on improvements to the safety and performance of this strategic route.
- Hansard source
A1: North Northumberland
I will come on to future funding, and of course National Highways and the Department for Transport will reflect and follow the changes to the Green Book. I do not want to raise unrealistic expectations this evening: the Government have not reversed their decision regarding the Morpeth to Ellingham dualling scheme, nor am I announcing a replacement major capital programme tonight. However, that does not mean that nothing will happen. National Highways has continued assessing safety-focused options, and future proposals will be considered in the normal way for RIS4, taking into account evidence, affordability, deliverability and value for money, and any future improvements will be subject to viability and funding considerations within future investment programmes. Of course, I encourage National Highways to continue to liaise with the Scottish Government and local stakeholders.
- Hansard source
A1: North Northumberland
I reiterate that the Department will of course follow the changes to the Green Book accordingly. We will continue to liaise with Members regarding future investment.
- Hansard source
A1: North Northumberland
Absolutely. We continue to engage and the Secretary of State has liaison meetings with counterparts in Scotland, as do I. The Government recognise, of course, the importance of the A1 in Northumberland and further afield. We recognise the concerns that continue to be expressed regarding safety, resilience and economic growth. National Highways has undertaken significant work to identify targeted improvements capable of improving safety on the route, and further work continues on wider sections of the A1 in Northumberland. This Government remain committed to engaging constructively with local communities, National Highways and hon. Members as that work progresses towards delivery. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland once again not only for securing this debate, but for the important points that he has raised and his campaign on this issue on behalf of his constituents. I reassure him and other hon. Members that I take this matter extremely seriously, and I will continue this conversation to see what we can achieve to provide a positive outcome for road users in both the short and longer terms. Question put and agreed to.
- Hansard source
Regional Accents and Social Mobility
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this important debate, which I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to. In all the stories shared, I recognise how powerful and rich the debate is. I thank her for the work that she has done in Parliament. This is one of those topics that leads us to wonder why we have not had the conversation before. This must be its time as it has captured the imagination of Parliament so effectively and powerfully. It is already achieving the goals that my hon. Friend wants: that important culture change, a shift in attitudes and an understanding that where accentism might be holding back social mobility, it is our responsibility to do all that we can to tackle it. I pay tribute to Professor Rob Drummond and Dr Amanda Cole and the accentism project for their Westminster Voices initiative, as well as their other important work in this field, particularly the “This is English” project with the British Council, which champions the powerful idea that the English language belongs to everyone who speaks it in all its rich, diverse and regional variations. Too often, debates in this House are defined by columns of statistics, spreadsheets and policy levers, but today my hon. Friend and all who have taken part have given our debate a rare and special thing: the space to tell stories and talk about identity and belonging and what it can be like for our constituents to navigate modern Britain. I want to address some of the points raised in the debate, including about how accents have such an important relationship to identity and how, from what has been shared, they can be a barrier. It is important to recognise that everyone has an accent and that there is, as my hon. Friend said, no linguistic basis for a hierarchy of accent. We see in the research that life chances may be defined by background with accent bias. It is important to tackle that unconscious bias and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton described, the culture that drives it. It is important to tackle it so that young people do not lack confidence and feel unable to achieve their ambitions. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for York Outer (Mr Charters), for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge), for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) for their contributions. I also thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and of course, the Front-Bench spokeswomen, the hon. Members for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman). I will highlight a couple of things in my remarks, including the message to young people across the UK about softening their accents. The hon. Member for Strangford made a very relatable point about Hansard. I have found that Hounslow has also fallen into that need for clarity on the names of places and people, but it is important that we get that right and that Hansard records our contributions correctly, because they are on the record for posterity. Everyone wants their names and places spelled right, and that is important for respect. I am grateful to Hansard for checking with us and making sure our contributions are represented accurately. The attitudes that hon. Members have spoken about belong in the history books, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer said. I am grateful that he bravely risked controversy with his speech, but his points about local dialects and language, and about his experience at Oxford, are incredibly important for the House and his constituents. I am grateful to the pupils of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East, who spoke for all of us in highlighting the importance of seeing people who look and sound like them represent them in this House. The Sutton Trust’s landmark “Speaking Up” report demonstrated why this issue matters. It states that accent remains “the primary signal of socio-economic status” in this country. Members have shared some of that research, but I want to pull out a few of its findings. It says that 35% of university students feel deeply self-conscious about their accent, and that 41% from the north of England fear that their voice will negatively affect their future success. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington for his contribution. I have had conversations with him after he has had a pint or two, and he does speak much faster. I hope that his powerful, important contribution will be replayed across the north-east, because he shared why it is so important that people are proud of their accent and who they are. Young people need confidence—we see that in the data from the north-east. All opportunities should be open to them, and it is important to have respect for each other. Shockingly—this is a staggering statistic—nearly 30% of senior managers from working-class backgrounds report having been openly mocked for their accent in the workplace. As the data shows, there remains an outdated snobbery around accent that reduces a person’s intellect, capability and potential to the way that they speak. That is unacceptable, so it is important to shine a new light on the issue. For generations, the message to those who want to enter public life or elite professions has been that if they want to get on, they must sound like everybody else. When Margaret Thatcher became leader of her party in the 1970s, she famously underwent intensive elocution lessons with a tutor from the National Theatre. Authority had to sound a certain way. The message, particularly at that time, was that if somebody wanted power, they had to shed their origins. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer said in his powerful contribution, making it should not mean leaving part of yourself behind. Decades later, while noting the much greater diversity of this place and our country, we must recognise that progress can and must still be made. We may find that progress accelerates as Manchesterism becomes part of our national conversation. Interestingly, studies also regularly show that regional accents such as Welsh or Yorkshire are rated by the public as trustworthy, warm and honest. Yet when those same studies measure perceived intelligence or employability, standard southern English and received pronunciation invariably top the metrics. We are effectively telling working-class people that we trust them to work on the frontline in our schools and NHS but not to lead our boardrooms, teach in our elite universities or perhaps represent us in this place. Yet the diversity of British speech is a mark of our cultural richness. Our language is vibrant and alive. I may say these in a Hounslow accent, but depending on where someone stands in this country, a bread roll is a cob, a bap, a barm, a stottie or a muffin—no matter what you call it, it is still pretty tasty. To flatten our regional dialects into a single homogenised corporate drone is to strip Britain of its character. This debate really matters here because Parliament is a workplace, but it is also the engine room of our democracy. If we genuinely believe in representation, that representation must extend to how the Chamber sounds. Our constituents do not want a Parliament of homogenous voices; they want to hear their own lives, regions and communities reflected from the green Benches and every debating part of this House. When a Member stands up in any debate in the House and speaks with their own unvarnished accent, whether they represent constituencies in the north-east, Yorkshire, the Midlands, the Black Country, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, working-class London, Essex or Sussex—as also reflected in this debate—they are undertaking, on equal terms, their democratic duty in this House. They are telling every young person or constituent in their communities who is watching at home that their voice belongs in the rooms where power resides. I agree with the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield that social mobility should not mean conformity. Indeed, those barriers do not start at the doors of this House; we see them much earlier, when working-class young people arrive at our world-leading universities. They have worked staggeringly hard to earn their places, yet the culture shock they face is frequently linguistic. They are met with eyebrows or mimicking, as has also been relayed very powerfully in this debate. We also want to take practical action to challenge some of that and change access to opportunity. As has been referenced in this House, far from limiting and lowering ambition, I am proud that from 2028 we are reintroducing means-tested maintenance grants of up to £1,000 a year, putting vital cash back into the pockets of students who need it the most—often from working-class backgrounds—without increasing their debt. We are also investing £20 million this year into Uni Connect to build local partnerships between schools, colleges and employers. Whether a young person chooses a degree or a trade, their journey must be determined by merit and their potential—never by whether they have to change their voice or pretend to be someone else to fit in. As Minister for Equalities with responsibility on race and women, I know that those in this House will know how important it is that this Government are working to ensure that whoever someone is and wherever they come from, Britain is a country that will respect their contribution. That is a guiding principle of the work that we are doing in this Labour Government. The Equality Act 2010 brought together and built upon 40 years of hard-won progress. While the Act may not directly reference place or accent-based inequality, its protections against discrimination related to sex, race and age frequently intersect with those issues. Intersectionality matters very much because we know that accentism can intersect with race and gender. For a working-class woman, a regional accent can be unfairly stereotyped as a lack of professionalism or authority. When an ethnic minority person speaks with a regional working-class accent or a multi-ethnic dialect like multicultural London English, they face a double layer of prejudice. That is based on evidence that we cannot ignore. We must also recognise the importance of rewarding talent. That is why our gender pay gap reporting will be built on to introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting. Another important step in this space will be our commitment to ensure that everyone can succeed, no matter their background. We will be working to commence the socioeconomic duty on public bodies in section 1 of the Equality Act to require public authorities to put addressing socioeconomic disadvantage at the heart of their strategic decision making. There will be more on that to follow. Let me again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton, and say how impactful the debate has been. It is a clarion call for a fundamental culture shift so that we start to see a world in which everyone can succeed based on their talents, their drive and their potential, and never be held back by their background, their postcode or the sound of their voice. We need our world-class institutions, our elite universities, our media and our employers to stop listening so much to people’s accents and how they speak, and start listening much more to what they have to say.
- Hansard source
Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project
The Minister has referred to the fact that, as yet, there has been no application and therefore no ministerial decision, but he has also said that community engagement is an important part of the decision-making process. My concern on behalf of my constituents is that they do not feel engaged with; they do not feel that they have a voice in this process and they do not feel that they are getting information at all. I appreciate that it is not the Minister’s job to provide that information, but can he be extremely clear about the level of engagement that is required?
- Hansard source
Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project
What sort of people work at the National Wealth Fund and make these decisions? Who is evaluating this?
