Jon Trickett

Party affiliation

Parliament's party history for this member: Labour (1 Feb 1996 – present).

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 81

1. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Jon Trickett

   Rugby League Clubs

   I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for rugby league clubs. It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I am sure that you will be very firm with us, but very fair as well. It is also a special privilege to see the Minister in her place. I know that Barnsley, which she is very proud to represent, has a strong rugby league tradition. I will start by explaining why this issue is so important and why it is such a great privilege to speak on this sport. As we know, there are two codes in rugby: rugby union, which is very familiar and offers great sporting spectacle, and rugby league, which also offers great moments of sporting prowess. I vividly remember attending probably the most iconic rugby league final ever in 1968 with my dad and granddad at Wembley. It felt like the whole of the north of England came down to invade London—quite rightly, bringing our civilisation to the south. It was one of those great days when the rain never stopped—it had not stopped for several days. The pitch was a mud bath, literally covered in mud and water. It was very exciting, and in the last two minutes it was 11-10 to Leeds. In those days, I was supporting Leeds, as somebody who was born there, against Wakefield, where I have proudly been an MP for 30 years. In the last minute, a penalty was given to Wakefield, right under the post. We would have expected it to be converted by the great rugby league player, Don Fox—who came from a great rugby league family and was born in my constituency—but the weather was atrocious. Everybody turned their back, because they could not bear to watch—Wakefield supporters hoping to hear the victory and Leeds supporters fearing what might happen. It was an amazing moment, and I will never forget it: he missed the penalty. That is not to show any disrespect to the Fox family, who were brilliant, but it meant that Leeds were victors. It is something that is fondly remembered. I am sure that I am the only Member of Parliament who was there at that great sporting event. Rugby league offers great spectacle, but it has been treated in a way that has not been fully appropriate, and I fear for the future unless we can correct things.

   Hansard source
2. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Jon Trickett

   Rugby League Clubs

   My hon. Friend is right that rugby league is a sport that grew up in working-class communities and especially in mining communities, so it is surprising that it has not taken root in his constituency. However, when we consider the discrimination that rugby league has suffered from over the years, it is maybe not so surprising. One of the things I will argue is that we need to do more to develop the sport across the whole country, especially in communities such as his. My hon. Friend is right, too, that whenever a player was injured in Featherstone in my patch, they would go to the pit head and shout down, “Send us up another forward,” or whatever it was, and one would emerge quickly, get changed and get on to the pitch. It was very much part of the mining tradition.

   Hansard source
3. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Jon Trickett

   Rugby League Clubs

   The hon. Member makes an important point, and I agree. To develop a bit about rugby league, in the areas I am most familiar with, rugby league—and sport in general—can be the most important agency for social cohesion. Sport can provide something that brings everybody together, whatever their different points of view or life experiences. In my constituency, Featherstone Rovers have played for decades, and there is a massive amount of pride in the fact that we have that team. I will come to the difficulties they are facing, and I hope we can find a way forward. Let me remind the House that the BBC used to cover rugby league more or less weekly on “Grandstand”. Most people in this room are probably not old enough to remember the famous commentator, Eddie Waring, but I do well. So familiar was rugby league in those times, because of the BBC coverage, that many of Eddie Waring’s favourite expressions were well known across the whole country. Mike Yarwood, who was a great mimic at that time, used to talk with Eddie’s accent—which I cannot do. He used to talk about “up and under”, which was one of the ways a ball could be kicked. More importantly, when somebody was sent off, his favourite expression was, “Well, he’s been sent for an early bath”—I very much hope that you will not send me for an early bath today, Ms Vaz. Rugby league ought to be a nationally recognised sport. I will come to the discrimination and the problems with television in a second, but let me remind the House that anyone who wants to watch rugby league on TV now has to go to two separate pay-per-view channels. It costs £61 a month, which is 5% of the total income of a person living on the minimum wage. People are being priced out of the spectacle, which is a great shame, because it is leading to the atrophy of the sport across the communities where it ought to be played. It is also stopping us from spreading rugby league further—I will come back to that in a second.<span id="161WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="161WH"></span> Rugby league was a product of the class system that operated in sport in those days. The so-called gentlemen, who did not need to be paid, would play rugby union. Those who were too poor could not afford to play rugby union, so rugby league was set up, so that players could be paid. That was the start of rugby league as a code; but the truth is that the divisions that existed then continue today. I have identified one or two statistics that may surprise the House. If we look at the honours system, eight rugby union players have received a knighthood; there have only been two from rugby league, one of whom is the great Kevin Sinfield, who was knighted for his contributions to charity. That difference shows a level of discrimination. When we look at the national squads for rugby union, two thirds or more went to public school. I cannot find a single player for the national rugby league side who went to public school. It shows the class divisions, which surprisingly continue in sport after all these years. It is disappointing that fewer than 40 universities have a rugby league side, whereas every single university that I can find has a rugby union side. Again, that shows that something is not quite working between the two codes. When it came to covid, as we know, sports were remunerated, but here is an astonishing fact: rugby union received about £130 million, whereas rugby league got £10 million or £11 million—ten times more went into rugby union from covid. I do wonder—perhaps the House would agree—whether those in the civil service making these decisions are often people who went to universities and schools that had rugby union, but have little comprehension of the importance of rugby league in areas such as mine. I think that demonstrates clear discrimination, and I hope that the Labour Government are aware of that—if they were not, then they are now, because I have drawn it to the Minister’s attention. I want to move on to the situation facing Featherstone Rovers. Wakefield, which I now represent, has the honour of having three separate professional rugby league sides: Wakefield, Castleford and Featherstone. Unfortunately, due to bad management, Featherstone has gone into administration, and we have been struggling to find a way to bring the Rovers back to life. The team is the core of the people of Featherstone’s identity, as was mining—mining was stripped away many decades ago, but references to mining can still be seen everywhere in the township in Featherstone. The rugby league side, Featherstone Rovers, is a matter of great pride, and the fact that it went bankrupt and there is nobody playing on the pitch at the moment is heartbreaking for so many people I represent. Gradually, we have been putting together a plan to try to bring Featherstone Rovers back to life. That has been difficult, and I have spent many hours trying to achieve it, but thanks to the recent appointment of a new chief executive at the Rugby Football League, we are now making progress. The RFL has said that it is prepared to help to acquire the assets, bearing in mind that there is a stadium with buildings around it and several acres at the back of it. The administrator has been difficult, but he has come to the view in the end that, because it is a community asset, he is prepared to sell it for slightly less than he might have thought it was worth in a completely commercial sense. We think that it can be acquired for about £1 million. When Labour <span id="162WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="162WH"></span>was in charge of the council—it has changed hands recently—it put aside several million pounds for each of the three rugby league clubs. There is £700,000 still unallocated to Featherstone, and the council, under its new management, has now said that a substantial part of that, possibly half a million, will be made available to the rugby league for it to be able to acquire the assets. Here comes the interesting part, because in Featherstone, thanks again to the Labour Government, we have something called Pride in Place, and we have been allocated £20 million over the coming ten years. I am a member of the Pride in Place board, by virtue of being the local MP—I do not know if I need to declare an interest, but I do in any event. The board has said that it is prepared to make a substantial contribution to the acquisition of the stadium and the surrounding land. It has been difficult to put this together, but the board is unanimous, and, led by the by the chair Kay Binnersley, we are now in a position to say that, when the money arrives from the Government in the next financial year, it can then be made available to the RFL. I have met the new chief executive of the RFL, who is a dynamic and progressive individual, and we have agreed that we want to create a partnership between the Pride in Place board and the RFL to try to take this whole thing forward. That is desperately important, because without Featherstone Rovers playing, it has not been easy to create a fixture list, because there will be one less team than is required to set up the fixtures. There is an urgency to this. I have to say that it has been frustrating dealing with the RFL over the last year and a half on this matter, as it went from one temporary chief executive to another, but now it has a decision maker in place, and I am confident that he is determined to make this happen, and clearly he needs to do that for all the other teams in the rugby league.

   Hansard source
4. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Jon Trickett

   Rugby League Clubs

   Many years ago, as a builder and plumber, I did lots of work on Morley Labour rooms, which my hon. Friend is probably familiar with to this day—that is completely by the by. My hon. Friend is right that Pride in Place is there to give or reinforce pride in communities, now from the bottom up, with local people deciding what they need. Rugby league is part of that, but decisions needs to come from the community, not from above. In Featherstone and other areas, local councils need to be aware that their rules and codes do not apply to Pride in Place, although they currently manage the finances. The board itself has to decide the priorities. We have a vision for a town of sporting excellence, bringing together all existing services. That could mean education, for which there is much to do in Featherstone, or health services, as there are many people with long-term <span id="163WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="163WH"></span>illnesses and mental health problems. We have a vision for a town built around sporting provision, reaching out to the various cultural, health and educational needs of Featherstone people. They may have different views and experiences in life, but the one thing they have had is Featherstone Rovers, so it is important that the club is brought back together. Our vision is for a renewal of the town, building on its existing pride, so that it is a place where people are extremely proud to live. They will be able to join in social and cultural activities as well. That all requires Featherstone Rovers to be brought back. We understand that the RFL cannot own the assets for ever, because other clubs will begin to resent it. The other clubs need to understand that, without Featherstone Rovers playing, they will not have a functioning league. It is important that the RFL does the things that the chief executive has said he wants to do. The Labour administration at the council put in place a resilience fund. We have had different figures from the current leadership of the council, but I believe that there is still £700,000 in the kitty, with £500,000 going to the RFL. The other £200,000 will be needed for renovations to the stadium. I have now explained the background. It has been helpful for me to speak about rugby league in general, including the discrimination that it suffers and the situation in Featherstone. As I said, I am delighted to see the Minister in her place, and I will press her on three matters. Could the Department consider carefully the RFL’s bid for funding? We need to develop the sport and take it into new areas. Many people are hungry for that kind of sporting experience. Secondly, could she take a close interest in order to ensure that the partnership I have described between the PIP board and the RFL proceeds at speed? We have an empty stadium and people asking what has happened to their team. I have a final point. The problem for rugby league is that the feedstock has been cut off—that is, the ordinary kids who watch sport on TV and who live in poorer families. A lot of rugby league clubs are in deprived communities, such as Featherstone, where people are not able to pay for pay-per-view TV, so they do not see their heroes and they do not see the sport, its code or how it is played. That leaves us with a problem. The Department has the power to list sporting events. It is disappointing and tragic that the rugby league world cup, which is happening right now, is not on terrestrial television. Of course, the BBC says that it has a deal to broadcast the event on the radio, but listening to it on the radio is not the same as watching our heroes on the pitch, as I did at 17, when I watched the match that I referred to earlier. Will the Minister consider carefully whether we can list some of those matches so that communities everywhere can see the great sport that is rugby league? I look forward to hearing what I hope will be a positive response.

   Hansard source
5. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Jon Trickett

   Rugby League Clubs

   The Minister is right to raise gender. It is fair to say that in the dim and distant past, rugby league was kind of a male sport, but now there are women’s teams all over the country, including in universities. We are very proud that Featherstone Rovers has one of the most successful women’s rugby league teams in the country. I thank her for giving me the opportunity to celebrate their success.

   Hansard source
6. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·Jon Trickett

   Civil Service Pensions

   The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) says that people should be held accountable for their actions, but let us remember that the Conservatives allocated this contract to Capita, knowing that it was a recidivist, continually breaking contracts that had been outsourced. It is totally unacceptable that a woman living in Upton in my constituency who gave 40 years of her life to public service has been left with no response from Capita for over 300 days since we contacted them. Since then, she was diagnosed with cancer. We can imagine the problems that people affected by this issue face in any event; pile on the problems that she has with illness, and we can imagine the personal anguish. Has the Minister been able to establish whether Capita is in breach of contract? Finally, let me say this: bring it back in house.

   Hansard source
7. 10 Sep 2026·Parliament·Jon Trickett

   Social Housing Bill [Lords]

   I was disappointed by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who sounded complacent when he talked about the aspiration to buy a house. Of course, there is that aspiration, but does he not understand the aspiration of people on the waiting list? Millions of people, including 170,000 children in temporary accommodation, aspire just to have a key for a council house. Has he ever seen the gleam in a family’s eyes when they get that key and manage to get a secure home, knowing it is there for the future? It is not good enough to simply say that the aspiration to buy a house is more important than the aspiration to have a home, and one that is warm and secure. Also, there was no sense of contrition that the right to buy legislation resulted in 2 million council houses being sold, whereas only 250,000 new houses were built in that period. Of those 2 million that were sold, 800,000 now belong to private landlords. That is quite shocking because the rents that private landlords charge are a multiple of what a council or social landlord would charge. In my constituency, 6,000 homes have gone to private landlords. The council received about £140 million in capital receipts for those 6,000 houses. They are now worth £1.1 billion. This has been a racket; it has been like the gold rush in the Klondike, a race for money. In the meantime, rent levels in the remaining social housing are only 61% of the rents charged by the private landlords. It is totally anomalous that for two or three houses on the same street in the same estate a higher rent will be charged by a private landlord than that for the people next door who are still renting from a social landlord. The Government need to move fast. We cannot allow so many children and families to be left in that perilous situation—55,000 individuals are struggling in the district of Wakefield. Let me make one final point. The Treasury’s dead hand of economic orthodoxy prioritises house building by housing associations over house building by councils, which is a mistake. The Bill does not address that, but I wonder whether the Minister could respond on that in some way. A council can borrow money to build an asset worth more than what it has borrowed and receive an income from it through rent, yet that counts towards the national debt; for a housing association, it is different. I think those rules explains councils’ retreat from committing to build more housing rather than social landlords.

   Hansard source
8. 3 Sep 2026·Parliament·Jon Trickett

   Business of the House

   I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place once again. Comments by a recently elected Reform councillor in my area have caused great offence, as he attacked, in quite a horrible way, women who have abortions. It not acceptable that people should use their platforms in that way. Of course, there are different points of view about abortion, but may I encourage the Leader of the House to reaffirm the consensus in our country that it is perfectly legal, reasonable and responsible for women to pursue that course of action? Does he think there may be an opportunity in the future where we could continue to reaffirm the views of all of us? Finally, will he say that it is not appropriate for people to use an elected position to make others feel deeply uncomfortable about personal choices—often painful ones—that they have made?

   Hansard source
9. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Jon Trickett

   Environmental Protection

   I welcome the robustness and energy that the Minister has brought to her task—it is very welcome. Inevitably, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Chester South <span id="102" class="column-number" data-column-number="102"></span>and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), wants to revert to some kind of light-touch approach, but we need to make sure the communities we represent are adequately protected—if necessary, by criminal action, as the Minister envisages. Let me briefly describe the small, peaceful village of South Elmsall in my constituency. Like many other communities in Britain, it consists of law-abiding, hard-working, fair-minded people who play by the rules and expect to be able to live a satisfactory life. Many of them have saved hard to take out a mortgage and buy a house or to rent one. Close by, however, there is what is called the ash pit. Many, many years ago, permission was given under licence to do some recycling there, in order to eventually turn it back into arable land. When the people who live there bought their houses or moved in, they had a more than reasonable expectation that that work would be finished within a 10-year period. It has now been 17 years and the work still has not been satisfactorily resolved, which is a great misfortune. I will come to the Environment Agency in a minute, but let me quickly describe what has been happening at the so-called ash pit. Various authorities, including the appeal inspector for the Planning Inspectorate, the EA and the council, have all indicated that what has happened on that site is completely unacceptable. Noxious materials have been placed there. It was intended that 50,000 tonnes would be stored at the facility; that is quite a lot, but almost 250,000 tonnes have been discovered on the site, and much of it consists of material that is not inert, but noxious. That is a problem. Not only that, because of the scale of what has been dumped there, whenever it rains, dangerous and polluted water runs into watercourses and local streams such as Frickley beck. Dust and waste is everywhere, and it escapes from the site whenever there is even a small breeze. Turning briefly to putrefaction—which I am sure we do not want to think about—the level of putrefaction on that site is quite extraordinary. It creates what I will call an odour. In Yorkshire, we would probably call it a horrible stink. It can spread over large distances, and several hundred houses can be affected by that horrible smell. I was a witness to it the other day. When it rains, it is awful; when the wind blows, it is terrible; and when it is hot and the wind is blowing, it is really, really horrible. The other day, I spoke to a gentleman who is a long-term resident of South Elmsall. His birthday was coming up—it is a number with a zero at the end of it, so it is an important one—and he wanted to bring 30-odd members of his family to sit in the garden in the projected heatwave, but in the end they could not do it. The effect of what had been left on the site was so horrible that he could not enjoy his birthday. Lots of people tell me that they cannot have their windows open in summer, and they cannot have their doors open to let a bit of fresh air in because of the problems that site is creating—a site that is five times larger than intended and has run for seven years beyond the original licence. I have spent a long time dealing with this issue, because the people of South Elmsall are decent, and I am sure we would all do the same for any community that came to us. Large numbers of people have been involved, and we quickly latched on to the Environment Agency. The officers who work for the EA are genuine, <span id="103" class="column-number" data-column-number="103"></span>hard-working, knowledgeable people who understand the impact of a site such as this. They told me that it is probably the worst site in the north of England—other sites are competing for that award, but let us put that to one side for a minute. However, it became clear fairly quickly that the Environment Agency was understaffed and under-resourced and lacked the powers it needed to begin the process of enforcement. That left me worried, because people pay their tax—their council tax and so on—yet we were unable to get action. Eventually, we persuaded the Environment Agency’s enforcement people to begin to take action. The site was then refused permission to continue, but the operator simply abandoned it, or appears to have abandoned it, so no work has been done there for some time. The area is putrid; it is grossly unfair that people who live decent lives should be left in a situation like this. At first, the Conservative Government envisaged light-touch regulation. It seemed to me—this has now been confirmed by the Minister, and I welcome her comments—that light-touch regulation simply does not allow the EA to take the necessary enforcement action when activities such as those I have described take place. Obviously, this case is not the only one in the country, but it is worth raising to justify what is being done. I notice that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said that the powers that currently exist are reactive rather than preventive. When you are reacting, it is too late—you need to be there at the beginning to prevent things like this from taking place. I am quite sure that a much more proactive operation by the EA will be welcomed across the country. The shadow Minister has said, “Well, we’ve got to be a bit careful. We don’t want to over-regulate these things.” The idea that these activities should be dealt with using a light touch will raise a bitter laugh in the communities I represent, and in communities all across the country who are suffering from the same kinds of problems. We want action. Obviously, we do not want inappropriate action, but action must be taken. That is why I welcome the decision to proceed with this SI. I have two final questions. First, when a licence has been granted to an operator under the new procedure, if things begin to go wrong, does the Minister envisage that the EA will be able to remove that licence if a satisfactory resolution is not reached? It is quite clear that being preventive will not always work—some problems will emerge. Secondly, last Monday, we were having a planning appeal on this site, and the planning inspector went way beyond his brief and said to me—I am a Member of the governing party, but he thought I was the Government—“Will you ask the Government what they are going to do about those operators who deliberately take millions of pounds of profit from a site, then abandon it at the last minute and declare themselves in liquidation?” What happens then is that either we get the putrefaction I have described, or the taxpayer has to pick up the bill. That is happening all over the country. Possibly the planning inspector abused his position—I felt slightly intimidated—but I said there was a debate today and that I would put that question to the Minister. In a situation where a cowboy operator has taken millions of pounds in profit, left the place in a state and then gone <span id="104" class="column-number" data-column-number="104"></span>into liquidation—or even gone to live abroad, as has been reported to me—what does she envisage will happen to avoid the taxpayer having to pick up the bill? These are serious matters. I will finish with this: those who I have described will welcome today’s debate and today’s action, but what they want to see next is action across the country. In my patch, we want to see some progress so that this site is no longer a horrible mess.

   Hansard source
10. 2 Jul 2026·Parliament·Jon Trickett

    Business of the House

    I have not yet had the opportunity to mention the knighting of Kevin Sinfield—a great human being, a brilliant sports player and, I suppose above all, a humanitarian. One of his distinguishing characteristics is his modesty, but modesty cannot be attributed to the new boss at Royal Mail, who is driving that company into the ground, in spite of the efforts of the posties. He has paid himself a £7 million salary in a single year. Can we have a debate about corporate failure and executive reimbursement? That would allow us to express our frustration about what is happening in the country.

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: Normanton and Hemsworth

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site